miles davis’ “so what” as modal jazz case study jason roger titus

Miles Davis’ “So What” as Modal Jazz Case Study

By

Jason Roger Titus

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the

Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Supervised by Professor Matthew Brown

Theory Department Eastman School of Music

University of Rochester Rochester, New York

2010

ii

This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my Mother,

Carol Elaine Wharton Titus.

April 5, 1942-March 27, 2006

iii

Curriculum Vitae

Jason R. Titus was born in Rochester, New York on December 24, 1968. He

attended the Eastman School of Music at the University of Rochester from 1987 to 1991,

and graduated with a Bachelor of Music degree in Music Theory. He then attended

Indiana University of Pennsylvania from 1991-1993 where he received a Pennsylvania

Teacher’s Certification in Music. He attended Louisiana State University from 1994 to

1997, earning a Master of Music in Music Theory. He returned to the Eastman School of

Music in the Fall of 1998 and began working toward the Ph.D. in Music Theory. He has

taught in the University of Rochester College Music Department since 2002, where he

currently holds the position of Lecturer.

iv

Acknowledgements Many people assisted me with this project and it would be impossible to thank

them all by name. My primary advisor, Matthew Brown, went above and beyond the call

of duty in helping me complete this dissertation. I also am grateful to the other members

of my committee: John Covach and Dariusz Terefenko. Prof. Robert Wason was

instrumental in helping me develop this topic; his knowledge of jazz repertoire and

history were invaluable. Bill Dobbins also offered many crucial insights into modal jazz

and Kind of Blue in his 2004 seminar at Eastman. In preparing my ensemble

transcription of “So What,” I frequently consulted his unpublished transcriptions of the

solos as a point of reference. Additionally, Jim Farrington of the Sibley Music Library

provided important guidance regarding the preparation of this document, and Christopher

Winders rendered a number of its musical examples.

I thank my family: James and Gail Titus, Jodi and Gustav Lee, my Grandmother

Arlene Titus, and my Cousins Megan, Kristen and Jamie. Many thanks to dear old

friends: Dave “Chief” Rubin, Don Traut, Sara Nicholson, Josh Slifkin, Laena Ilk, Traciy

Fogarty, Mike Titlebaum, Matt Korb, Steve Ochs (1969-1992) and Jennifer Gliere. I

must include a heartfelt “shout out” to the Pittsburgh “Muppets”—Liz, Megan, Abby,

Lou, Ben, Robin, Kaitlin, Michele, Lexi, Vicky, John, Regina, Sean and Annie—thanks

for all the laughs and camaraderie these last five years. I also owe a debt of gratitude to

Cynthia Carbine, Kathleen D. Schneider, Nancy Murray, Brenda Frazier and the rest of

my Mother’s community of friends.

And finally, thank you to Amy Guptill, for everything.

v

Abstract This dissertation provides a detailed look at the composition “So What,” from the

1959 album by Miles Davis, Kind of Blue. This record is often cited as being an

exemplar of a type of music that emerged in the late 1950s and 1960s that came to be

known as “modal jazz.” “So What” is considered to be a locus classicus of this new jazz

style.

The dissertation is divided into two parts. Part 1 develops an analytical

methodology that attempts to explain the stylistic boundaries of modal jazz. Chapter 1

describes some of the unique musical elements that are characteristic of the modal jazz

style. Chapter 2 discusses tonal processes in earlier jazz styles and considers how recent

scholarship in this area can be applied to the study of modal jazz. Chapter 3 is a critique

of the “chord-scale” theory that has often been invoked in descriptions of modal jazz. It

explains crucial features of George Russell’s Lydian Chromatic Concept and shows how

they form the basis for a theory of style in jazz.

Part 2 uses the analytical methodology developed in Part 1 in a detailed analysis

of “So What.” Chapter 4 shows how coordination and stratification are used as

improvisational strategies by Davis, John Coltrane, Cannonball Adderley, Bill Evans, and

Paul Chambers. This chapter also examines various types of interaction that take place

in the performance of “So What.” Many of these occur in a direct way, as players

respond to one another in real time. However, close analysis reveals long-range musical

connections that also inform the improvisations of the musicians in Davis’ group.

vi

Table of Contents Dedication ii

Curriculum Vitae iii

Acknowledgements iv

Abstract v

Table of Contents vi

List of Figures vii

List of Examples xiii

List of Tables xix

Copyright Permission xx

Introduction 1

I. Theoretical Background

1. Tonal Processes in Modal Jazz 25

2. Tonal Processes in Tonal Jazz 58

3 Chord-Scale Theory 94

II. Analytical Application

4. Analysis of “So What” 119

Bibliography 218

Discography 227

vii

List of Figures

Chapter 1 Figure 1.1A “Tonal Phrase” 29 Figure 1.1B “Modal Phrase” 29 Figure 1.2 Comparison of “Plagal” Gestures in “So What” and “Moanin’” 33 Figure 1.3 Use of the Double-Neighbor Figure in Improvised Solos on “So What” 34 Figure 1.4 Underlying Harmonic Progression Implied by the Bass Melody in “So What” 35 Figure 1.5 Long-Range Chromaticized “So What” Gesture as Part of “So What’’’s Formal Design 37 Figure 1.6 Simultaneous “Plagal” and “Authentic” Cadences in mm.3-4 of Davis’ Solo 42 Figure 1.7 Martin’s Structural Level Analysis of Rhythm Changes 44 Figure 1.8 Structural Analysis of “Rhythm-A-Ning” 46

Chapter 2 Figure 2.1 Guide Tones in a ii-V-I Progression in C major 60 Figure 2.2 Guide Tones in the Last Phrase of Erroll Garner’s “Misty” (1954) 61 Figure 2.3 Martin’s Analysis of an Excerpt of Parker’s Solo on “Shaw ‘Nuff” 65 Figure 2.4 Martin’s Separation of Parker’s Solo Into Four “Parts” 66 Figure 2.5 Guide Tone Resolution in the Excerpt from Parker’s Solo on “Shaw ‘Nuff” 67 Figure 2.6 Resolution of Guide Tones in m. 2 of Excerpt from Parker’s Solo on “Shaw ‘Nuff” 69

viii

Figure 2.7 Parker’s “Shaw ‘Nuff” Line Superimposed Over a Hypothetical I-IV-V7-I Progression 70 Figure 2.8 Voice-Leading in Figure 2.7 71 Figure 2.9 Enharmonic Respelling of C# as Db in m. 3 of Parker “Shaw ‘Nuff” Excerpt 72 Figure 2.10 Voice-Leading Realization of mm. 2-4 in “Shaw ‘Nuff” Excerpt 73 Figure 2.11 Implied Resolution of E07 Chord in mm. 3-4 of “Shaw ‘Nuff” Excerpt 75 Figure 2.12 Guide Tone Lines in Parker “Shaw ‘Nuff” Excerpt 76 Figure 2.13 Registrally Normalized Guide Tone Lines in Parker “Shaw ‘Nuff” Excerpt 76 Figure 2.14 Alternate Graph of Parker’s “Shaw ‘Nuff” Excerpt 77 Figure 2.15 “Normalized” Voice-Leading Graph of Parker’s “Shaw ‘Nuff” Excerpt 78 Figure 2.16 Tritone Substitution in a ii-V-I Cadence in C Major 79 Figure 2.17 Descending Fifth Sequence of Diatonic Seventh Chords 84 Figure 2.18 Upper Two Voices of Descending-Fifth Sequence 84 Figure 2.19 Lower Two Voices of Descending-Fifth Sequence 84 Figure 2.20 Arpeggiation in Descending-Fifth Sequence 86 Figure 2.21 Combined Linear Progressions in Descending-Fifth Sequence 86 Figure 2.22 Combined Linear Progressions in Descending-Fifth Sequence 87

Chapter 3 Figure 3.1 Chord-Scale Mapping for ii7-V7-Imaj7 in C major 95 Figure 3.2 Four-Voice Chorale-Style Phrase in C major 97

ix

Figure 3.3 Four-Voice Chorale-Style Phrase from Fig. 3.2, With F# in Bass 97 Figure 3.4 Avoid Notes for D Dorian, G Mixolydian, and C Ionian Scales 99 Figure 3.5 Voice-Leading in a ii7-V7-Imaj7 Progression in C Major 100 Figure 3.6 Chord-Scales for Dmi7-G7-Cmaj7 with Avoid Notes Omitted 100 Figure 3.7 Russell’s Lydian Chromatic Scales for a Db Major Chord 102 Figure 3.8 Russell’s Schematic of Tonal Relationships 102 Figure 3.9 Russell’s Demonstration of “Lydian Tonic” 103 Figure 3.10 Hindemith’s Series 1 104 Figure 3.11 Hindemith’s Theory of Chord Roots Based on Fifths and Fourths 104 Figure 3.12 Russell’s C Major Harmonic Genre 105 Figure 3.13 Russell’s “River Trip” Description of Structural Levels 107 Figure 3.14 Russell’s Analysis of mm. 1-16 of Coltrane’s “Giant Steps” Solo 108 Figure 3.15 Martin’s Structural Level Analysis of “Giant Steps” 109 Figure 3.16 Lydian Chromatic Scales For Use Over D minor and Eb minor Chords 112 Figure 3.17 The “So What” Gesture in mm. 18-19, 19-20, and 24 of Coltrane’s Solo 114 Figure 3.18 The “So What” Gesture in mm. 43-44 and 38 of Coltrane’s solo 115 Figure 3.19 Melodic Gestures From mm. 19-20 of Coltrane’s Solo on “So What,” Classified in Terms of Russell’s Lydian Chromatic Scales 115 Figure 3.20 Lydian Chromatic Scale Segments That Correspond to the Gestures in mm. 19-20 of Coltrane’s Solo on “So What” 116

x

Figure 3.21 Embellishment of the Tonic Triad in mm. 19-20 of Coltrane’s Solo on “So What” 116

Chapter 4

Figure 4.1 Regular Phrase Groupings Implied by the Head of “So What” 120 Figure 4.2 Chambers’ Phrases in the First Chorus of Davis’ Solo (mm.1-32), Compared With Underlying Two-Bar Hypermetric Pattern 130 Figure 4.3 Chambers’ Phrases in the Second Chorus of Davis’ Solo (mm. 33-64), Compared With Underlying Two-Bar Hypermetric Pattern 131 Figure 4.4 Chambers’ Phrases in the First Chorus of Coltrane’s Solo (mm. 1-32), Compared With Underlying Two-Bar Hypermetric Pattern 132 Figure 4.5 Chambers’ Phrases in the Second Chorus of Coltrane’s Solo (mm.33-64), Compared With Underlying Two-Bar Hypermetric Pattern 133 Figure 4.6 Chambers’ Phrases in the First Chorus of Adderley’s Solo (mm. 1-32), Compared With Underlying Two-Bar Hypermetric Pattern 134 Figure 4.7 Chambers’ Phrases in the Second Chorus of Adderley’s Solo (mm. 33-64), Compared With Underlying Two-Bar Hypermetric Pattern 135 Figure 4.8 Chambers’ Phrases in Evans’ Solo Chorus (mm. 1-32), Compared With Underlying Two-Bar Hypermetric Pattern 136 Figure 4.9 Coordination in mm. 17-20 of Davis’ Solo 137 Figure 4.10 Coordination in mm. 21-24 of Davis’ Solo 138 Figure 4.11 Coordination in mm. 13-15 of Davis’ Solo 140 Figure 4.12 Coordination in mm. 48-51 of Davis’ Solo 141 Figure 4.13 Coordination in mm. 53-55 of Davis’ Solo 142 Figure 4.14 Reduction of mm. 33-36 of Coltrane’s Solo 143

xi

Figure 4.15 Coordination in mm. 51-52 of Coltrane’s Solo 144 Figure 4.16 Reduction of mm. 6-8 of Adderley’s Solo 146 Figure 4.17 Coordination in mm. 34-36 of Adderley’s Solo 147 Figure 4.18 Coordination in mm. 41-44 of Adderley’s Solo 149 Figure 4.19 Coordination in mm. 59-60 of Adderley’s Solo 150 Figure 4.20 Prominent Fourth/Fifth (05) Sets in mm. 9-12 of Evans’ Solo 151 Figure 4.21 The “So What” Gesture and its Implied Underlying Harmonic Progression 152 Figure 4.22 Evans’ Parody Voicing of the “So What” Gesture in mm. 33-36 of Davis’ Solo 159 Figure 4.23 Evans’ Parody Voicing of the “So What” Gesture in mm. 37-39 of Davis’ Solo 159 Figure 4.24 Altered Tonic Sonority in m. 41 of Davis’ Solo 161 Figure 4.25 Altered Tonic Sonority in mm. 42-44 of Davis’ Solo 161 Figure 4.26 Altered Tonic Sonority in mm. 42-44 in Parody of “So What” Gesture 161 Figure 4.27 Altered Tonic Sonority in mm. 42-44 as Concatenation of “So What” Plagal Gesture 162 Figure 4.28 Revoicing of Tonic Sonority via Voice-Exchange in mm. 45-46 of Davis’ Solo 164 Figure 4.29 Ambiguity in Evans’ Voicing in m. 49 166 Figure 4.30 New Tonic Voicings in mm. 1-2 of Coltrane’s Solo 169 Figure 4.31 Evans’ Voice-Leading in mm. 9-16 of Coltrane’s Solo (Departure From Prevalent Planing Technique) 174 Figure 4.32 Tonic Sonorities that Coordinate with Phrase Beginnings in mm. 9-16 of Coltrane’s Solo 175

xii

Figure 4.33 “So What” Gesture in Piano and Saxophone in mm. 17-20 of Coltrane’s Solo 176 Figure 4.34 Unfolding of Saxophone “So What” Gesture in mm. 17-20 of Coltrane’s Solo 176 Figure 4.35 New Tonic Voicing in m. 25 of Coltrane’s Solo 178 Figure 4.36 Revoicing of “So What” Gesture in mm. 25-29 of Coltrane’s Solo 179 Figure 4.37 Voice-Leading in Evans’ Comping in mm. 25-32 of Coltrane’s Solo 180 Figure 4.38 Voice-Leading in Evans’ Comping in mm. 33-40 of Coltrane’s Solo 182 Figure 4.39 Voice-Leading in Evans’ Comping in mm. 41-48 of Coltrane’s Solo 184 Figure 4.40 Voice-Leading in Evans’ Comping in mm. 49-56 of Coltrane’s Solo 186 Figure 4.41 Voice-Leading in Evans’ Comping in mm. 1-8 of Adderley’s Solo 190 Figure 4.42 Voice-Leading in Evans’ Comping in mm. 9-16 of Adderley’s Solo 194 Figure 4.43 Voice-Leading in Evans’ Comping in mm. 41-48 of Adderley’s Solo 203 Figure 4.44 Voice-Leading in Evans’ Comping in mm. 57-64 of Adderley’s Solo 207

xiii

List of Examples

Introduction

Example I.1 “Real Book” 5th ed. Lead Sheet of “So What” 11 Example I.2 mm. 9-15 of Davis’ Solo on “So What” from Kind of Blue 16

Chapter 1 Example 1.1 Fux, The Study of Counterpoint Fig. 55 30 Example 1.2A Fux, The Study of Fugue Ex. 103 31 Example 1.2B Fux, The Study of Fugue Ex. 103 31 Example 1.3 Call and Response Figure in A Section of “Moanin’” 33 Example 1.4 Davis’ Superimposition of an A minor 7 Chord over a D minor Triadic Ostinato, mm. 32-29 of His Solo on “So What” 35 Example 1.5 Adderley’s Superimposition of an Ami Triad, mm. 40-44 of His Solo on “So What” 36 Example 1.6 mm. 38-39 of Miles Davis’ Solo on “So What” 39 Example 1.7 Double Neighbor in the Bass Melody from Head of “So What” 40 Example 1.8 Coordinated Arrival on Tonic, mm. 3-4 of Miles Davis’ Solo on “So What” 41 Example 1.9 Realigned Arrival on D minor Tonic Harmony in m. 4 of Davis’ Solo 42 Example 1.10 Thelonious Monk’s “Rhythm A Ning” 45 Example 1.11 Monk, “Rhythm A Ning” Comping mm. 1-16; Oct. 31, 1964 47

xiv

Chapter 2

Example 2.1 J.S. Bach, The Well-Tempered Clavier, Book 1, Fugue 2, mm. 29-31 88 Example 2.2 Davis’ Solo on “So What,” mm. 33-36 89

Chapter 4 Example 4.1 Chambers’ Phrasing in Davis’ Solo, mm. 1-5 121 Example 4.2 Chambers’ Phrasing in Davis’ Solo, mm. 6-8 121 Example 4.3 Chambers’ Phrasing in Davis’ Solo, mm. 17-20 122 Example 4.4 Chambers’ Phrasing in Davis’ Solo, mm. 21-24 123 Example 4.5 Chambers’ Ostinato in mm. 33-40 of Davis’ Solo 124 Example 4.6 Chambers’ Phrasing in Davis’ Solo, mm. 41-48 125 Example 4.7 Chambers’ Phrasing in Davis’ Solo, mm. 48-52 126 Example 4.8 Chambers’ Phrasing in Davis’ Solo, mm. 53-56 127 Example 4.9 Chambers’ Phrasing in Davis’ Solo, mm. 57-60 127 Example 4.10 Chambers’ Phrasing in Davis’ Solo, mm. 61-64 128 Example 4.11 Chambers’ and Davis’ lines in mm. 17-20 of Davis’ Solo 137 Example 4.12 Chambers’ and Davis’ lines in mm. 21-24 of Davis’ Solo 138 Example 4.13 Chambers’ and Davis’ lines in mm. 13-15 of Davis’ Solo 140 Example 4.14 Chambers’ and Davis’ lines in mm. 48-51 of Davis’ Solo 141 Example 4.15 Chambers’ and Davis’ lines in mm. 53-55 of Davis’ Solo 142 Example 4.16 Coltrane’s Line, Tonally Coordinated with Chambers’ Ostinato in mm. 33-36 of Coltrane’s Solo 143 Example 4.17 Chambers’ and Coltrane’s Lines in mm. 51-52 of Coltrane’s Solo 144

xv

Example 4.18 Chambers’ and Adderley’s Lines in mm. 1-3 of Adderley’s Solo 145 Example 4.19 Chambers’ and Adderley’s Lines in mm. 6-8 of Adderley’s Solo 146 Example 4.20 Chambers’ and Adderley’s Lines in mm. 34-36 of Adderley’s Solo 147 Example 4.21 Chambers’ and Adderley’s Lines in mm. 41-44 of Adderley’s Solo 148 Example 4.22 Chambers’ and Adderley’s Lines in mm. 59-60 of Adderley’s Solo 150 Example 4.23 Chambers’ and Adderley’s Lines in mm. 9-12 of Evans’ Solo 151 Example 4.24 mm. 1-4 of Davis’ Solo 153 Example 4.25 “Withheld” and “Explicit” Chords in mm. 1-4 of Davis’ Solo 154 Example 4.26 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 7-9 of Davis’ Solo 154 Example 4.27 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 13-15 of Davis’ Solo 155 Example 4.28 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 24-25 of Davis’ Solo 156 Example 4.29 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 25-28 of Davis’ Solo 157 Example 4.30 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 28-31 of Davis’ Solo 158 Example 4.31 Ensemble Coordination and Stratification in mm. 33-36 of Davis’ Solo 160 Example 4.32 Ensemble Coordination and Stratification in mm. 37-40 of Davis’ Solo 160 Example 4.33 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 41-44 of Davis’ Solo 163 Example 4.34 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 45-47 of Davis’ Solo 164 Example 4.35 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 49-52 of Davis’ Solo 165 Example 4.36 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 53-56 of Davis’ Solo 167

xvi

Example 4.37 Stratification in mm. 57-60 of Davis’ Solo 168 Example 4.38 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 61-64 of Davis’ Solo 168 Example 4.39 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 1-4 of Coltrane’s Solo 170 Example 4.40 Imitation Between Coltrane and Evans in mm. 1-4 of Coltrane’s Solo 171 Example 4.41 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 5-8 of Coltrane’s Solo 172 Example 4.42 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 9-12 of Coltrane’s Solo 173 Example 4.43 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 13-16 of Coltrane’s Solo 174 Example 4.44 Ensemble Stratification/Coordination in mm. 17-20 of Coltrane’s Solo 175 Example 4.45 Imitation Between Piano and Saxophone in mm. 23-24 of Coltrane’s Solo 177 Example 4.46 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 25-28 of Coltrane’s Solo 178 Example 4.47 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 29-32 of Coltrane’s Solo 179 Example 4.48 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 33-36 of Coltrane’s Solo 181 Example 4.49 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 37-40 of Coltrane’s Solo 182 Example 4.50 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 41-44 of Coltrane’s Solo 183 Example 4.51 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 45-48 of Coltrane’s Solo 184 Example 4.52 Ensemble Stratification/Coordination in mm. 49-52 of Coltrane’s Solo 185 Example 4.53 Ensemble Stratification/Coordination in mm. 53-56 of Coltrane’s Solo 186 Example 4.54 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 57-60 of Coltrane’s Solo 187 Example 4.55 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 61-64 of Coltrane’s Solo 188 Example 4.56 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 1-4 of Adderley’s Solo 189

xvii

Example 4.57 Ensemble Coordination/Stratification in mm. 5-8 of Adderley’s Solo 190 Example 4.58 Ensemble Coordination/Stratification in mm. 9-12 of Adderley’s Solo 192 Example 4.59 Ensemble Coordination/Stratification in mm. 13-16 of Adderley’s Solo 193 Example 4.60 Triple Stratification in mm. 17-20 of Adderley’s Solo 195 Example 4.61 Triple Stratification and Sequence in mm. 21-24 of Adderley’s Solo 196 Example 4.62 Ensemble Stratification in mm. 25-28 of Adderley’s Solo 197 Example 4.63 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 29-32 of Adderley’s Solo 198 Example 4.64 Ensemble Coordination in mm. 33-36 of Adderley’s Solo 198 Example 4.65 Ensemble Stratification in mm. 37-40 of Adderley’s Solo 200 Example 4.66 Ensemble Stratification in mm. 41-44 of Adderley’s Solo 201 Example 4.67 Ensemble Stratification in mm. 45-48 of Adderley’s Solo 202 Example 4.68 Triple Stratification in mm. 49-52 of Adderley’s Solo 204 Example 4.69 Triple Stratification in mm. 53-56 of Adderley’s Solo 205 Example 4.70 Ensemble Stratification in mm. 57-60 of Adderley’s Solo 206 Example 4.71 Ensemble Stratification in mm. 61-64 of Adderley’s Solo 207 Example 4.72 Ensemble Coordination/Stratification in mm. 1-4 of Evans’ Solo 208 Example 4.73 Ensemble Coordination/Stratification in mm. 5-8 of Evans’ Solo 209 Example 4.74 Ensemble Coordination/Stratification in mm. 9-12 of Evans’ Solo 210 Example 4.75 Ensemble Coordination/Stratification in mm. 13-16 of Evans’ Solo 211

xviii

Example 4.76 Ensemble Coordination/Stratification in mm. 17-20 of Evans’ Solo 212 Example 4.77 Ensemble Coordination/Stratification in mm. 21-24 of Evans’ Solo 212 Example 4.78 Ensemble Coordination/Stratificaton in mm. 25-28 of Evans’ Solo 214 Example 4.79 Ensemble Coordination/Stratification in mm. 29-32 of Evans’ Solo 215

xix

List of Tables

Introduction

Table I.1 Form Chart and Tonal Centers for “So What” 12 Table I.2 Davis’ Recorded Performances of “So What” 14

Chapter 2 Table 2.1 Compositional Properties of Functional Tonal, Hybrid, and Pedal-Based Jazz Styles 92 Table 2.2 Performance Properties of Functional Tonal, Hybrid, and Pedal-Based Jazz Styles 93 Table 2.3 Aesthetic Priorities and Exemplars of Functional Tonal, Hybrid, and Pedal-Based Jazz Styles 93

Chapter 3 Table 3.1 Overview of Horizontal and Vertical Organization in Coltrane’s Solo on “So What” 117

Chapter 4 Table 4.1 Summary of Chambers’ Phrasing 129

xx

Copyright Permission

1

Introduction

Prologue

From its inception in the late 1950s, the jazz style known as “modal jazz” has

presented challenges to musicians and scholars alike. The term itself suggests a

music whose tonal organization is ostensibly characterized by the use of scalar

collections, or “modes.” This description, however, is insufficient. Recent scholars

have made attempts to define the modal jazz repertoire, but their accounts are

incomplete in some crucial ways. Furthermore, modal jazz is important not merely as

a stylistic sub-category within the broader jazz tradition; its appearance also marked

an apparent departure from common practice, one that not only influenced the

performance, composition, and teaching of contemporaneous music, but was applied

to previous and subsequent repertoires as well. Modal jazz’s influence in this regard

continues to the present day.

This dissertation pursues two main strands of inquiry. The first is to

circumscribe the modal jazz repertoire more precisely, providing an explanation of its

stylistic norms and boundaries as evidenced by Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Bill

Evans, and others. The second is to describe modal jazz as a concept and to explain

its role in a paradigm shift among jazz practitioners and pedagogues from a chord

progression-based understanding of jazz harmony to a scale-based one. By

examining the work of many of the style’s important musicians, especially the

2

seminal album Kind of Blue, this study hopes to establish a firmer aesthetic and

analytical foundation for the understanding and interpretation of modal jazz.

Kind of Blue and the Concept of Modal Jazz

Few albums have had greater or more immediate impact on the jazz

community than Miles Davis’ Kind of Blue. Popular when first issued in 1959; the

album continues to be one of the top-selling jazz recordings, and consistently appears

at or near the top of “best of” lists of jazz musicians and critics. In 2003 Rolling

Stone magazine listed Kind of Blue as the its twelfth-best album of all time, alongside

records by The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Elvis Presley, and The Rolling Stones. 1 Five

years later, in October 2008, the album was certified as “quadruple platinum,”

signifying sales exceeding four million units.2 Kind of Blue has also attracted the

attention of the scholarly community. In anticipation of its fiftieth anniversary,

important studies have emerged that shed new light on this music and the

circumstances surrounding its creation. Recent books on the making of this album

include: Ashley Kahn’s “Kind of Blue”: The Making of the Miles Davis Masterpiece

and Eric Nisenson’s, The Making of ”Kind of Blue”’: Miles Davis and his

Masterpiece. Recent articles by Samuel Barret (“Kind of Blue and the Economy of

Modal Jazz”) and Jeffrey Magee (“Kinds of Blue: Miles Davis, Afro-Modernism and

the Blues”) have examined this work in terms of both its stylistic features and cultural

1 http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5938174/the_rs_greatest_albums_of_all_time, accessed 8/9/07.

2 http://mixonline.com/news/headline/milesdavis_kindofblue_50thanniversary_1411, accessed 1/30/09.

3

context. And, in 2000, the Hal Leonard Corporation published partial transcriptions

of the performances on this album.3 It is not an overstatement therefore to claim that

for many fans of jazz, Kind of Blue is the definitive Miles Davis album, and perhaps

even the definitive jazz album.

One reason Kind of Blue continues to be so influential is that it occupies a

position at the nexus of a number of different issues. In addition to Davis on trumpet,

the band consisted of pianist Bill Evans, tenor saxophonist John Coltrane, alto

saxophonist Julian “Cannonball” Adderley, bassist Paul Chambers, and drummer

Jimmy Cobb. Additionally, pianist Wynton Kelly replaced Evans on the tune

“Freddie Freeloader.” Davis’ choice of personnel for the recording proved to be

pivotal for the careers of these young players, each of whom became an important

jazz musician in his own right. Two of them, Evans and Coltrane, eventually became

jazz icons, though both of these players’ careers were foreshortened by their early

deaths: Coltrane died in 1967 at the age of 40, and Evans died in 1980 at 51. Coltrane

recorded several of the most popular jazz albums of all time; such as Blue Train

(1958) and A Love Supreme (1965) both of which went “gold” in the 1970s.4 Evans’

recording career was equally distinguished: from 1963 to 1980 he was nominated for

3 Ashley Kahn, “Kind of Blue”: The Making of the Miles Davis Masterpiece (New York: Da

Capo Press, 2000); Eric Nisenson, The Making of ”Kind of Blue”’: Miles Davis and his Masterpiece (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000); Samuel Barret, “Kind of Blue and the Economy of Modal Jazz.” Popular Music 25/2 (2006): 185-200; Jeffrey Magee, “Kinds of Blue: Miles Davis, Aftro-Modernism and the Blues.” Jazz Perspectives 1/1 (2007): 5-27; Miles Davis, Miles Davis-Kind of Blue, ed. Rob DuBoff, et.al. (Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard Corp., 2000).

4 Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). http://www.riaa.org/goldandplatinumdata.php, accessed 5/9/10.

4

thirty-one Grammy awards, winning six times. In 1994 he was posthumously

awarded a seventh for “lifetime achievement.”5

Although we now view Davis’ group as one of the iconic Jazz ensembles, this

band’s line up was actually seen as controversial at the time. The inclusion of white

pianist Bill Evans in an otherwise African-American band met with some criticism

within the black community. Jeremy Yudkin points out that because of this, “(Evans)

was often subject to racist comments and taunts from other black musicians and black

audiences.”6 The eyebrows of jazz purists were also raised by the continued presence

of tenor saxophonist John Coltrane, who had replaced Sonny Rollins in Davis’ group.

As biographer Lewis Porter points out, Coltrane’s interpretations of jazz standards

were often a radical departure from the bop conventions established by Charlie Parker

and promulgated by Rollins.7 Such departures included Coltrane’s penchant for

highly chromatic substitute harmonies, third-related harmonic progressions, along

with the use of unusual scalar collections in his improvisations and compositions.

The participation of Evans and Coltrane in this group foreshadowed some of

the musical and cultural conflicts that were to come in the 1960s. Barry Kernfeld

describes the music of Kind of Blue as the “Twilight of Bebop.”8 His phrase aptly

convey’s the work’s role in documenting a transitional period in jazz history.

Certainly this album does not mark a compete break with the past. Many elements of

5 Bill Evans, Jazz Pianist: Awards. http://www.billevans.nl/Awards.htm, accessed 5/9/10 6 Jeremy Yudkin, Miles Davis, Miles Smiles, and the Invention of Post Bop (Bloomington:

Indiana University Press, 2008): 44. 7 Lewis Porter, John Coltrane: His Life and Music (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,

1998): 160-161. 8 Barry Kernfeld, “Adderley, Coltrane, and Davis at the Twilight of Bebop: The Search for

Melodic Coherence (1958-59)” (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 1982).

5

traditional jazz remain on Kind of Blue, even in compositions whose formal, melodic,

or harmonic structures are groundbreaking. For the most part, the performances’

rhythmic figures “swing” in the same way as those of earlier styles such as swing and

bebop. Two of the album’s compositions, “Freddy Freeloader” and “All Blues,” are

slightly modified forms of the blues, a staple of the jazz canon, though the latter is

transformed into a jazz waltz by the use of triple meter. Most tunes follow familiar

performance plans, such as the “head-solos-head” format, and most treat the

individual instruments in more or less conventional ways. The fact that the music on

Kind of Blue fuses many traditional elements of jazz with several important stylistic

innovations may account for both its extraordinary commercial success its lasting

appeal to scholars. The album’s evocative title even seems to underscore its fusion of

forward- and backward-looking elements. Two pieces, “Freddie Freeloader” and “All

Blues,” are variants or “kinds” of blues. Meanwhile, the other three numbers—“So

What,” “Flamenco Sketches,” and “Blue in Green” –are “kind of” blues; they contain

musical gestures that clearly allude to blues practice, even though they avoid the

traditional 12-bar form and its standard chord progression. Finally, there is a sense in

which all of the individual pieces’ compositional open-endedness is a blank canvas

that performers can embellish in a highly personal way, much in the same way that

jazz players approach standard forms like blues and “Rhythm Changes.” These tunes

represent a new “Kind of Blue(s).”

Kind of Blue self-consciously announced the arrival of a new approach to

pitch organization in jazz. This is immediately evident from Bill Evans’ liner notes.

6

Besides describing a Japanese Zen practice of improvisational painting, called

“suibokuga,” Evans provides very brief formal descriptions of each of the five tunes

on Kind of Blue.9 One way in which Evans alludes to the album’s novel pitch

structure is by invoking the notion of scales when describing the organization of “So

What” and “Flamenco Sketches.” For “All Blues” he alludes to “modal changes”

without any further explanation of what he means by this term. To quote him:

“So What” is a simple figure based on 16 measures of one scale, 8 of another and 8 more of the first, following a piano and bass introduction in free rhythmic style… “Flamenco Sketches” is a series of five scales, each to be played as long as the soloist wishes until he has completed the series.10

For “All Blues” he refers to “modal changes” without any further explanation of what

he means by this term:

“All Blues” is a 6/8 12-measure blues form that produces its mood through only a few modal changes, and Miles Davis’ free melodic conception.11

Given these descriptions, it seems that Evans may have inadvertently invented the

term “modal jazz” as a way of describing a music that was supposedly scale-based.

This, however, may be a misreading of his intended meaning. It is important to note

that Evans does not actually link the concepts of scale and mode in his comments. In

fact, he uses the two terms in a way that actually distinguishes one from the other.

The “mode” to which Evans refers in his discussion of “All Blues” is not a scale, but

9 Kahn (2000): 153. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid.

7

rather the switching of the quality of the G tonal center from major to minor in

measure four of the twelve-bar blues form. This is definitely not what subsequent

writers would portray as “modal jazz.”

Evans was describing a new type of improvised music whose sparser textures

and slower harmonic rhythm stood in contrast to the dense progressions of preceding

jazz styles. In so doing, he attempted to give a glimpse into how this music was put

together by its composers and performers, and it is true that the sketches for some of

the material on Kind of Blue were written out using scales as guides to navigating the

tunes. A poignant photo from the album’s recording session taken by studio engineer

Fred Plaut on April 22, 1959 shows Adderley’s music stand, complete with cigarettes,

a packet of reeds, a mouthpiece cover, headache medicine, and a scrap of staff paper

with “Flamenco Sketches’” five scales written out.12 But this does not necessarily

mean that for Evans the term “modal jazz” referred to music based on specific pitch

collections such as modes or scales. Rather, it refers to music that was melodically

driven and that eschewed the chordal conception of earlier jazz idioms such as bebop.

Many writers have credited Kind of Blue with spearheading the modal jazz style.

Although earlier Davis albums, such as Milestones, had featured individual modal

tunes, Ashley Kahn claims that Kind of Blue was the first album that consisted

entirely of such compositions.13

That being said, it has never been entirely clear what the term “modal” really

means to jazz performers, or even that its practitioners endorse a single meaning of

12 Ibid: 132. 13 Ibid: 76.

8

the term. In 1982, Kernfeld noted this difficulty in his seminal discussion of the

improvisational techniques of Miles Davis, John Coltrane, and Cannonball

Adderley.14 He insisted that the term “modal” was a misnomer and that the music

was more accurately described by the term “vamp style,” which referred to

accompanimental patterns and compositional features of tunes which had been

described as “modal.” More recently, Keith Waters elucidated some of the issues and

difficulties in describing this repertoire.15 In particular, he draws a very important

distinction between three types of musical activity as they relate to modal jazz:

composition, improvisation, and pedagogy.

In contrast to earlier jazz idioms, modal jazz seems to be organized in

different ways. For one thing, it often seems to be built from discrete and novel

scalar collections. For another, it replaces functional progressions, especially the

ubiquitous ii-V-I pattern with the extensive use of pedals, and planing, non-

functional chords. Finally, it steers clear of the rapid chord changes found in earlier

styles with slow harmonic rhythm. Describing this repertoire in terms of scale

membership engages a long-standing issue in music theory, that of how best to model

polyphonic music, be it tonal or modal. This issue prompts us to speculate about

whether we should focus primarily on what notes are present in the music or on how

those notes behave in the context of each polyphonic line. Moreover, the distinction

between modal jazz composition and improvisation begs the question of whether the

term “modal” actually means the same thing in these two domains.

14 Kernfeld (1982): 160. 15 Keith Waters, “What is Modal Jazz?” Jazz Educators' Journal 33/1 (2000): 53-55.

9

Waters describes the prevailing view of modal jazz as resulting from its

compositional processes. As he explains:

Modal compositions called into question many of the fundamental assumptions about harmonic progression by suppressing or abandoning functional harmony, by slowing down the harmonic rhythm (allowing a single chord to occupy four or more measures), and by replacing standard harmonic progressions with different harmonic possibilities. The use of the terms ‘static’ or ‘ambiguous’ harmony in describing modal jazz result directly from these compositional techniques. 16

He continues: “Modal compositions abandoned the standard ii-V and ii-V-I harmonic

formulas, removing the sense of forward progression associated with functional

harmony…”17

A good example of this style mentioned is the composition “So What.” The

tune follows a typical 32-bar AABA form, where each section is eight measures long.

The harmonic scheme of the piece, however, abandons the quick harmonic rhythm

normally associated with standard song forms found in other styles of jazz. In bebop,

for example, the speed of chord progressions in jazz reached its apex: it is not

uncommon for there to be two (or more, depending on tempo) harmonies per

measure. The rapid tempi and florid melodies of many bop tunes—such as Donna

Lee and Anthropology—serve to amplify the sense of an often frantic rate of

harmonic change. But “So What” slows down the rate of harmonic rhythm

dramatically so that a single chord lasts for eight or even sixteen bars.

16 Waters (2000): 54. 17 Ibid.

10

Each of the formal sections of “So What” is commonly described as being in

the Dorian mode, with D as the key center of the A sections and Eb as the local tonic

of the B section. This description suggests that the tune fits the rubric of modal jazz

composition described by Waters. It has a seemingly slow harmonic rhythm and the

half-step motion between the key centers of the A and B sections is certainly far from

the functional harmonic progressions of other jazz repertoires. Example I.1 shows an

excerpt of the lead sheet of “So What” from the fifth edition of the so-called Real

Book, an underground compendium of tunes utilized by gigging jazz musicians. The

Real Book is perhaps the most popular version in a long line of “fake books.” These

collections of “lead sheets” — transcriptions of melodies along with schematic chord

changes — have long been essential tools for professional and aspiring jazz

musicians.18 The origins of The Real Book are somewhat murky; it was put together

in the early 1970s by students at the Berklee School of Music and sold “under the

table.” Its transcriptions of jazz tunes are completely unauthorized (and sometimes

unreliable) and do not respect any copyright laws. Nevertheless, its use and influence

are pervasive in the community of jazz musicians. This representation of the tune

conforms to the generally accepted account of the piece’s modality and underscores

an important problem. There are many discrepancies between how “So What” is

represented in The Real Book and what actually happens in the performance on Kind

Of Blue.

18 Barry Kernfeld, The Story of Fake Books: Bootlegging Songs to Musicians (Lanham, MD:

Scarecrow Press, 2006): 129-143.

11

Example I.1: “Real Book” 5th ed. Lead Sheet of “So What”

12

This lead sheet shows that the piece has four formal sections, AABA; the A

sections center on D and the B section shifts to Eb. The bottom part of the lead sheet

gives the “form” for the solos, but is somewhat misleading as it combines the first

two A sections into a single 16-bar unit. Table I.1 diagrams the formal sections and

their tonal centers more clearly.

A A B A mm.1-8 mm.9-16 mm.17-24 mm.25-32

Chord: Dmi Dmi Ebmi Dmi

Table I.1: Form Chart and Tonal Centers for “So What”

To explain the modality of Davis’ original tune, two competing accounts have

been offered. Ashley Kahn, Lewis Porter, and Alyn Shipton assert that the melodic

and harmonic elements of the piece derive entirely from the Dorian scale.19 Ian Carr,

Barry Kernfeld, and John Szwed see the music as elaborations of a single foreground

sonority, Dmi7 in the A section, and Ebmi7 in the B section.20 The lead sheet in

Example I.1 reflects both views. In the first case, a scalar interpretation is shown

alongside the chord changes for the tune itself; the designation “Dorian” appears in

parentheses in the first measure of the A and B sections. Each of these measures

contains the notes of the complete D Dorian scale (D E F G A B and C) and Eb

Dorian scale (Eb F Gb Ab Bb C and Db). In the second case, a chordal interpretation

is represented in the formal chart found at the bottom of the lead sheet. We could

19 Kahn (2000): 116; Porter (1998): 162, 218; and Alyn Shipton, A New History of Jazz (New

York; Continuum Press, 2001): 665. 20 Ian Carr, Miles Davis: The Definitive Biography (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press,

1998): 146; Kernfeld (1982): 147-8; and John Szwed, So What: The Life of Miles Davis (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2002): 175.

13

connect these two readings by noticing that that the Dorian scale “fills out” the

stacked 3rds of the Dmi7 and Ebmi7 sonorities. However, this “chord-scale” reading

leaves us with unanswered questions. Should we really treat the tones E, G, and B in

m. 1 as non-chord tones? And, should we assume the A and B sections each project a

single harmony?

There is also significant evidence to suggest that neither a scalar nor a chordal

account is completely adequate for the analysis of the improvisations on “So What.”

Describing the piece in terms of a strict Dorian modality is problematic for the simple

reason that each performer uses a different array of pitches. This point becomes clear

in the improvised solos of Davis, Coltrane, Adderley, and Evans. In each case, the

soloists play notes outside the Dorian collection, and there are many instances in “So

What” in which a performer plays a chromatically altered scale degree in cross-

relation with another who is using that scale degree’s uninflected form. This leads to

the classic problem of modal theory; namely of adapting a melodic concept to a

polyphonic context. “So What” is considered a locus classicus of modal jazz, but

traditional descriptions of the piece and its performance do not fully account for much

of what actually happens in the music. This piece is an excellent case study because

the disjuncture between the seeming simplicity of its “modal description” and the

actual complexity evident in the piece’s performance raises a number of issues crucial

to establishing the stylistic norms of modal jazz.

“So What” is also an appropriate test case because the tune played a central

role in Davis’ concert repertoire for the 10-year period 1958-1968. Davis returned to

14

this tune again and again in his live concerts, with many different sidemen. Table I.2

lists the numerous recorded performances of “So What” by Davis currently available

in 2010.

Year Title (all albums unless otherwise noted) 1959 Kind of Blue 1959 The Sound of Miles Davis (Televised Performance recorded 4/2/59 that

first aired 7/20/60 on the program The Robert Herridge Theater) 1960 In Stockholm, 1960 Complete 1960 Olympia 11 Octobre 1960 1961 In Person: Saturday Night At The Blackhawk 1961 Live At Carnegie Hall 1964 My Funny Valentine/Four and More 1964 Miles In Berlin 1964 Miles In Tokyo 1965 The Complete Live At The Plugged Nickel 1965

Table I.2: Davis’ Recorded Performances of “So What”

Although the foregoing problems may seem intractable, this dissertation will

attempt to resolve them by drawing on two crucial ideas: stratification and

superimposition. Stratification is a term that has been employed by recent theorists,

mainly to describe compositional elements in the music of Stravinsky.21 My

formulation of stratification includes, among other principles, the idea there can be

several different interpretations of mode occurring simultaneously. In this way, it is

21 Gretchen Horlacher, “The Rhythms of Reiteration: Formal Development in Stravinsky’s

Ostinati,” Music Theory Spectrum 14/2 (1992): 171-187; and “Running in Place: Sketches and Superimposition in Stravinsky’s Music,” Music Theory Spectrum 23/2 (2001): 196-216; Jann Passler, “Music and Spectacle in Petrushka and The Rite of Spring,” in Confronting Stravinsky: Man, Musician, and Modernist, Passler, ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986: 53-81; Lynne Rogers, “Stravinsky’s Break with Contrapuntal Tradition: A Sketch Study,” Journal of Musicology 13/4 (1995): 476-507; and Philip Rupprecht, “Tonal Stratification and Uncertainty in Britten’s Music,” Journal of Music Theory 40/2 (1996): 311-346.

15

closer to the phenomenon Temperley describes as a “melodic-harmonic divorce.”22

His article considers examples in popular music where melodies seemingly do not

line up with underlying harmonic progressions. Superimposition describes how a

separate tonal center can be projected against the prevailing tonic. The latter is a

surface-level phenomenon that can generally be easily sifted from the foreground.

Stratification, on the other hand, is a deeper-level process, and one must look to

middleground structural levels in order to integrate each player’s performance into a

comprehensive view of the tonality of the piece as a whole.

A brief excerpt from Miles Davis’ solo on “So What” illustrates these two

ideas. Example I.2 is an excerpt of a transcription of the trumpet, piano, and bass

parts during Davis’ improvised solo over the A section of the tune. A look at these

measures reveals that the three players, Davis, Evans, and Chambers, realize the

ostensibly Dorian modality in very different ways.

22 David Temperley, “The Melodic-Harmonic ‘Divorce’ in Rock.” Popular Music 26/2

(2007): 323-342.

16

So What By Miles Davis Copyright © 1959 JAZZ HORN MUSIC CORP. Copyright Renewed All Rights Controlled and Administered by SONGS OF UNIVERSAL, INC. All Rights Reserved Used by Permission Reprinted by permission of Hal Leonard Corporation

Example I.2: mm. 9-15 of Davis’ Solo on “So What” from Kind of Blue.

There are apparently three different D minor strata, all being projected

simultaneously. Evans’ piano comping maintains a strict Dorian collection during

these measures and continues in this manner throughout all of the solos on “So

What.” In contrast to Evans’ performance, Chambers’ bassline presents a D minor

scale that makes much freer use of chromaticism, employing both natural and

inflected forms of ^7 (C and C#) and ^6 (Bb and B). Davis’ melody is different; it

projects a D minor key center and uses both forms of ^7 (C and C#). However, it

avoids ^6 altogether. One way to characterize the pitch content of this passage is as a

minor pentatonic collection (D, F, G, A, C) that has been “supplemented.” The two

“extra” notes, E and C#, embellish the collection in two different ways. E is a

diatonic addition to the pentatonic scale and essentially functions in a linear way, as a

neighbor or passing tone. C#, on the other hand, is a chromatic embellishment that

functions as a raised leading tone and serves to tonicize the central pitch, D.

17

The types of stratification found in this fragment recur throughout “So What.”

The other soloists adopt differing interpretations of D minor. Coltrane employs

pentatonic melodic patterns that are often chromatically altered. Adderley relies

heavily on the superimposition of implied chord progressions over the background D

minor tonality. Only Evans uses the Dorian collection exclusively throughout the

piece.

In sum, the passage shown in Example I.2 raises several important questions:

1. How is a tonal center projected in the suppression and even absence of functional cadential formulae?

2. How are non-collection tones explained in a modal or scale-based account of this repertoire?

3. Can each player’s seemingly independent stratum be assimilated into a tonally unified reading of the passage?

This study addresses these three questions by utilizing a theoretical apparatus that

adapted from common-practice tonality. Specifically, it employs Schenkerian

techniques in its examination of performances of modal jazz compositions. The

choice of a Schenkerian methodology is important for two reasons. First, Schenker’s

theories have recently been fruitfully applied to other jazz styles. Looking at modal

jazz through the same “lens” assures that observations about differences and

similarities will be based on comparing “apples” to “apples.” Second, since modal

jazz apparently downplays functional harmonic relationships, Schenkerian theory’s

ability to address tonal music in terms of contrapuntal processes and structural levels

18

makes it an effective tool for describing elements of both stratification and

superimposition.

Schenkerian analysis has the added advantage of being able to demonstrate

the special ways in which tonal and motivic processes interact at different structural

levels. An example of an analysis by Schenker that displays some of these features

can be found in his graph of Chopin’s Etude Op. 10, No. 12. Here, among many

other observations, Schenker traces a ^5-^6-^5 neighbor motion that recurs at several

structural levels, an example of what he called “hidden repetition.”23 Schenkerians

Charles Burkhart and John Rothgeb have discussed and refined this idea and its role

in creating a sense of “organic unity” in compositions.24

The concept of hidden repetition is a potentially valuable analytical approach

to a repertoire whose formal and harmonic schemes are at first blush quite minimal.

Consider some of the outward similarities between Davis’ “So What” and John

Coltrane’s composition “Impressions.”25 Both tunes share the same 32-bar AABA

form, mode (Dorian) and pitch centers (D, Eb) for each formal section. However, the

melody, accompaniment, and improvised solos for the two compositions are not the

same. Schenkerian theory’s ability to consider motivic connections and counterpoint

within the sparse framework of these and other similar tunes is a crucial component to

the analysis of modal jazz.

23 Heinrich Schenker, Fünf Urlinie-Tafeln (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1932); Trans. and ed.

by Felix Salzer as Five Graphic Music Analyses (New York: Dover Publications, 1969): 54-61. 24 Charles Burkhart, “Schenker’s Motivic Parallelisms.” Journal of Music Theory 22/2 (1978):

145-175; and John Rothgeb, “Thematic Content: A Schenkerian View.” in Aspects of Schenkerian Theory, ed. Beach (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983): 39-60.

25 John Coltrane, “Impressions.” Impressions (Polygram 543416, 1961).

19

Traditionally, there has been a privileging (by both analysts and performers)

of improvisations that maintain some sort of connection to the initial melody, or

“head.” This aesthetic preference is often thought to be weakened, or perhaps even

absent, in modal jazz. Schenkerian methods have been used effectively to illuminate

the degree to which improvised solos relate motivically to a composition’s theme. A

prime example of this is Henry Martin’s Charlie Parker and Thematic Improvisation.

In it, he uses Schenkerian analysis to explain in exhaustive detail how Parker’s

harmonically adventurous and seemingly formulaic improvisations on standards,

“Rhythm Changes,” and blues tunes actually have very strong links to the melodies of

those compositions.26 His analyses of the latter two categories are especially telling,

considering that these types of tunes are known for their use of preset harmonic and

formal schemes that are, for the most part, identical between individual pieces in each

genre. Martin makes the case that even though “Rhythm Changes” and blues are

often thought of merely as non-descript vehicles for virtuoso soloing, Parker’s

improvisations on those forms relate strongly to the specific composition at hand.

Using a similar methodology on the modal jazz repertoire yields important

observations about the connectedness and non-connectedness of a modal jazz solos to

the tune’s head.

Although many accounts of “So What” refer to the piece’s Dorian modal

quality, it is not at all apparent how a scalar collection can account for the harmonic

events in this music, or describe the tonal coordination of the aggregated

26 Henry Martin, Charlie Parker and Thematic Improvisation (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow

Press, 1996).

20

performances. Modes, as the term is used by jazz practitioners, are actually a type of

pitch set. This kind of collection may be more accurately described as a sort of hybrid

construct where there is one central pitch that serves as the “tonic” of the set. As

such, they may be seen as partially-ordered sets, as opposed to the unordered sets that

are often used to describe non-tonal music. Although these sets have a tonal center,

they still offer little sense of directed motion. It is worth noting that, under this type of

interpretation, the Dorian collection has a unique property among diatonic sets. It is

symmetrical in that all the other pitches of the collection array around the tonal center

in the same interval pattern in both directions. Moreover, each of this collection’s

tetrachords (^1-^4, ^5-^8) are inversionally symmetric, yielding both transpositional

and inversional replication.27

One of the drawbacks in describing tunes such as “So What” merely in terms

of pitch collections is that there are few criteria for determinations of consonance and

dissonance beyond collection membership or non-membership. This lessens our

ability to distinguish between stable and unstable pitches and leaves us without any

tools with which to evaluate this music in terms of directed motion. Jazz writers and

performers often substitute the vague terms “inside” and “outside” in place of

consonance and dissonance. These somewhat “fuzzy” locutions essentially refer to

whether pitches are consonant or dissonant with the chord of the moment, though the

criteria for this varies widely. Often, chordal “extensions” — pitches that would be

27 I am indebted to Prof. S. Alexander Reed and Prof. Robert Wason for these last two

observations.

21

considered dissonances in common-practice triad-based tonality — as are counted as

consonances.

At the same time, it is undeniably true that certain aspects of “So What” lend

themselves strongly to certain kinds of pitch set-based interpretation. The piano

chords at the beginning of the tune’s head (the “a-men” or “response” in the “call and

response” gesture) are one of the piece’s most salient features. The innovative

voicing of these chords became an identifiable marker of modal jazz in the 1960s.

Other tunes use similar voicings, often in ways that were divorced from the original’s

parody of a plagal cadence: for example John Coltrane’s “Impressions” and Hank

Mobley’s “Up A Step” utilize the exact same chords but in reverse order.28 The

second chord of the gesture, often described as Dmi11, can be thought of as a tonic

harmony or reference sonority for “So What”: its distinctive voicing, with a third

stacked above three fourths is one that Evans employs both in the tune’s “head” and

as an accompanimental figure at the beginning of Davis’ solo. However, this sonority

was considered to be a revolutionary break from traditional bop chord shapes, which

are generally based on stacked thirds. In the first measure of Example I.2 Evans

employs the same “a-men” chords that he used in the head of the tune (see Example

I.1), but rhythmically displaces them. He then takes that chordal shape and moves it

stepwise up and down (a technique known as “planing”) through the diatonic D

Dorian collection. There are a number of other interesting ways to interpret this

voicing and the “a-men” figure. The initial “upper-neighbor” E minor chord contains

28 Coltrane (1961); Hank Mobley, “Up A Step.” No Room For Squares (Blue Note 24539,

1963).

22

the notes that comprise the lowest 5 open strings of the guitar. Additionally, the

spacing of each of the two chords of the “a-men” figure can be seen as “thirds” in a

pentatonic collection. 29 It is also notable that this initial figure presents the Dorian

collection in its entirety.

There is an important body of music theoretical literature that proves to be

especially valuable when considering the chords of the “So What” cadential gesture.

Robert Morgan and Joseph Straus have each offered analyses that attempt to describe

music by composers such as Bartok, Hindemith, and Stravinsky that is tonally

centered but does not utilize a triad as its “tonic” harmonic sonority.30 In Chapter 4,

my analysis of “So What” will develop ideas from both of these scholars and consider

their relevance to some of the issues raised by the “So What” chord voicing.

While some such as Waters may consider modal jazz to be harmonically

static, the music is by no means static either melodically or contrapuntally. Thus,

voice-leading offers an important way to discuss this repertoire in terms of how it

unfolds in time. This is a crucial part of being able to explain the surface

complexities of “So What.” It is vital to note, however, that voice-leading in this

tune, and probably in modal tunes in general, will likely be significantly different

from the functional cadences that we observe in tonal jazz and common-practice

repertoire. This is not to say that traditional cadences cannot appear in this music;

29 I thank Prof. Dmitri Tymoczko, who suggested this possibility in an informal conversation at Eastman in 2003.

30 Robert Morgan, “Dissonant Prolongation: Theoretical and Compositional Precedents.” Journal of Music Theory 20/1 (1976): 49-91; Joseph Straus, “The Problem of Prolongation in Post-Tonal Music.” Journal of Music Theory 31/1 (1987): 1-21; Remaking the Past: Musical Modernism and the Influence of the Tonal Tradition (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990); and “Response to Larson.” Journal of Music Theory 41/1 (1997): 137-139.

23

rather, they are one method among many of achieving tonal “closure” at both local

and more global time spans. It is likely that in the modal jazz repertoire this

conforms more closely to a contrapuntal model rather than a harmonic functional one

both at the phrase level and higher structural levels.

As Matthew Brown has recently recounted, Schenker’s view of the role of

scales in the explanation of tonal systems can be charitably characterized as

disdainful.31 In light of this fact, it may seem counterintuitive to apply Schenkerian

theory to a repertoire called “modal jazz.” It turns out, however, that a Schenkerian

analytical approach, with its analytical emphasis on counterpoint, structural levels,

motivic connections, and describing tonal processes in terms of prolongation of tonic

harmony, is in fact uniquely capable of addressing important stylistic elements of this

music. Whereas tonal jazz is, for the most part, driven by functional progressions,

modal jazz seems to employ a more linear basis for its construction. Furthermore,

tonal jazz, particularly bop, emphasizes a relatively tight harmonic integration

between the soloist and the underlying accompaniment. Modal jazz, on the other

hand, favors a looser coordination, which I describe as stratification, between each

player’s expression of the local key center. Schenkerian theory can be successfully

applied to both modal and tonal jazz, and by examining pieces from the modal jazz

repertoire in this way, this study yields important insights into some of the properties

of modal jazz and its relationship to other jazz styles.

31 Matthew Brown, “Schenker and the Myth of Scales” in Explaining Tonality: Schenkerian

Theory and Beyond (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2005): 140-170.

24

This dissertation is divided into two main parts that address the theory and

analysis of modal jazz. Part 1 contains three chapters which examine some of the

theoretical problems that modal jazz poses and describes how existing music theory

can be productively employed in discussing “So What” and other pieces in this

repertoire. Chapter 1 elucidates some of the challenges in dealing with pitch

organization in “So What” and modal jazz. Chapter 2 discusses some of the

differences in the tonal processes of tonal and modal jazz. Chapter 3 offers a critical

examination of chord-scale theory, an important part of the descriptions of modal jazz

since the 1950s. Part 2 then focuses on the analysis of modal jazz. Chapter 4 offers

an integrated analytical model for modal jazz, one that takes Schenkerian theory as its

point of departure yet draws from several methods to account for many of the

important musical elements in this repertoire. This is done in the context of a

comprehensive analysis of the Kind of Blue performance of “So What,” in terms of its

compositional structure and the improvised performances of Miles Davis and the

members of his band.

25

Part I:

Theoretical Background

Chapter 1

Tonal Processes in Modal Jazz

What exactly is modal jazz and what distinguishes it from other jazz styles?

Simple as it may seem, these are not easy questions to answer. Historically, the term

modal — especially as it relates to jazz — has been a problematic one for theorists

and musicologists alike. Jazz scholars such as Barry Kernfeld and Keith Waters have

defined certain elements of the modal jazz style—such as its slow harmonic rhythm

and suppression of functional chord progressions—but a comprehensive account of

this genre has yet to emerge. Accordingly, this study considers a number of other

properties of modal jazz in an attempt to bring its stylistic boundaries into sharper

focus. Chief among these is the idea of stratification in modal and other jazz

repertoires.

The chapter divides into three main sections. The first identifies some of the

problems inherent in defining the modal jazz style. The middle section discusses

stratification in the modal and tonal jazz repertoires. It shows how stratification

manifests itself in several different ways, and explores similarities and differences in

the modal and tonal realms through analysis of excerpts from the music of Miles

Davis and Thelonious Monk. This section also introduces the work of jazz theorist

26

and composer George Russell, whose Lydian Chromatic Concept is a partially

successful attempt at describing stratification in both the modal and tonal jazz styles.

The final section considers the work of a much earlier theorist, Johannes Tinctoris,

and how his ideas about improvised counterpoint are potentially a valuable tool for

helping to define the modal jazz style. In particular, his discussion of contrapuntal

lines’ relationship to a pre-composed tenor provides an avenue to understanding

modal jazz soloing.

At the outset, it is important to consider what is actually meant by the term

“modal jazz.” What are the essential stylistic elements of this repertoire? Perhaps the

best way to address the question of “defining” modal jazz is by comparing and

contrasting some of its most salient properties with tonal jazz. There are several

reasons why modal jazz is best described in terms of its relationship to tonal jazz.

The first is simply historical; the modal jazz style emerged from and distinguished

itself in opposition to the tonal jazz that had immediately preceded it. The second —

and perhaps more compelling — justification for this kind of approach is that the

theory of common-practice tonality is a robust one and has recently been utilized with

great success in analyzing the tonal jazz canon. Thus, we can define many of the

stylistic and theoretical boundaries of modal jazz in relation to those of tonal jazz. In

addressing some of the analytical challenges of this music we can then consider how

the tools of tonal analysis can be applied (with or without modification) to the

analytical issues presented by modal jazz.

27

Even if one were to accept wholesale the scale-based description of the

tonality of “So What” that was outlined in the Introduction, a number of vital

questions about how pitches operate in the piece would still remain. How is melody

organized? How can harmonic sonorities be described? And how do they function?

How are phrases and form articulated? Are there cadences? How do the individual

parts interact with one another and how shall we describe their collective tonality?

What other musical features besides pitch collection seem to be important? Perhaps

the most important question is: what elements make this jazz style different from

other jazz styles? That this music is often described using scales or modes does not

answer any of these questions in a convincing way. This situation parallels that found

in collection-based theories of post-tonal Western art music; the fact that set theory

can be used to illustrate relationships in this repertoire does not mean that the theory

is necessarily an inherent property of the music itself. Moreover, there is a significant

danger that by examining pitch relationships (in any repertoire) merely in terms of

collection membership or non-membership, one may miss the “forest for the trees.”

Important musical features such as motivic development, and structural-level and

long-range pitch relationships can elude analyses that focus solely on local pitch

collections. Consider the simple analogy of analyzing a poem in terms of its usage of

the letters of the alphabet. Once we had parsed the text in this way we could say

many things about the work (what kinds of vowel sounds the poet prefers, for

example) that are true but not particularly interesting or valuable. This is not to say

that this analytical method is entirely without merit; we might learn a great deal about

28

the poem’s rhyme scheme and perhaps something about its scansion. However, many

other elements of the poem (such as meter, form, meaning, and imagery to name but a

few) would remain unaddressed.

By the same token, consider the result if we were to analyze common-practice

tonal works such as Mozart’s Sonata in C Major, K. 545, in terms of pitch collections

or scales. We would be able clearly (or not so clearly, depending on the number of

common-tones between scalar collections) to group the pitches of the different

sections of the piece into various scalar collections (C major, G major, etc.). But this

would tell us relatively little of value about how the piece goes. This example is, on

its face, completely absurd. But it is only slightly more ridiculous than saying that

the performance of “So What” from Kind of Blue is based on Dorian scales and

leaving it at that.

Clearly, a more useful and comprehensive response to the analytical problems

posed by modal jazz must come from an examination of how pitch is organized in

“So What” and other tunes like it. Such a description must necessarily not only

account for what pitches occur, but also how those pitches behave.

Theoretical/Analytical Problems

Having outlined some of the fundamental problems of modal jazz theory, let’s

examine them in a bit more detail. The first issue to address is whether it is possible

to understand the behavior of polyphonic music simply by appealing to scale

membership. Figure 1.1A-B gives an illustration why this type of description may be

29

inadequate. Figure 1.1A shows a simple cadential “tonal” phrase in C major. Figure

1.1B shows a “modal” cadential phrase in A minor.

Figure 1.1A: “Tonal” Phrase Figure 1.1B: “Modal” Phrase

(After Brown, Explaining Tonality Figs. 4.1a, 4.1b)1

Both figures above contain the exact same pitch collections, but their behavior is what

determines the tonality we assign to each passage. This is an inherent problem in

modal theory since each of the diatonic modes contains, in principle, the exact same

notes, though they are ordered in different ways. In other words, there has to be

something more to defining the tonic than just association with a particular collection.

Another problem that arises from scale-based descriptions is the matter of how to deal

with chromatic pitches, which are, by definition, outside of the prevailing collection.

As shown in Example I.2 of the introduction, three players: Evans, Chambers, and

Davis, articulate the tonal center on D utilizing different chromatic pitches. Evans

maintains a strict D Dorian collection throughout this section (the chromaticism seen

at the end of the phrase is an anticipation of the upcoming tonal center of Eb in the

next bar). Chambers’ performance is problematic due to its free use of chromaticism

— it includes B, B-flat, C-natural, and C#. Davis’ melody projects a D tonal center

and uses both C-natural and C#. B-natural, the pitch that distinguishes Dorian from

the other “minor” modes, is assiduously avoided. Clearly, describing “So What” in

1 Brown (2005): 145.

30

terms of a single type of scale is, at best, overly reductive. Of course, this issue is

hardly a new one; chromaticism has long been part of modal practice. Example 1.1

shows an example of third species counterpoint in two voices from Fux’s The Study

of Counterpoint. Here we can see that Fux deploys both B and B-flat, as well as C

and C# over a Dorian cantus firmus. The C# appears only at the cadence at the last

measure.

Example 1.1: Fux, The Study of Counterpoint Fig. 55

In another pair of examples, during a discussion of double counterpoint at the 12th and

10th, Fux introduces even more chromaticism. In Example 1.2A we can see that the

counterpoint features both natural and raised C and G, ending in a model that presents

two of three voices that form a double leading-tone cadence. Fletcher Kohlhausen� 5/22/10 3:36 PMDeleted:

31

Example 1.2A: Fux, The Study of Fugue Ex. 103

In Example 1.2B this melody is transposed to begin at the fifth below the

cantus firmus, and is paired with the same tune at the third above the cantus firmus.

Example 1.2B: Fux, The Study of Fugue Ex. 103

The lower counterpoint in this example is an exact transposition of the line

from Example 1.2A where all the intervals are the same, while the upper melody in

Example 1.2B preserves the tune’s general contour, but makes intervallic

adjustments. In each of these examples, the overall tonal center of D is clear when

the full two- or three-part texture is heard. Yet, of the three transpositions of the

counterpoint, only the one that begins on D, the bass voice in Example 1.2B, would

32

likely be interpreted as clearly belonging to a D scale. Even then, the modal quality

of the scale is not totally unassailed, as the F# in the third measure contradicts the

lowered third that gives the melody its minor designation.

Fux’s examples have some interesting applications for the analysis of modal

jazz. First, contrapuntal melodies do not always conform to strict modal collections;

they employ chromaticism to tonicize and to avoid tritones that do not involve the

leading tone. Second, in double counterpoint, some chromaticisms emerge as a

means to preserve interval patterns that will work both above and below a given

modal cantus firmus. The top line of Example 1.2A works as a counterpoint a fifth

higher than the cantus firmus. The lower line of Example 1.2B works as a

counterpoint an octave lower. This arrangement may parallel in a very important way

the role of chromaticism in “So What.” In the lead sheet given in Example I.1 in the

Introduction the bass melody has many of the same properties as Fux’s cantus firmus.

Its pitches conform to the Dorian collection, and it ends with a convergence on tonic.

It is noteworthy that the performers of “So What” employ varying degrees of

chromaticism in their improvised counterpoint against the “head’s” strictly diatonic

cantus firmus. It is, however, telling that the actual recording of “So What” on Kind

of Blue finds Paul Chambers consistently playing raised ^7 (D natural) during the B

sections of the tune’s head.2

To gain further insight into the various tonal processes at work in “So What”

it is worth looking in more detail at certain specific elements that may have led

2 Kernfeld (1982): 146.

33

observers to consider “So What” to be Dorian. One of the most prominent of these is

the plagal gesture that serves as the “response” to the bass melody’s “call” in the head

of the tune. Figure 1.2 shows this figure, alongside a similar “a-men” gesture from

Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers’ 1958 recording of “Moanin’.” 3

Figure 1.2: Comparison of “Plagal” Gestures in “So What” and “Moanin’”

Example 1.3 shows the original call and response in “Moanin’.”

Example 1.3: Call and Response Figure in A Section of “Moanin’”

This gesture forms the basis for foreground harmonic motion in “So What,”

providing a way of composing out a D tonal center with chords that to and from the

basic tonic harmony. The D minor triad can be found at the middleground levels, and

a D pedal is the background. The 5-6 motion in the upper voices, utilizing a raised

rather than lowered ^6 may be why some have described this piece in terms of a

3 Blakey, Art, and the Jazz Messengers. “Moanin’.” Moanin’ (Blue Note CDP 7 45616 2,

1958).

34

Dorian collection. And yet, the “So What” riff’s uncanny resemblance to the plagal

gesture in “Moanin’” — not to mention the rhythmic similarity between the two

pieces’ “call and response” figures — suggests that it functions as a minor mode

“parody” of the same figure, and thus accounts for the raised ^6 by invoking the

concept of modal mixture.

An equally important element of the tune’s “head” is the melodic bass line

that initiates the “call” in the tune’s call and response figure. The last two notes of

the figure, ^7 and ^2 form a double neighbor that converges on the tonic at the

downbeat of the next measure. This double neighbor figure is utilized by Davis,

Coltrane, and Adderley in their solos, as shown in Figure 1.3. Figure 1.3A shows

how Coltrane quotes the tail of the head’s bass melody almost verbatim, but with the

addition of a raised leading tone. Figure 1.3B shows how Adderley reinforces the

tonic pitch D in a similar way near the start of his solo, albeit without the raised scale

degree 7. Later, he employs the raised leading tone (see Figure 1.3C).

Figure 1.3: Use of the Double-Neighbor Figure in Improvised Solos on “So What”

Additionally, it is possible to hear subposed bass roots below the chords of the

“So What” figure. Bearing in mind that the bass melody is actually the tail end of the

two-bar pattern, an extended upbeat into the next iteration of the “So What” figure,

35

then we can see that the progression that results from such an interpretation is i-IV-i-

v. Figure 1.4 illustrates this possibility.

Figure 1.4: Underlying Harmonic Progression Implied by the Bass Melody in

“So What”

The harmonies implied by the head are fruitfully exploited by the improvisers.

Example 1.4 shows how Davis transforms the C-E double neighbor into harmonic

entities, as C major and Ami7 arpeggios juxtaposed against the D tonal center of the

bass ostinato.


Example 1.4: Davis’ Superimposition of an Ami7 Chord over a D minor Triadic Ostinato, mm. 32-39 of His Solo on “So What”

36

Adderley picks up on the idea of a superimposed Ami7 chord in his solo as

well, as shown in Example 1.5.


Example 1.5: Adderley’s Superimposition of an Ami Triad, mm. 40-44 of His Solo on “So What”

Another striking attribute of “So What” is its long-range tonal plan and formal

design. As illustrated in Example I.2 from the Introduction, it follows a traditional

32-bar AABA form. What is different is that there are no explicitly specified

foreground harmonic changes within each 8-bar formal section. There is merely a

single tonal center, either D for the A sections, or Eb for the B section. The half-step

motion between tonal areas is important for several reasons. The first is that it may

function as a kind of formal guidepost for improvisation. Since the melodic material

is ostensibly identical between each section, the only thing that differentiates the two

is the raised tonal center. This single articulation of tonal contrast serves to keep the

players together in the form during the improvised solos. A later example in Davis’

modal repertoire, the tune “Paraphernalia,” from the 1968 album Miles in the Sky,

utilizes a single tonal center throughout, with the result that during the improvised

sections phrases and entire solos are of widely varying lengths. The ends of choruses

37

are signaled by a cue melody initiated by the soloist as he finishes his improvisation.4

In “So What,” the B section serves this same kind of organizational purpose; it keeps

everyone more or less “on the same page,” at least in this performance.

The idea of simply transposing the A section material at the bridge is not

without precedent in Davis’ work. In his 1954 version of “When Lights are Low,” he

replaces the actual bridge of the tune with a repeat of the A section up a fourth.5

Furthermore, half-step oscillations are not unheard of in earlier jazz styles, prominent

examples being Dizzy Gillespie’s “A Night in Tunisia,” and Thelonious Monk’s

“Well, You Needn’t.” Of course, those two tunes feature foreground half-step

motion at the span of a single bar, while “So What” incorporates this technique into

longer stretches of music. From this viewpoint, however, the long-range half-step

motion seems to serve as a chromaticized motivic repetition of the “So What” chordal

gesture, as shown in Figure 1.5.

Figure 1.5: Long-Range Chromaticized “So What” Gesture as

Part of “So What’s” Formal Design

4 Miles Davis. “Paraphernalia.” Miles In The Sky (Columbia 65684, 1968). 5 Miles Davis. “When Lights Are Low.” Blue Haze (Prestige PRP-7054, 1954).

38

Stratification in Modal Jazz

Stratification is an idea that is vital to the understanding of tonal processes in

modal jazz. There are two essential types of stratification that are germane to the

analysis of “So What” and of modal jazz in general: structural-level stratification and

chromatic stratification. The former describes the various degrees of vertical

coordination between individual lines. The latter accounts for pitch inflections that

can result in so-called “cross-relations,” and with chromaticism in general. Chapter 2

will address this issue in its larger discussion of tonal processes in tonal and modal

jazz. This chapter, however, considers examples from “So What” that illustrate the

possibilities inherent within the concept of structural-level stratification. These range

from simple temporal displacement—instances analogous to the processes of

suspension and anticipation found in common-practice tonality—to more complex

passages where independent lines cannot be easily realigned into familiar vertical

structures like triads or seventh chords. In these situations individual lines may not

strongly coordinate with one another. Although they are tonally coherent in and of

themselves, they must be seen as each relating independently to a central tonic rather

than integrating with all other parts at middleground structural levels.

One of the crucial elements that makes “So What” a departure from the earlier

bop repertoire is the relatively low degree of vertical coordination between the

individual parts in during the improvised solos. Like earlier jazz styles, in modal jazz

there is more coordination during the tune’s head and less during the solo sections

39

where both melody and accompaniment are ostensibly improvised. However, in the

absence of pre-set chord changes, individual players’ performances exhibit a high

degree of independence that can only be accounted for by invoking structural-level

stratification.

Consider Example 1.6, from Miles Davis’ solo on “So What.”


Example 1.6: mm. 38-39 of Miles Davis’ Solo on “So What”

This excerpt, from mm. 38-39 of Davis’ solo, shows considerable stratification

between the parts. Chambers’ bassline is an ostinato that outlines the D minor triad.

Evans’ comping recalls the “So What” gesture from the tune’s head, but the upper

voice 3rds (B and G descending to A an F) are now in a lower register and are

somewhat obscured by the presence of another pitch a second above (C and B,

respectively). Davis’ line is the most enigmatic of the three. It seems to be

articulating a C major triad, or perhaps an A minor seventh chord. Remarkably, the

line does not reestablish the tonic D minor until m. 40, when it arrives on F. As

Fletcher Kohlhausen� 5/22/10 3:45 PMDeleted:

40

discussed earlier, one possible interpretation of this melodic strand is that it is a

reference to the E-C double neighbor figure in the bass that is such an important part

of the tune’s head (see Example 1.7).

Example 1.7: Double Neighbor in the Bass Melody from Head of “So What”

Davis expands this third by another third in each direction before returning to

a melody that more clearly articulates the D minor tonality. In any event, this

example clearly presents three independent lines, each with its own relationship to the

key center, but with varying degrees of coordination. Integrating the bass and piano

parts on the basis of temporal displacement is not difficult, but the trumpet stands out

in relief from the accompaniment because of its arpeggiation of a different chord (or

chords) than the other two instruments emphasize. Developing a method that can

adequately describe how these multiple streams integrate is one of the primary

challenges of the analysis of modal jazz.

Another interesting example of structural-level stratification can be found

earlier in Davis’ solo. At first sight, it appears to be an instance of simple temporal

displacement. In mm. 3-4 there is a moment where all of the lines converge on a D

minor sonority. This occurs on the first beat of m. 4. Literally speaking, only the

bass has a sounding pitch, but if we take into account the piano’s quartal chord

anticipation from the end of the previous measure, along with its reiteration on the

41

offbeat of beat two, it is not hard to discern D minor tonic harmony in the

accompaniment here. Couple this with Davis’ arpeggiation of the tonic triad and it is

apparent that the downbeat of m. 4 is a coordinated arrival on tonic (see Example

1.8).


Example 1.8: Coordinated Arrival on Tonic; mm. 3-4 of Miles Davis’ Solo on “So What”

Example 1.9 is realignment of this arrival on tonic harmony. It shows the D

minor triad arpeggio in the trumpet as a three-voice vertical sonority, along with the

piano’s “tonic” chord and the bass’s root.

42

Example 1.9: Realigned Arrival on D minor Tonic Harmony in m. 4 of

Davis’ solo. However, even in this relatively straightforward harmonic situation, there are

elements of structural-level stratification that more difficult to explain.

Figure 1.6 shows how Chambers and Evans choose different cadential

strategies to emphasize the arrival at tonic harmony.

Figure 1.6: Simultaneous “Plagal” and “Authentic” Cadences in mm. 3-4 of

Davis’ Solo. Evans reprises the emblematic “So What” plagal cadence from the tune’s head in the

second half of m.2. Throughout the piece, he uses this gesture to signal local returns

to tonic harmony. Chambers, meanwhile, provides a walking bassline that projects

tonic harmony through the first three beats and implies dominant harmony—complete

with raised leading tone—on the fourth beat. In other words, while the piano

43

ostensibly plays “IV” on beat 3, the bass prefers “i6.” And, on beat 4, the piano’s

“IV” remains and moves to “i,” anticipating the downbeat of the next measure. These

local cross-relations can be described as temporal displacements. However, at this

same moment, the bass is implying a “V” harmony. This conflict is not so easily

explained. The two accompaniment parts are, in essence, playing two different types

of cadences that converge on the same D minor tonic. This is a prime example of

structural-level stratification similar to the one seen in Example 1.4 above. As

before, these two parts cannot be reconciled at the foreground level; there is no

amount of temporal realignment that we can do that will make these parts line up in

the middleground. At the same time, it is true that they both are oriented toward the

same tonic, so there is a sense in which they are coordinated at a deeper structural

level.

Significantly, this type of structural level improvisation was by no means

invented by exponents of modal jazz: it can also be found in work of many jazz

musicians active in the bop and post-bop period of the 1940s and 50s. In an earlier

study, I found that Thelonious Monk often deconstructed the structural levels of

Rhythm Changes and Blues-based compositions.6 Although that research focused on

how Monk manipulated the conventions of chord voicing, I also demonstrated how he

utilized an awareness of structural levels as an improvisational resource. Henry

Martin has shown similar phenomena in the music of Charlie Parker. Figure 1.7

6 Jason R. Titus, “Register and Spacing in the Voicings of Thelonious Monk” (Master’s

Thesis: Louisiana State University, 1997).

44

gives Henry Martin’s structural level reduction of the chords for a prototypical

Rhythm Changes tune.7

Figure 1.7: Martin’s Structural Level Analysis of Rhythm Changes

Martin’s analysis of Rhythm Changes shows how the relatively rapid pace of

the “Actual Changes” of the foreground can be seen as an elaboration of harmonies at

deeper structural levels. At his “First Structural Level,” the harmonic rhythm has

slowed to one chord per measure, at the “Second Structural Level” a single harmony

is sustained for two bars. What is most important for our purposes is the “Third

Structural Level.” Here, Martin claims that the entire eight-bar span prolongs a single

tonic harmony.

7 Martin (1996): 10.

45

This model of Rhythm Changes fits in nicely with Monk’s performance of his

own tune “Rhythm-A-Ning.” In terms of the composition itself, “Rhythm-A-Ning”

implies chord changes that do not jibe with the “First Structural Level” of Martin’s

prototype.

Example 1.10: Thelonious Monk’s “Rhythm-A-Ning”

Example 1.10 shows the melody for Monk’s composition. In the opening two bars,

the melody clearly outlines a I-IV motion in the key of Bb. Taken at first sight, this

progression does not correspond to the surface-level chord changes of a prototypical

Rhythm Changes tune. However, if we analyze the passage along the lines of

Martin’s “Second Structural Level,” the connections become clearer. Figure 1.8

shows my reading of the relatively simple elaborations that Monk employs in

transforming the middleground harmonies into the foreground chords in the A section

of “Rhythm-A-Ning.”

46

2nd Level

Bb Bb Bb Bb Bb Bb F7 Bb

1st Level

Bb Eb

(IV Prefix)

Bb F7

(V Prefix)

Bb Bb F7 Bb

Figure 1.8: Structural Analysis of “Rhythm-A-Ning”

Like Martin’s analytical prototype, the “Second Structural Level” depicts an eight-bar

phrase that ends with an authentic cadence, F7-Bb. What creates the foreground

harmonic progressions inherent in “Rhythm-A-Ning”’s melody is a technique that

Steven Strunk describes as “prefixes” in his article “The Harmony of Early Bop: A

Layered Approach.”8 In this work, he enumerates a number of transformational

operations that can occur between structural levels. Strunk groups these into three

main types: “Harmonic Chord Generators,” which corresponds to the familiar

technique of tonicization; “Linear Chord Generators,” which describes horizontal

embellishments such as passing and neighbor tones; and “Substitution Sets,” which

groups harmonies that are ostensibly “functionally equivalent.” In Figure 1.8 the

harmony of the “First Structural Level” of m.2 is labeled as a “IV prefix” that

elaborates the following I in m. 3. This is a “Linear Chord,” according to Strunk’s

terminology. Next, in m. 4, a “V prefix,” a “Harmonic Chord,” leads to I in m. 5.

Figure 1.8 combines Martin and Strunk’s analytical methods in such a way that we

can see both how “Rhythm-A-Ning” is similar to, and differs from, a typical Rhythm

8 Steven Strunk, “The Harmony of Early Bop: A Layered Approach.” Journal of Jazz Studies

6/1 (1979): 4-53.

47

Changes tune. Given the projection of the tonic Bb at the eight-bar span, the III-VI-

II-V (or cascading tonicizing V/V’s) progression in the B section, and the title of the

work itself, it is clear that Monk intended it to be seen as a member of the Rhythm

Changes family.

The above examples and analysis underscore a very important point about

structural-level stratification: this process was not new to modal jazz, and it can be

seen in both composition and improvisation in earlier repertoires. We have seen this

at work in Monk’s composition, now let us examine an element of his improvisation.

Example 1.11 shows the first sixteen bars of Monk’s comping on “Rhythm-A-Ning”

in a live performance from October 31, 1964.

Example 1.11: Monk, “Rhythm-A-Ning” Comping mm. 1-16; Oct. 31, 1964

This excerpt illuminates two crucial elements of Monk’s improvisational strategy on

tunes based on Rhythm Changes, at least in terms of his accompanimental chording.

48

The first is his choice of notes and their relationship to the underlying harmonic

framework. The second is his use of a single sonority (in alternating registers) over

large spans of time in a tune that, in its prototypical version, has chord changes every

two beats. It is important to know that in this performance, the bassline essentially

corresponds to the foreground model presented by Martin in Figure 1.7. Monk’s

playing here indicates that he has “retreated” to the “Third Structural Level” and is

basically treating the tonic of Bb as a pedal harmony. It is striking that, in a sense,

this is the second time he has employed structural-level stratification in relation to

“Rhythm-A-Ning.” As we saw above, the composition’s melody is a modification of

the relationship between the “First” and “Second Structural Levels.” In Monk’s

comping, we see that he bypasses these two levels to articulate (with an enigmatic

sonority) the “Third Structural Level” as a kind of harmonic drone.

Monk’s playing on “Rhythm-A-Ning” and other Rhythm Changes and Blues

engages with the concept of structural-level stratification from the opposite direction

as the performances of Evans and Chambers on “So What.”9 On the one hand, Monk

takes a model in which a great number of chords pass in rapid succession, strips away

the fore- and middleground progressions, and replaces them with a single, static

harmony. On the other hand, Evans and Chambers take a model that only seems to

specify a tonic pitch and chord quality, and superimpose their own “harmonic

progressions.” It is worth noting that both compositions are AABA forms, but where

Monk reduces an “overdetermined” structural-level prototype down to its bare

9Multiple similar examples of Monk’s “Third Structural Level” technique can be found in:

Titus (1997): 33-79.

49

essence, Evans and Chambers elaborate an “underdetermined” model in order to

create cadences and phrases and provide a sense of forward motion within the form.

It is potentially helpful to think of Rhythm Changes as a hybrid formal

prototype that has a foot in both the tonal and modal jazz worlds. In this kind of tune

improvisers are free to choose whether they will interpret the form in a tonal (i.e.

foreground chord-based) or modal (i.e. pedal-based) way. Another way of thinking

about this is that in Rhythm Changes jazz musicians are, at every moment of their

performance, free to decide the structural level at which they’ll operate. If they

choose to articulate each harmonic change, the degree of stratification will likely be

less. And yet, if they decide to work at a middleground level, then the potential for

foreground “cross-relations” between lines increases. The inherent potential for

structural-level stratification is thus built into performances of Rhythm Changes and

becomes a compositional parameter (along with elements such as: rhythm,

articulation, timbre, and register, to name but a few) to be negotiated by the

individual player.

Jazz composer and theorist George Russell made one of the first attempts to

describe this phenomenon in 1953 in his pioneering book The Lydian Chromatic

Concept of Tonal Organization for Improvisation, for All Instruments.10 Although his

work was initially presented as a prescriptive method for improvisation, its theoretical

10George Allan Russell, The Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization for

Improvisation, for All Instruments (New York: Concept Publishing, 1953). This work has gone through 3 subsequent editions which appeared in 1959, 1964, and 2001. The latter version is an extensive reworking and expansion of the system, and is the first volume of a planned two-volume set. Russell passed away in 2009 and it is unclear as of this writing whether the second volume will appear posthumously.

50

underpinnings are an implicit description of the kind of decoupling of melody and

harmony that is the hallmark of structural-level stratification. Russell was, for the

most part, an autodidact. The first edition of The Lydian Chromatic Concept

contained little or no reference to any theory or theorists that had come before.

Russell simply gives names of his own invention to the theoretical concepts and

scales he describes. Two of these idiosyncratic terms are germane to the present

discussion. The first term is Polymodality, which Russell introduces to explain the

idea that multiple scales can map to a particular chord in a way that changes that

harmony’s “color” but does not obscure its essential quality and function. The second

is the Lydian Chromatic Scale, which Russell uses to describe a family of scales that

share a single tonic pitch, the combination of which forms the aggregate. The

interrelation of these two ideas is a large part of Russell’s pedagogy; scales of

differing pitch content, but having the same tonic, can be employed to create

melodies over a single harmonic sonority. The relationship between melodic notes

(scale) and harmonic pitches (chord) falls along a continuum where a high degree of

pitch correlation is seen as “inside” and a low degree is seen as “outside.” The fact

that the notes of the melody do not necessarily have to correspond closely to the notes

of the chord indicates an implicit acknowledgement of structural-level stratification.

The first part of The Lydian Chromatic Concept deals exclusively with

matching individual chords with a family of scales that can be used to melodically

express that harmony. Russell refers to this type of improvisation as Vertical

51

Polymodality.11 It is vertical in that the pitch collections that his system generates

correspond to the chordal sonority of the moment. He considers this to be polymodal

because his method generates a number of different scales that can be applied to a

single chord. Later, in Lesson V, Russell addresses the issue of structural tonal levels

with his theory of Horizontal Polymodality.12 With this idea, he claims that a single

scale can be used to represent a key area, and thus can be played over a series of

individual chords. He posits several levels of Horizontal Polymodality-in a sort of

hierarchy that goes from single-measure durations, to 2-. 4-. and 8-bar levels, up to

the piece as a whole. According to him, certain scale types correspond to individual

chordal harmonies, while others more closely represent keys. Russell claims that the

major scale and the blues scale are examples of the latter.13 He describes the one-to-

one mapping of scale to chord as a vertical relationship and scales that can be utilized

over larger successions of chords as having a horizontal relationship with such

progressions. This distinction between chords and keys is a profound one; by

distinguishing between these two types of scales, Russell gives his own version of

foreground and background tonal levels. Russell describes his theory of long-range

tonality in the following way: “Horizontal Polymodality occurs when we impose a

single Lydian Chromatic Scale (usually in the form of one of its horizontal scales,

Major or Blues) upon a sequence of chords. It is in horizontal situations that Major

and the Blues Scales are most effective. The scale we choose conveys the tonal

11 Russell (1959): 22. 12 Ibid: 28. 13 Ibid: 30.

52

center to the listener rather than the chord.”14 Thus, in his theory, vertical scales are

for use in closely defining foreground harmonic events, while horizontal scales

mainly define middleground and background tonality.

Chapter 3 of this dissertation offers a detailed critique of Russell’s work, and

the pervasive “chord-scale” jazz theory and pedagogy that it helped to launch. As we

shall see, The Lydian Chromatic Concept—and other theories that use a similar

approach—are highly problematic as analytical methods. At the same time, it is clear

that Russell was sensitive to the structural-level stratification inherent in tonal jazz,

and his insight was crucial to the appearance of modal jazz a few years after his

book’s first publication. What is relevant to the present discussion of “So What” and

Rhythm Changes is that his theory offers a way to see the ways these two seemingly

different types of tunes actually have much in common as vehicles for improvisation.

Stratification is not a property that is unique to jazz. It has been discussed by

music scholars in connection with many different repertoires over the years. A

particularly relevant discussion of stratification in improvisation comes from

contrapuntal theorist Johannes Tinctoris, who, in 1477, in his Libre de arte

contrapuncti, implicitly addressed this issue.15 According to Tinctoris, it is important

to distinguish between composed counterpoint, which he dubbed res facta, and

improvised counterpoint, which he called cantare super librum (or “upon the book”).

In res facta counterpoint all the voices have equal prominence, but in cantare super

14 Ibid: 28. 15 Johannes Tinctoris. Libre de arte contrapuncti, 1477. Translated and edited by Albert Seay

as The Art of Counterpoint (Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1961).

53

librum counterpoint the cantus firmus (or pre-composed voice) serves as the tenor

and all the contrapuntal lines must relate to that single voice in a manner consistent

with good practice.16 In other words, each individual improvised melody need only

consider the tenor, but not the other lines. Needless to say, this opens the door to the

possibility of stratification, and specifically structural-level stratification between

lines. This is a conceptual scheme not unlike what we have so far observed in the

excerpts from the improvised solos in “So What.” Each player’s performance more

or less clearly relates to the background tonic pedal harmony, but relating the lines to

one another proves challenging at times. In a sense, the pedal harmony (D in the A

sections, Eb in the B section) serves as “So What”’s tenor. Although it is not a literal

melodic line against which the other lines serve as counterpoints, nonetheless is

serves the same conceptual role as a single coordinating element around which all the

other parts orbit.

This location of the tenor in modal jazz serves as a central stylistic element,

especially in terms of improvisation. In tonal jazz based on standard tunes, the chord

changes can often function like a tenor as performers use them as a framework to

construct their solos and improvised accompaniments. However, because of the

ubiquity of reharmonization via chord substitution, it might be more accurate to

locate the tenor in some middleground form of the melody of a tune, which can be

seen as functioning as a cantus firmus. Even though there is a canonic repertoire of

standard tunes, there is not necessarily a canonic harmonization of each tune, even

16 Ibid: 105.

54

though many of them may be published and certain recorded performances are

considered “definitive.” But, there is also a sense of a minimal set of melodic criteria

that define a tune, and without this, the composition’s identity is lost.

Significantly, however, the idea of treating the tenor as the main tonal

determinant does not work in the same way for Blues and Rhythm Changes: Since

these forms are not based around melodies, but rather around chord progressions, one

might be inclined to locate the tenor in the chords themselves. But, there are

innumerable chordal variations on such tunes, with no one version able to lay claim to

being the prototype. Thus, it is possible for performers to, at their discretion, locate

the tenor as a pedal. This is precisely what we saw in Monk’s performance of

“Rhythm-A-Ning,” which strips away the surface chord changes and operates at the

level of the background pedal tonic triad. Meanwhile, in modal jazz the performers

begin with the pedal, and layer on various embellishments of that basic tonal

structure. The two processes are the reverse of each other, yet both rely on the idea of

structural-level stratification.

Tinctoris’ ideas about license in cantare super librum are an apt description of

how jazz performers can utilize this type of stratification as an improvisational

resource. The idea that individual lines need only coordinate with the tenor (however

it may be defined in a particular repertoire) ends out being central to improvisation in

Blues, Rhythm Changes, and modal jazz. In all of these forms, performers are free to

create their own elaborations of the background central tonic, without necessarily

tonally coordinating with the other performers.

55

The concept of structural-level stratification ends up being a crucial stylistic

marker for modal jazz. It speaks to the idea of the relative freedom of modal

compositions like “So What;” performers are not locked into a preset contrapuntal

pattern as they are in standards-based jazz. Where there is no melodic cantus firmus,

they are free to create a new melody, and where there is a cantus, they must

improvise a counterpoint appropriate to that melody. Thus, in standards-based jazz,

all of the performances are coordinated by virtue of the fact that the individual

players are responding to the same cantus. In modal jazz, the performers are actually

improvising cantus firmi and are free to coordinate their lines with the rest of the

ensemble to the extent they wish. Coordination and stratification, in fact, become

improvisational strategies as the players react to one another in performance. Freed

from the obligation of “making the changes,” modal jazz players are free to interact

with the ensemble in creative ways. This is certainly the case for the Kind of Blue

recording of “So What.”

Examples 1.6-1.8 in this chapter, along with Example I.2 from the

Introduction, demonstrate that the players in Davis’ band have different ways of

expressing the key of D minor during the solos on “So What.” While the minor

quality of the mode is not in question there is considerable variance in the chromatic

inflections of scale degrees ^6 and ^7, especially ^6, which is vital to the piece’s

classification as Dorian. Actually, even “So What’s” minor quality would later be

occasionally be subverted by its performers. In a 1961 live recording, Davis repeats a

series of raised ^3’s (F#) in a high and strident register. Pianist Wynton Kelly

56

displays a sensitive ear and responds to Davis by adjusting his piano comping to

include this new pitch.17 Elsewhere in the Kind of Blue recording of “So What,” the

performers, especially Adderley and Coltrane, freely alter other scale degrees in ways

that suggest the technique of tonicization and the outlining of superimposed chord

progressions. In addition to the variety of chromaticized scale degrees that often

occur simultaneously, there is also a high degree of displacement, or stratification,

between parts even when the different players are utilizing the same set of pitches.

Vertical events often do not line up into easily parsed units such as triads or seventh

chords. In the absence of functional harmonic cadences in all parts, pitch

coordination between the performers’ simultaneous lines and chords seems to take

place on a more linear basis in relation to the tonic triad. Nevertheless, there are

points of strong coordination where all the performers seem to express the tonic triad

at about the same time.

Whereas the preceding examples show how stratification is crucial to

understanding tonal relationships in modal jazz, Examples 1.10 and 1.11 further

indicate that stratification is actually important to other jazz repertoires as well. They

demonstrate that in seeking to integrate multiple lines into a meaningful account of a

modal tune’s pitch relationships, we must be flexible in order to account for important

subtleties in the music. At the same time, it is also clear that there is a point beyond

which we likely will have jettison an analytical approach that seeks to vertically

integrate all lines at every structural level.

17Miles Davis, “So What.” In Person: Saturday Night At The Blackhawk (Columbia CK44425, 1961).

57

The analysis of middleground levels in a tune like “So What” proves to be

very problematic. While it is relatively easy to analyze and describe surface features

of the tune, in both the foreground (by examining the interaction of the performances

with one another) and also to relate the foreground pitches to the background (by

evaluating them in terms of the tonic triad), it is not at all clear how to make

observations about intermediate structural levels for all instruments simultaneously.

Each instrument’s line can be analyzed in this way with little difficulty, but

coordination at the middleground and higher levels proves to be more elusive. It is in

this tonal space that the elements of stratification stand out in high relief, and leads us

to the conclusion that the primary coordinating element in “So What” is the

background level, and that not just the foreground, but also the middleground

structural levels are in fact being improvised by the performers.

58

Part I


Chapter 2

Tonal Processes in Tonal Jazz

As we saw in Chapter 1, stratification is crucial to both tonal and modal jazz,

and each style addresses this issue differently. However, this is not the only

difference between the two repertoires and at this point it is important to enumerate

and perhaps clarify many of the properties that are essential to both. This chapter

summarizes some of the tonal properties of standards-based jazz, and contrast them

with those of modal jazz in an attempt to further delineate the stylistic boundaries of

the latter repertoire even more precisely.

The chapter starts by considering several recent scholars’ discussions of tonal

and modal jazz. Generally speaking, recent theoretical writings on jazz have fallen

into one of two camps: those that discuss the role of motives and those that examine a

piece’s tonal processes. There are many good examples of both analytical agendas in

the realm of tonal jazz, but thus far, discussions of modal jazz have typically focused

on the “lick”-based emphasis of the former.1 This chapter also examines how recent

1 Influential writings that illuminate motivic connections in tonal jazz include: Gunther

Schuller, “Sonny Rollins and the Challenge of Thematic Improvisation.” in Musings. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); and Thomas Owens, “Charlie Parker: Techniques of Improvisation” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1974). Investigations of modal jazz that have forwarded a similar analytical agenda include: Barry Kernfeld, “Adderley, Coltrane, and Davis.” and "Two Coltranes." Annual Review of Jazz Studies 2 (1983): 7-66; Jeff Pressing, “Pitch Class Set Structures in Contemporary Jazz,” JazzForschung/Jazz Research 14 (1982): 133-172; and Keith

59

scholars have attempted to incorporate Schenkerian methods in the analysis of tonal

jazz.2 As we shall see, many of the tonal properties illuminated by Schenker’s

techniques in tonal jazz have either direct or indirect analogues in modal jazz.

As a point of departure, it is helpful to restate one of the important

conclusions of Chapter 1: namely, in tonal jazz individual parts tend to coordinate at

the structural level of the foreground harmonic progression whereas in modal jazz,

the parts tend to coordinate at the deep middleground or even background levels.

During the course of this chapter, we will refine this conclusion by adding new

elements into the mix.

Let us begin by elucidating some of the tonal properties of standards-based

jazz. Many of these elements are identical to those found in Common-Practice

Tonality, though some may require a certain amount of flexibility in their

interpretation. Chief among these are: Voice-Leading Rules, Harmonic Function,

Root Motion by Fifth, Substitution Compound Melody, Melodic Closure at Cadences.

One of the hallmarks of tonal jazz is a voice-leading model that is based on a

preference for stepwise motion in the upper voices, and descending fifth-related root

motion, usually in the bass. Dissonant tones carry with them the implication of

resolution, though this can be frustrated or diverted in several different ways. Among

Waters, “Introducing Pitch-Class Sets in the Music of Coltrane and Harbison,” GAMUT 9 (1999): 83-90.

2 A representative list of these efforts includes: Steven Strunk, “The Harmony of Early Bop: A Layered Approach” Journal of Jazz Studies 6/1 (1979): 4-53, “Bebop Melodic Lines: Tonal Characteristics” Annual Review of Jazz Studies 3 (1985): 97-120, and “Linear Intervallic Patterns in Jazz Repertory” Annual Review of Jazz Studies 4 (1988): 63-115; Henry Martin, “Jazz Harmony: A Syntactic Background” Annual Review of Jazz Studies 4 (1988): 9-30, and Charlie Parker and Thematic Improvisation (1996); and Steven Larson, “Schenkerian Analysis of Modern Jazz: Questions about Method,” Music Theory Spectrum 20/2 (1998): 209-241.

60

these are: registral shifts, and the simultaneous presence of a dissonant tone and its

resolution, what jazz scholars refer to as “tensions.”

To the extent that voice-leading is explicitly addressed in jazz pedagogy, it is

usually presented as a set of rules governing so-called guide tones. These pitches are

analogous to what Common-Practice Theory calls “tendency tones;” notes that carry

with them the implication of stepwise resolution. The principle of guide tones is most

easily seen in the context of cadential patterns such as the ubiquitous ii7-V7-I

progression. Figure 2.1 illustrates such a pattern in the key of C, with the guide tones

filled in.

Figure 2.1: Guide Tones in a ii-V-I Progression in C major

This example places the guide tones in the upper two voices of a four-voice

texture. In the first chord, Dmi7, the guide tones are C and F, the seventh and third of

the chord respectively. These pitches resolve to the guide tones of the next chord,

G7. Here they are B and F. In the case of the upper voice, the seventh of the first

chord has resolved down by step to the third of the second chord. The inner voice F

is a common tone and remains stationary. As the second chord, G7, resolves to I, a C

major triad, the chordal seventh, F, resolves down by step while the leading tone B

resolves up to ^1, C. Generally speaking, guide tones are the third and seventh of any

61

chord. This tendency is most closely adhered to at cadences where there is root

motion by fifth. In longer phrases, however, there can be exceptions to this “rule of

thumb.”

Figure 2.2 shows a longer string of guide tones, based on the chord

progression from the last phrase of the Errol Garner composition “Misty,” in the key

of Eb major.

Figure 2.2: Guide Tones in the Last Phrase of Erroll Garner’s “Misty” (1954)

This example illustrates many other elements that are common to tonal jazz. The first

is the use of tonicizing ii-V progressions and the resulting root motion by fifth that

accompanies them. There are three ii-V progressions in this passage: Bbmi7-Eb7,

Abmi7-Db7, and the phrase cadence Fmi7-Bb7. The first and last of these patterns

resolve to the expected tonic chord, Abmaj7 and Eb6, respectively. Meanwhile, the

middle tonicization resolves deceptively to Ebmaj7 rather than the expected Gb

chord. Had it resolved to the latter chord the guide tone pitches would have been Bb

in the upper voice and F would have held over from the Db7 chord in the middle

voice (the third and fifth of a Gbmaj7 chord). With the resolution to the global tonic

chord, Ebmaj7, the middle voice moves by step to the pitch Eb instead.

Figure 2.2 illustrates a number of other interesting patterns. The first is the

tendency of the third and seventh of chords to exchange roles as one chord moves to

62

the next. The only time this does not happen is at the aforementioned tonicization

that resolves deceptively, Db7-Ebmaj7. Another crucial element that is related to this

is the descending fifth-related root motion that pervades the passage. Especially

important is the chain of descending fifth-related harmonies at the end of the

phrase—vi-ii-V-I—that brings a sense of global cadential closure. Given the

frequency of tonicizing ii-V patterns in this and in other phrases, the extension of the

chain of chords in fifths serves as a cue that this is the authentic cadence that will

bring the phrase (and the composition) to a close.

From Figure 2.2 we can see that guide tones essentially work the same way in

a longer passage as they do in a short cadential progression. This is especially true in

phrases that feature tonicizing ii-V’s with root motion by descending fifth. It is

important however to note that even when this is not the case, as is true for “Misty,”

there is a preference for smooth melodic motion, by (mostly) descending step,

common-tone, or chromatic inflection of a common-tone. Throughout Figure 2.2 the

smooth character of the upper two melodic lines is preserved, even when the pattern

of utilizing chordal thirds and sevenths must be broken. And yet, when this pattern is

broken as the Db7 chord resolves to Ebmaj7, it resumes immediately and only ceases

at the phrase’s end as ^4 resolves to ^3 and the leading tone ^7 resolves up to ^1, just

as in a traditional Common-Practice cadence.

63

These two simple examples indicate that guide tones present a set of voice-

leading imperatives for upper voices in tonal jazz. These may be summarized as

follows:

1. Upper voices tend to move by common-tone and stepwise motion.

2. Chordal sevenths tend to resolve downward. 3. Leading tones either resolve upward or remain as a common

tone into the following harmony. 4. At cadences pitches tend to converge on either tonic, or the

members of the tonic triad. This is especially true at the ends of phrases

5. Parallel perfect octaves and fifths are avoided or at least minimized.

6. Lines controlled by guide tones generally descend.

That being said, there are important differences between this model and actual

jazz practice that are important to recognize. First, although Figures 2.1 and 2.2 use a

consistent number of voices throughout, this is not necessarily the case when

considering ensemble performances, or even solo performances on polyphonic

instruments such as piano and guitar. In the chord voicings a performer chooses, the

number of pitches sounding at any given time can fluctuate considerably. Secondly,

the chords in each example are not idiomatic jazz chord voicings. An authentic

performance would likely include more voices and more so-called “upper

extensions”—ninths, elevenths, and thirteenths—as well as chromatically altered

chord tones such as raised and lowered fifths, ninths elevenths and thirteenths.

In other words, the models described above do not transcribe actual jazz

performances, but rather illustrate the voice-leading tendencies that guide chord

construction and melodic improvisation in tonal jazz. Guide tone rules are a de facto

64

theory of tonal voice-leading in jazz, one that shares much with traditional accounts

of the Common-Practice repertoire. The guide tone rules provide a conceptual “grid”

that underlies much of tonal jazz’s compositions and improvisational practice. The

models presented above describe how some, but not all voices behave in tonal jazz.

Since these voices conform to a robust model of melodic behavior, we can consider

their tendencies to form a prototype of essential voice leading.

Implicit in the concept of guide tones is the idea that individual lines are

subject to the same types of contrapuntal rules and tendencies that are used to

describe the interactions of multiple lines. In effect, improvised solos in the bop

repertoire are most fruitfully seen as examples of what tonal theorists often refer to as

compound or polyphonic melodies; that they create a monophonic line by switching

between two or more essential voices. In his treatise on the improvisational style of

Charlie Parker, Henry Martin cogently describes how a single melody can effectively

project multiple implied lines.3 Figure 2.3 shows Martin’s voice-leading analysis of

an excerpt from Parker’ solo on the tune “Shaw ‘Nuff.”

3 Martin (1996): 14-20.

65

Figure 2.3: Martin’s Analysis of an Excerpt of Parker’s Solo on “Shaw ‘Nuff”

Parker’s original melody appears on the lowest of the three staves, while Martin’s

analysis of the underlying counterpoint appears on the upper two. The topmost staff

is a middleground reduction, while the middle staff tracks Martin’s description of the

implied multiple lines that connect in the passage. It is clear from Figure 2.3 that

Martin regards Parker’s solo as a projection of at least three contrapuntal streams.

The three melodies result in a harmonic motion from I to IV and then back. The two

upper lines perform a neighboring function: F moves to G in the top voice before

returning, D moves to Eb then back to D in the middle voice. The lower voice effects

a tonicization of the IV chord, moving from Bb to Ab to G before returning to Bb.

The net result is a progression that, if described utilizing traditional Roman Numeral

analysis, reads as I, V4/2 of IV, IV, I.

66

Martin points out that Parker deftly employs displacement to make his improvisation

more interesting.

The interpretation of the G4 on the fourth beat of m. 1 is ambiguous and shows the subtlety with which Parker reinforces the large-scale neighbor motion. For within the context of a Bb7 chord, one might at first read the G4 as a simple appoggiatura to the more stable chord tone F4. Yet three factors suggest that the G4 can also be read as a large-scale upper neighbor connecting back to the F4 as the pick-up to m. 1: the speed of the excerpt, the analogous position of G4-Eb4 with the F4-D4 third beginning the phrase, and the accent on the G4 itself. The motion to the Eb harmony of m.2 is thus anticipated (syncopated) by a beat…”4

Figure 2.4 shows Martin’s separation of Parker’s solo into four distinct “parts.”5

Figure 2.4: Martin’s Separation of Parker’s Solo Into Four “Parts”

What this example makes clear is that there is essentially a pedal Bb as a “tenor

voice” in the four-part texture. Over the course of the passage, this pitch is

embellished by double neighbor motion, as it moves chromatically to C, then A, then

back to Bb, and later by upper neighbor motion as it moves to C then returns. This is

an especially subtle reading of the passage’s voice-leading, since a seemingly more

4 Ibid: 18. 5 Ibid: 19.

67

obvious option is also available. In the lower register of Parker’s compound melody,

Martin sees the Ab in measure 2 (the excerpt begins with a pickup to measure 2) as

ultimately resolving to G on beat four in measure 3. However, in-between these two

pitches lies an A natural in the same register. By making the claim that there are four

voices instead of three, Martin is able to assign the A natural to the inner voice Bb

“tenor voice” as part of a double neighbor, and thus preserve the integrity of the

lowest voice as it moves from Bb to Ab to G. An important part of what informs this

reading is an implicit understanding of the guide tone rules that we examined above.

Consider that the guide tones in the Bb7 chord are D and Ab, the third and seventh

respectively. Also consider that the Bb7 is functioning as a local Dominant chord,

tonicizing the IV harmony, Eb. In this context, the expected resolution of these two

pitches is that the D moves to Eb and Ab moves to G. Figure 2.5 illustrates this point.

Figure 2.5: Guide Tone Resolution in the Excerpt from Parker’s Solo on “Shaw Nuff”

Also informing Martin’s analysis is the fact that the chord changes are

supplied “in advance.” Because of this it is understandable that any analytical

reading would likely privilege voice-leading that emphasizes important chord tones.

In this case, the guide tones resolve to the root and third of the subsequent Eb chord,

thus reinforcing the pre-supplied chord progression. But, while Martin’s account of

68

this passage is quite persuasive, it is by no means the only plausible interpretation, as

Martin is the first to admit: “It is an analytical judgment just how to separate the

voices—when lines begin, end and merge—but this is itself a hallmark of a

sophisticated contrapuntal style, which can resist too much codification.”6 Martin

refers to Parker’s “sophisticated contrapuntal style” as a “complex” of voice leading,

and it is in that spirit that I offer a parallel and complimentary reading of this passage,

one that builds on Martin’s methods and further illuminates the truly amazing

network of voice-leading implications in just this short excerpt of Parker’s playing.7

If we consider Parker’s use of guide tones, certain other tonal properties come

to the fore, ones that suggest other important relationships between Parker’s line(s)

and the underlying chord progression. Martin’s analysis highlights the fact that

Parker’s improvisation relies heavily on rhythmic displacement for a sense of

“rhythmic drive and propulsion,” as, for example, in the anticipation of the upcoming

chord tone G in m. 1, and the postponed resolution of the lower voice Ab-G motion in

m.8 If anything, Martin understates the degree of complexity and subtlety in Parker’s

improvisation.

Let us return to the A natural found in m. 2. Martin rightly interprets this as

part of a middle voice, and functioning as part of a double neighbor embellishment of

Bb. However, consider that this pitch comes in close temporal proximity to an “alto

voice” Eb. This tritone is suggestive of the guide tones that would resolve to a Bb

6 Ibid: 19. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid: 20.

69

chord. In fact, the A can be seen as functioning as a leading tone to Bb. Martin’s

reading is that the Eb eventually resolves to D in m. 3. However, perhaps we can see

the Eb in measure 2 as having a conceptual resolution to D at an earlier point, as

Figure 2.6 illustrates.

Figure 2.6: Resolution of Guide Tones in m. 2 of Excerpt from Parker’s Solo on “Shaw Nuff”

As we discuss the issue of compound melody in jazz improvisation, especially

in regards to guide tones, we must remember that the implied lines will not always be

complete all of the time: here may be “gaps” in a particular implied line where the

performer has “abandoned” that contrapuntal stream momentarily to concentrate on

one of the other implied voices. The example from “Shaw Nuff” is remarkable

precisely because all of the lines eventually get “picked back up,” and Martin’s

analysis emphasizes this feature of Parker’s style. Nevertheless, it is entirely

reasonable to expect that other performers may or may not exhibit the same attention

to the integrity of each projected line. In cases where this high level of integration is

absent, we must be prepared to account for “dangling” guide tones. Returning to

Figure 2.6, the implied resolution of Eb-D is potentially just such a “dangler.”

A crucial question that arises in the examination of Eb and A natural at the

beginning of m. 2 is whether we should consider them as guide tones at all. As

70

mentioned earlier, the most common forms of guide tone generally are the third and

seventh of a chord. In this particular case, the tritone Eb/A would suggest an F7

sonority, V of Bb. However, the chord symbols for this excerpt do not include this

harmony anywhere in the progression. Without the root F, can we properly interpret

the Eb and A natural as guide tones? The answer is a qualified “yes.” At a more

foreground level, perhaps we can see this melodic as a tonicization of Bb. Consider

that Parker’s melody would, in fact, work over a hypothetical Bb7-Eb-F7-Bb

progression spanning the second half of m. 2 through the first half of m. 3. Figure 2.7

shows this possibility.

Figure 2.7: Parker’s “Shaw ‘Nuff” Line Superimposed Over a Hypothetical I-IV-V7-I Progression

71

Figure 2.8 shows the voice-leading for the above passage.

Figure 2.8: Voice-Leading in Figure 2.7

An important element of the voice-leading in Figure 2.8 is the claim that the G

in the second chord arises from a register transfer. Each of the two seventh chords

(Bb7 and F7) in the example have guide tones a tritone apart and dominant function;

they serve to tonicize the triads (Eb and Bb) that follow them. Of the four guide

tones, only one resolves in the expected way; the F7’s A resolves to Bb. In each of

the other three cases, the resolutions are more convoluted. The two resolutions in the

upper voice are implied; D does not literally resolve to Eb as Bb7 goes to the Eb triad,

and the pitch Eb in the F7 chord never literally moves to D. Most interestingly, the

seventh of the Bb7 chord, Ab, can be seen to resolve via register transfer to G in the

highest voice. This line then returns to its initial range as it moves to A natural. The

idea of register transfer is a crucial one in the analysis of multiple lines; melodic

strands that are seemingly left “dangling” may in fact be picked up in a different

octave.

This reading of the passage demonstrates that there is more to Parker’s solo

than Martin’s analysis discusses. Moreover, it points out that we need not necessarily

be restricted to the preset chord progression of a tune when making evaluations about

72

its voice-leading. This reading shows how Parker may be implying a Tonic-

PreDominant-Dominant-Tonic progression in his solo even while the underlying

chord progression seems to be more of a plagal motion. This is actually not a very

surprising observation. Analysts of Parker’s improvisational style have often focused

on his use of preset melodic patterns or “licks.” 9 Here the fact that he utilizes a lick

that works convincingly over two different types of cadential patterns (authentic and

plagal) serves to underscore not only the richness of tonal possibilities that can be

found in his music, but also the compositional ingenuity of developing “dual-use”

melodic patterns.

Moreover, if we delve more deeply into the pitch choices Parker employs we

can see a couple of different ways that he employs guide tones and their resolutions in

ways that support multiple interpretations. Taking another look at the Eb-A tritone

(and its implied resolution to the pitch pair D-Bb) we saw in Figure 2.6, we find that

the expected upper voice resolution may not have been left “dangling” after all. If we

respell the C# found on the third beat of measure 3 as a Db, then a different and more

interesting picture emerges. This possibility is shown in Figure 2.9.

Figure 2.9: Enharmonic Respelling of C# as Db in m. 3 of Parker “Shaw Nuff” Excerpt

9 Thomas Owens, Bebop: The Music and Its Players (New York: Oxford University Press,

1995): 30-34.

73

The respelling of C# as Db reveals that the tritone Parker projects in the upper

voices of his solo actually does resolve in the usual manner, but that the expected D

natural has been transformed via modal mixture. Martin’s transcription of this pitch

as C# casts it in the role of a chromatic passing tone that serves to tonicize the

delayed arrival of D natural in m. 4 (see Figure 2.4). At the same time, the respelled

Db in m.3 shows us how Parker is perhaps superimposing dominant function into this

part of the chord progression.

Respelling the C# in m. 3 as Db also introduces another very interesting

wrinkle into Parker’s use of guide tones. Although Figure 2.9 shows implied bass

pitches that support the progression V7-i in Bb, none of these tones actually appears

at foreground. Instead, the real progression is Eb-E07, or IV-#iv07. The latter chord

is perhaps best understood linearly. It does not serve to tonicize V, as fully

diminished seventh chords built on raised ^4 often do. Rather, it functions as a

deceptive resolution, one that anticipates the upcoming arrival on I in m. 4. Figure

2.10 shows an upper-voice realization (along with chord roots in parentheses) of the

passage’s progression as outlined by the chord symbols.

Figure 2.10: Voice-Leading Realization of mm. 2-4 in “Shaw ‘Nuff” Excerpt

74

In this example we can more clearly how the E07 chord serves as a bridge that

connects IV to I. The inner voices retain two common-tones with the previous Eb

chord, G and Bb, adn two common-tones with the upcoming Bb harmony. As

mentioned above, one of these pitches is enharmonically inflected; Db becomes D

natural at the arrival of the Bb chord. In the other two voices, we see smooth contrary

motion: a stepwise descent from G to F in the lowest voice, and a chromatic ascent

from Eb-E natural-F in the upper. Spelling the pitch on beat three in m. 3 as Db is

consistent with the normative spelling of an E07 sonority, and serves to illustrate more

clearly how the Eb in the previous chord resolves downward to it. But, this reading

clearly challenges Martin’s claim that the C# tonicizes D.

Spelling this note as a Db also highlights the notion that it is the chordal

seventh of the E07 harmony. As such, its normal tendency would be to resolve

downward by step. As shown in Figure 2.10, this is not the case. Looking back at the

transcription of the solo in Figure 2.3, it is clear that a C natural (the pitch to which

the chordal seventh Db would normally resolve) does in fact appear at the downbeat

of m. 4. Martin’s analysis considers this note to be an accented neighboring tone in

the third lowest voice (see Figure 2.4). But, if the guide tones in the E07 are resolved

normally, then a different picture is implied, as shown in Figure 2.11.

75

Figure 2.11: Implied Resolution of E07 chord in mm. 3-4 of “Shaw ‘Nuff” Excerpt

This reading falls more in line with the traditional function of this chord as a vii07/V.

As explained above, that is certainly not what is happening in this passage, but

Parker’s choice to resolve the C#/Db to C at the downbeat of the next measure before

proceeding to D underscores once again the incredible fluidity of his improvisational

technique here. This may be another example of a “dual use” melodic pattern by

Parker, one that “works” both with tonicizing and common-tone diminished-seventh

chords, all while preserving a strong sense of four voices being projected with great

melodic fluency.

These alternate readings of Parker’s solo on “Shaw ‘Nuff” by no means

explain all of the complex tonal processes at work in this short excerpt, but they do

illustrate two vital analytical points. First, they show that in bop and other styles of

improvised jazz performers have a rich network of relationships—both implicit and

explicit—to exploit at any given moment in time. The second is that the idea of guide

tones can be of great utility when trying to unpack many of the tonal properties of this

repertoire. Figure 2.12 shows the implied guide tone lines in this passage.

76

Figure 2.12: Guide Tone Lines in Parker “Shaw ‘Nuff” Excerpt With the exception of the register transfer in the third dyad, a consistent two-voice

guide tone texture is maintained throughout, with only one note—the implied A

natural at the end in the lower voice—left “dangling.” Figure 2.13 is a registrally

normalized version of the guide tone lines.

Figure 2.13: Registrally Normalized Guide Tone Lines in Parker “Shaw ‘Nuff” Excerpt

The asterisks above every other dyad in the two-voice texture indicate guide tone

tritones that resolve to sixths or thirds in the subsequent dyad. In this example the

chord symbols have been removed to help illustrate the flexibility of Parker’s

improvisation. In the absences of any information to the contrary, the tritones and

their resolutions seem to imply a foreground progression from Dominant to Tonic:

Bb7-Eb, F7-Bbm, and E07-F would be plausible harmonizations of these pairs of

voices. But, this scenario does not conform exactly with the actual progression. One

explanation for this discrepancy is that that Parker was thinking of an alternate set of

chord changes. Another more powerful explanation is that Parker constructed his

77

melodic lines so that they can be convincing in multiple harmonic contexts. It may be

that Parker’s legendary harmonic facility owes much to his ingenuity in devising

“licks” that work over different sets of changes.

Figure 2.14 presents an alternate reading of the passage that not only differs

from Martin’s in some important ways but that also accentuates the remarkable

fluidity of Parker’s playing.

Figure 2.14: Alternate Graph of Parker’s “Shaw ‘Nuff” Excerpt

In this graph the upper voice descends from ^5 to ^3 over the course of the passage.

In Figure 2.3 Martin interpreted this section of the piece as essentially a static

composing-out of the Bb chord that began this section. In his reading the final F in

the top voice is implied. In contrast, Figure 2.14 suggests that the tonic harmony

,albeit in a modally attenuated form, is anticipated in m. 3 as the upper-voice Eb

resolves to Db and the lower-voice A moves up to Bb. Figure 2.15 is a graph that

normalizes the Db to D natural, and is thus a reduction of the overall voice-leading of

the passage.

78

Figure 2.15: Normalized Voice-Leading Graph of Parker’s “Shaw ‘Nuff” Excerpt mm. 2-4

Ultimately, the second half of the passage composes out the tonic harmony using the

same voice-leading pattern in the lower voices that was seen in the first half of the

passage.

Figure 2.15 also shows how Parker uses a cleverly disguised sequence that

descends by whole step to bridge the two halves of the passage. What is striking

about this is that the guide tones contained in the first harmony of each iteration of the

sequence suggest a chord that differs from the one indicated by the symbols. In

effect, Parker has subtly superimposed this sequential motion onto this section of the

progression.

Several important issues emerge from this reworking of Martin’s analysis of

Parker’s solo. First, Parker’s improvisations seem to resist a single analytical

interpretation; on the contrary, they often seem to call for multiple readings. Second,

guide tones and polyphonic melody play a central role in understanding the voice-

leading of improvised solos in tonal jazz. Finally, important melodic and harmonic

patterns need not necessarily be tied to the preset chord changes of a tune. This latter

observation has great potential for the analysis of modal jazz, whose compositions

79

most often to not have the same degree of predetermination (especially in terms of

preset chord symbols) that tonal jazz features.

One of the most well-known aspects of tonal jazz harmonic practice is the

technique of harmonic substitution. Basically, this technique replaces a given chord

with one that has a different root and/or quality in such a way that the overall chord

progression is still convincing and idiomatic. Harmonic substitution can occur in

many situations, but the most common is that of replacing a dominant harmony with a

chord whose root is a tritone away, so-called tritone substitution. Figure 2.16

illustrates such a substitution in the cadence pattern ii-V-I in the key of C.

Figure 2.16: Tritone Substitution in a ii-V-I Cadence in C Major

Figure 2.16 first shows the essential voice-leading for the standard resolution

of the ii-V-I. Then it shows a tritone substitution for the second chord: the G7 in the

first cadence is replaced by Db7 in the second. While the root of the substitute chord

is a tritone away from that of the original chord, the upper voice guide tones remain

the same although the pitches’ chordal roles reverse: the B, which had been the third

of the G7 chord, becomes the enharmonically respelled seventh of the Db7 chord and

the F, which had been the seventh of G7, becomes the third of Db7. In other words,

although the root movement of the two progressions is different, the upper voice

80

essential voice-leading is the same. Since the original and substitute chords have the

same quality and fulfill the same role in the cadence, they are regarded by many jazz

pedagogues as functionally equivalent. This observation lies at the heart of Steven

Strunk’s seminal article “The Harmony of Early Bop: A Layered Approach.”10 In this

work, he catalogs many of the harmonic elaborative techniques employed in tonal

jazz. Strunk’s work classifies the various strategies for reharmonization in jazz into

different categories that he calls substitution sets.11 Along with substitution, he

outlines two other types of elaborations: harmonic chord generators, and linear chord

generators. Substitution sets are chords that are grouped in terms of functional

equivalence; tonic, dominant, predominant, and Strunk posits that these chords can be

used interchangeably. Harmonic chord generators describe chords interpolated by

the performer that tonicize individual harmonies in a progression. Linear chord

generators describe chords that result from a combination of single-line elaborations

such as passing and neighbor tones. All three transformational operations can be

applied at any structural level, and their recursive application can result in highly

complex reharmonizations of standards and other types of tonal jazz.

In 1987 Steve Larson took Strunk’s work as a point of departure for

reconsidering the ways in which Schenkerian theory might be helpful in analyzing

jazz.12 His discussion focuses on several issues, such as the status of “extended”

10 Steven Strunk, “The Harmony of Early Bop: A Layered Approach,” Journal of Jazz Studies

6/1 (1979): 4-53. 11 Strunk (1979): 15. 12Larson (1987): Chapter 2, “Questions about Methodology,” contains Larson’s justification

for the use of Schenkerian methods on the bop and post-bop repertoire.

81

harmonies-sevenths, ninths, elevenths, and thirteenths, in jazz practice. While he

acknowledges that dissonances in jazz are not always treated in the same ways as

classical music, Larson insists that, as in classical music, dissonances in jazz are

ultimately melodic in origin and arise from passing motion, suspensions, and so

forth.13 He argues that the resolution of these kinds of dissonances in jazz is often

obscured by techniques such as register transfer or by eliding dissonant tones with

their resolution (either in the same or different register).

One aspect of jazz harmony that Larson finds particularly troubling is the

technique known as “planing:” Planing occurs when a particular chord voicing is

moved in wholly stepwise, parallel motion. Obviously, this kind of chordal motion

can result in parallel perfect intervals which are generally forbidden in strict

counterpoint. However, it is important to note that Schenker recognized and

described how strict counterpoint was transformed in tonal contexts. Moreover, he

explicitly addressed the issue of parallel fifths and octaves in “free composition.”14

Larson’s position is that essential contrapuntal lines are still present in these instances

and that surface parallelisms can be overlooked due to the nature of improvisation.

As support for this view, he cites the work of theorist Johannes Tinctoris. As I

described in Chapter 1, Tinctoris described the difference between written and

improvised counterpoint, claiming that in improvisation some of the requirements of

13 Ibid: 16. 14 Heinrich Schenker, “Octaven und Quinten u.a.,” aus dem Nachlass herausgegeben und

erläuert von Heinrich Schenker. Vienna: Universal Edition, 1933. Translated by Paul Mast as “Brahms’s Study, Oktaven und Quinten u.a., with Schenker’s Commentary Translated.” In The Music Forum. Vol. 2, edited by Felix Salzer. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980.

82

strict counterpoint, such as the avoidance of parallel perfect intervals, may be

relaxed.15 Larson also takes this view regarding so-called “coloristic” polychords—

where one triad is superimposed over another. These harmonic structures appear in

much modal jazz, often notated as “slash” chords-A/D, C/Bb, etc.

In his dissertation, Larson engages two issues that are crucial to jazz analysis.

The first is consonance and dissonance treatment and the second is parallel voice-

leading. In the case of the former, Larson’s analytical preference is to preserve a

traditional definition of consonance and dissonance inasmuch as is possible in the

jazz repertoire. He describes dissonances as being structurally subordinate to deeper

level consonances.16 In the case of the latter, his invocation of Tinctoris’

improvisational license is well-taken. His position regarding parallel motion directly

lines up with his explanation of consonance and dissonance treatment: there is an

essential voice-leading present at the middleground that maybe obscured, but is never

destroyed by parallelism. Ultimately, foreground complexities do not undermine the

essential role of these crucial elements of tonal harmony.

Although his work examines the bop and post-bop jazz repertoires, his claims

about consonance and dissonance and parallel voice-leading are applicable to modal

jazz as well. Though the harmonic progressions that drive much of tonal jazz’s

voice-leading are absent, there is still a sense of the composing-out of tonic

harmonies. Though modal jazz is replete with parallelisms on the surface, essential

lines of counterpoint are still present at the middleground.

15 Tinctoris (1477): 19. 16 Larson (1987): 20.

83

There is an extent to which scale-based descriptions of jazz (not just modal

jazz) can be reconciled with Schenkerian methodology. Schenkerian theory, with its

analytical emphasis on counterpoint, structural levels, motivic connections, and

describing tonal processes in terms of prolongation of tonic harmony, seems uniquely

situated to address the modal jazz repertoire. Where tonal jazz is driven by functional

progressions, modal jazz seems to emphasize a more linear basis for its construction.

Furthermore, tonal jazz, particularly bop, emphasizes a tight harmonic integration

between the soloist and the underlying accompaniment. Modal jazz, on the other

hand, favors a looser coordination, which I describe as stratification, between each of

the players’ expression of the local key center. The work of theorists such as Strunk,

Martin, and Larson provide us with important observations about tonal jazz, and these

insights may be able to be extended to accounts of modal jazz.

Toward this end I advance the idea of a pedal-based description of tonal

processes in modal jazz.17 This is an attractive model in a number of ways. First, it

can be shown that at the deep middleground, the voice-leading of sequences typical of

tonal jazz harmonic progressions reduce to linear intervallic patterns over a pedal.

Figure 2.17 presents a descending-fifth sequence of diatonic seventh chords.

Segments of this type of sequence make up a large part of the harmonic syntax of

tonal jazz.18

17 This account is an extension of Matthew Brown’s discussion of the relationship between

sequences and pedals in: Brown (2005): 103-117. 18Henry Martin discusses this in "Jazz Harmony: A Syntactic Background." Annual Review

of Jazz Studies 4 (1988): 9-30. There he posits a model of a sequence of fifth-related secondary dominants as a syntactic background to tonal jazz.

84

Figure 2.17: Descending-Fifth Sequence of Diatonic Seventh Chords

As can be seen from the two-layered roman numeral analysis, the sequence as

a whole is a composing-out of tonic harmony. Figures 2.18 and 2.19 parse the four

upper voices into pairs of thirds. Figure 2.18 shows the highest two voices, Figure

2.19, the lower pair.

Figure 2.18: Upper Two Voices of Descending-Fifth Sequence (After Brown, Explaining Tonality Figs. 3.3, 3.6, 3.8)19

Figure 2.19: Lower Two Voices of Descending-Fifth Sequence (After Brown, Explaining Tonality Figs. 3.3, 3.6, 3.8)20

This parsing of the sequence illuminates an interesting aspect of its voice-

leading. Throughout the sequence, the third dyads remain invariant between adjacent

19 Brown (2005): 105, 109, 112. 20 Ibid.

85

pairs of chords (I have indicated this with ties), but are harmonically recontextualized

in the second chord of each of these pairs. They move from being consonant

members of the triad in the first chord to containing the dissonant chordal seventh in

the second. In traditional jazz harmony such sevenths are ubiquitous, so these dyads’

relative dissonance in relation to the prevailing stylistic norms should not be

overstated. However, just as in common practice voice-leading, the chordal seventh

in jazz does carry the implication of a downward resolution by step, whether this is

actually realized or not. Even the I7 sonority, while often considered a point of tonal

repose by jazz practitioners, can be seen as possessing the implication of a delayed or

frustrated resolution of its seventh.21 Thus, the third dyads shown in the sequence can

be said to be transformed from a stable entity, to one that at least implies the need for

motion, whether or not this implication is realized in the foreground.

As mentioned previously, the sequence as a whole can be seen as a

prolongation of tonic harmony. So, at a middleground level, this sequential passage

basically reduces to a filled-in arpeggiation where the initial tonic voicing is

reordered by the end of the sequence. Figure 2.20 shows this reduction.

21Steven Strunk considers this case in: Strunk (1985): 97-120. There, he posits that the I triad

with an added sixth is actually the normative tonic sonority, and that chordal seventh in I7 carries the implication of downward stepwise resolution of the dissonant seventh to the sixth, a consonance with the bass. (Strunk, 99) So, even though the sixth forms a dissonant clash with the fifth of the triad, all members of this sonority are consonant with its root. Larson cites this article extensively in the discussion of jazz voice-leading in his dissertation, but further comments that implied resolutions can often be frustrated in jazz. Even if one is not inclined to wholly accept Strunk’s explanation of the I harmony in jazz, what is germane to the discussion at hand is that chordal sevenths in jazz sequences tend to resolve in a manner that is consistent with descriptions of the voice-leading of Common-Practice music.

86

Figure 2.20: Arpeggiation in Descending-Fifth Sequence

The middle chord in this reduction does not actually exist on the surface of the

music; rather, it is a construction that reorients “displaced” triad members from

adjacent foreground chords. At an even deeper middleground level, we see that

Figures 2.18 and 2.19 can further be reduced to a simple linear progression over a

pedal. Figure 2.21 shows the upper pair of voices.

Figure 2.21: Combined Linear Progressions in Descending-Fifth Sequence

(After Brown, Explaining Tonality Figs. 3.3, 3.6, 3.8)22

The lower voice of the pair is the leading linear progression of a fourth-span,

while the upper voice is the dependent voice.23 Figure 2.22 shows a similar

construction in the lower two voices.

22 Brown (2005): 105, 109, 112. 23 Schenker discusses the combination of linear progressions in Pars. 221-229 of: Heinrich

Schenker, Der freie Satz. Vienna: Universal Edition, 1935. Translated and edited by Ernst Oster as Free Composition. New York and London: Longman, 1979: 78-82.

87

Figure 2.22: Combined Linear Progressions in Descending-Fifth Sequence (After Brown, Explaining Tonality Figs. 3.3, 3.6, 3.8)24

Here again, the lower voice of the pair is the leading voice of the linear

progression, though this time it forms a fifth-span, with the upper voice being the

dependent line. The primary line in this example picks up where the line in Figure

2.21 left off. The descent from ^1 to ^5 in Figure 2.21 is completed by the descent

from ^5 to ^1 in Figure 2.22.

The view of the descending-fifth sequence as being made up of linear

progressions, that is, contiguous scale segments, makes possible a reconciliation

between two seemingly opposed views of jazz tonality. Figures 2.17-2.22 illuminate

how scale-based and harmonic-based accounts of jazz tonality may in fact be flip

sides of the same coin. Functional harmonic progressions can be seen as being

instantiated in terms of scale segments in individual voices, while scales and dyads

can potentially be seen as suggesting harmonic progressions. This latter possibility,

the interpretation of scale-based material as harmonic entities, will be vital to my

analyses of the modal jazz repertoire. This reconciliation will help explain how scale-

based jazz pedagogical methods can still result in the development of convincing

improvisational practice in harmony-based repertoires.

24 Brown (2005): 105, 109, 112.

88

Another reason for the appeal of a pedal-based description of the modal jazz

repertoire is that historically, the term “pedal point” has been used to describe

moments of superimposition in Common-Practice tonal music, where two competing

harmonies co-exist. Example 2.1 provides a well-known excerpt from the last

measures of Fugue No. 2 from Book 1 of Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier.

Example 2.1: J.S. Bach, The Well-Tempered Clavier, Book 1, Fugue 2; mm. 29-31.

Superimposed over the tonic pedal, the top voices project two clear Tonic-

Predominant-Dominant-Tonic cadences. From the viewpoint of the foreground

harmony, the pitches of the dominant chords cannot be reconciled with the bass pitch.

This is not problematic, however, as each of the two strata is clearly perceived as

independent, yet well-formed.

Modal jazz is replete with extensions of this same concept, where a competing

harmony is projected against the prevailing tonal center. Example 2.2 shows such an

example in Miles Davis’ trumpet solo on “So What:”

89


Example 2.2: Davis’ Solo on “So What,” mm. 33-36

In this part of his improvisation, Davis projects a C major triad over top of the local

key center of D minor. The tension between these two harmonies is brought into high

relief by Chambers’ bass part. At the same moment Davis focuses his attention on

the members of the C triad, Chambers presents an ostinato figure built from the

members of the D minor triad. Evans’ comping in this passage is even more obscure–

he adopts a cluster voicing of pitches from the Dorian collection, planing this sonority

up and down by step. Again, we can see that there are three distinct strata, each

corresponding to the individual players’ choices as to how to interpret the mode.

Example 2.2 shows stratification through the use of superimposition.

Alternately, one could interpret Davis’ playing in this excerpt as an artful use

of the “upper extensions:” the seventh, ninth, and eleventh, of the local D minor

harmony. This view might explain these pitches in terms of delayed and octave

displaced resolutions. But it also gives rise to an important question regarding the

90

boundaries of superimposition. How does the analyst decide whether an alternate

harmony is being juxtaposed against the prevailing tonic, or the performer is merely

playing the “upper extensions” of a particular harmony? A discussion of this

boundary will be a crucial part of a more complete definition of superimposition, but

one of the key criteria for this distinction can be found in Larson’s discussion

(described above) of these harmonic constructions. According to him, these pitches

are melodic in origin, and thus are subject to the same kinds of constraints as

embellishing tones in Common-Practice music. Meanwhile, superimposition groups

a set of pitches into a chordal structure that is parallel to the local harmony. The

above example may be a good test of this boundary, since the pitches Davis plays, C,

E, and G, could conceivably be interpreted either way. In his A Chromatic Approach

to Jazz Harmony, Dave Leibman describes more clear-cut instances where pitches

projected are clearly outside the local harmony. In particular, he presents techniques

of “superimposition,” where an alternate harmony is projected against of the

prevailing chord, and “side-slipping,” where a tonal center a half-step away is

presented in opposition to the prevailing chord, as a way of adding complexity to

harmonically static pedals.25

Interpreting the harmonic structure of modal jazz in terms pedal tones also

provides a glimpse into what is perhaps the most crucial aesthetic principle of this

style. By avoiding the sorts of functional chord progressions found in earlier styles of

jazz, exponents of modal jazz are called upon to improvise not only melodic lines, but

25 David Liebman, A Chromatic Approach to Jazz Harmony and Melody (Rottenberg,

Germany: Advance Music, 1991): 17-29, 51.

91

also the “chord changes.” Thus, the deep middleground similarity between harmonic

sequences and linear progressions over a pedal is not merely an interesting analytical

artifact, but rather is an essential tool in evaluating each performer’s expression of the

local tonality, and how each of these realizations fits into the total musical

performance.

At first blush, this description may seem analogous to each performer merely

adding a “transparency” of his or her improvisation to those of the others, resulting in

an aggregate “projection” of a complex musical surface. Here, the middleground

pedal point is seemingly the single element of cohesion for the whole. However, in

this music, moments of interaction between the players –such as rhythmic call-and-

response, coordination of pitch material, repetition of important motives, etc.—are

brought to the forefront. Interplay between players is a strong priority in the

performance of all styles of jazz. In modal jazz, this aspect assumes an even more

critical role.

Having discussed at some length tonal processes in tonal and modal jazz, and

the role of stratification in each, it is now possible to summarize and compare their

stylistic properties in a more direct way. Tables 2.1-2.3 summarize Chapter 2’s

discussion of the characteristics of tonal jazz, modal jazz, and “hybrid” forms that can

exhibit elements of both. On the left, tonal jazz is characterized as “Functional Tonal

Chord Progression-Based.” On the right, modal jazz is described as “Pedal-Based.”

In the middle is the “Hybrid” category. This summary describes how three general

92

categories—composition, performance, and aesthetic priorities—are addressed in

these repertoires. Additionally, Table 2.3 offers some exemplars of each style.

Table 2.1: Compositional Properties of Functional Tonal, Hybrid, and Pedal-Based Jazz Styles

93

Table 2.2: Performance Properties of Functional Tonal, Hybrid,

and Pedal-Based Jazz Styles

Table 2.3: Aesthetic Priorities and Exemplars of Functional Tonal, Hybrid, and Pedal-Based Jazz Styles

94

Part I


Chapter 3

Chord-Scale Theory

Since its initial publication in 1953, George Russell’s Lydian Chromatic

Concept of Tonal Organization for Improvisation, for All Instruments has been a

highly influential work for jazz performers and jazz educators alike. Russell’s

approach to jazz tonality signaled a paradigm shift in our understanding of both

improvisation and composition. In the first area, his method offered a new way for

performers to construct melodies over traditional harmonic progressions. In the

second area, and perhaps more importantly, his system was closely associated with

the new style that became known as “modal jazz.” His methodology, if not his actual

method, has been widely adopted by jazz educators for its pedagogical merits, but

closer inspection reveals that his work also offers important insights into both tonal

and modal jazz. Since his treatise presents itself both as improvisational method and

analytical theory, this chapter considers Russell’s claims in both of these areas,

examining its pedagogical utility as well as its explanative value. The first part of the

chapter describes the general tenets of chord-scale theory and considers some of the

problems that arise in trying to explain tonal processes in terms of pitch collections.

The second part of the chapter considers some of the specifics of Russell’s theory,

and shows how his distinctions between different classifications of scalar collections

95

are a both a de facto theory of structural levels and a theory of style in jazz. The last

section tests Russell’s theory by applying it to the analysis of John Coltrane’s solo on

“So What.”

Basic Tenets of Chord-Scale Theory

Generally, chord-scale theory describes ways to map scalar collections onto

harmonic structures in such a way that no pitch in a scale contradicts the function of

an essential chord member. This way of describing the interaction of harmony and

melody essentially “compresses” both types of information into a single theoretical

construct: the scale. Figure 3.1 shows a single chord-scale mapping for a ii7-V7-Imaj7

progression in C major.1

Figure 3.1: Chord-Scale Mapping for ii7-V7-Imaj7 in C major

Although the string of sixteenth notes draws exclusively on the diatonic

collection on C, it can be grouped into 3 different scales—Dorian, Mixolydian, and

Ionian—each corresponding to the 3 essential harmonies, ii7, V7 and I.2 The

pedagogical advantage to such an approach is evident; students of jazz improvisation

are provided with a ready guide for choosing appropriate pitches for their solos. That

being said, chord-scale theory has been criticized aesthetically on the grounds that it

1 Ramon Ricker, New Concepts in Linear Improvisation: A Practice Method for All Instruments. Studio 224: (Lebanon, Indiana, 1977): 21.

2 Ibid.

96

largely ignores individual features of compositions in favor of developing a “cross-

platform” harmonic facility. In other words, if a student learns to negotiate a Dmi7

chord in one tune, then that player will be able to apply that knowledge to the same

chord in any context, regardless of its function in the piece. To make matters worse,

chord-scale theory is silent on questions of idiomatic performance practice within the

boundaries of different jazz styles. Unfortunately, what works in dixieland may not

work for bop or modal jazz. In chord-scale theory, there is a trade-off between

pedagogical utility and stylistic specificity.

The analytical value of chord-scale theory is also questionable. Describing

melodies merely in terms of pitch collections offers an overly reductive account of

other important processes in tonal music, especially voice-leading. This is because

chord-scale theory represents an alternative to conventional categories of consonance

and dissonance. In traditional tonal theory, these distinctions are defined in terms of

chord-tones and non-chord tones. Chord-scale theory, however, only considers tones

outside the local scalar collection to be dissonances. Foreground harmonies are

always assumed to be “tall chords” comprised of stacked thirds, and therefore any

scale tone that belongs to that harmony’s chord-scale can be seen as a chord member,

and thus as a consonance. Chord-scale theory’s loosening of the criteria for

consonance may seriously impede its ability to describe voice-leading, and

consequently, harmonic progressions, in a meaningful way.

97

There is also an inherent problem in attempting to describe tonal processes in

terms of pitch collections. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 bring this difficulty into high relief.

Figure 3.2 is a short four-voice C major chorale-style phrase.

Figure 3.2: Four-Voice Chorale-Style Phrase in C major

Figure 3.3 is the same phrase, but with a single alteration: the fourth pitch in the

bassline is changed from F-natural to F#.

Figure 3.3: Four-Voice Chorale-Style Phrase from Ex. 3.2, With F# in Bass

The melodic profiles of each voice in these phrases are nearly identical. Each

presents a scalar ascent in the bass from ^1 to ^5, at which point the cadence is

effected via a pattern typical of common-practice tonal music. The predominant

sonority in Figure 3.2 is a ii6/5, with F in the bass, whereas in Figure 3.3 it becomes a

secondary dominant—V6/5 of V—that tonicizes the upcoming V harmony. The

98

arrival of V is delayed by the interjection of a “cadential 6/4” sonority. In short, the

latter phrase is essentially a lightly chromaticized variant of the first.

Comparison of these two examples illustrates two ways in which tonal

processes are not adequately modeled by chord-scale theory. The first problem is that

pitch content is not necessarily a reliable indicator of tonal center. Both of these

phrases are clearly in the key of C major, but if one were to simply gather up the

pitches in the latter example one would end up with the pitches associated with the

key of G major, or perhaps the C Lydian collection.

Theorist Heinrich Schenker made a similar point in his analysis of the opening

of the third movement of Beethoven’s String Quartet in A Minor, op. 132 in his

Harmonielehre.3 In his discussion of the piece, he argued that the movement’s

supposed Lydian properties arose from tonicization, and were not actually in the

Lydian mode at all, Schenker was not convinced that scales could actually model

tonal systems, a view that Brown expands upon in his book Explaining Tonality.4

Perhaps even more important than their respective pitch content, Figures 3.2

and 3.3 both display analogous patterns of voice-leading. Even though the notes have

changed slightly, and the ostensible local harmonic function of the fourth chord has

changed from predominant to a tonicization of the dominant, the lines behave in

exactly the same way. Both phrases follow the same strict voice-leading rules: there

are no parallel fifths or octaves and the dissonant seventh in the fourth chord is

3 Heinrich Schenker, Harmonielehre. (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1906) Translated by

Elisabeth Mann Borgese as Harmony. ed. by Oswald Jonas (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954): 60-65.

4 Brown (2005): 140-170.

99

prepared and ultimately resolves down by step. Each converges on the tonic chord at

the end in a perfect authentic cadence. Since their identical voice-leading profiles are

analagous, these two phrases are, for all intents and purposes, the same. Chord-scale

theory as it was originally formulated by Russell did not engage the idea of voice-

leading, but more recent variants have made an attempt to correct this oversight, via a

concept called avoid notes.

Take, for example, the theories of Barrie Nettles and Richard Graf. Their

work brings an important element to the discussion, a distinction between tones in the

scale that can function as members of harmonies and ones that are “melodically

available” but harmonically unstable.5 These pitches are referred to as avoid notes.

Figure 3.4 shows the avoid notes for the D Dorian, G Mixolydian, and C Ionian

scales.

Figure 3.4: Avoid Notes for D Dorian, G Mixolydian, and C Ionian Scales

Graf and Nettles’ reformulation of “mode” in jazz is important for two

reasons. First and most obviously, it eliminates the possibility of harmonic

constructions where one pitch’s function in the chord contradicts another. For

example, in the Mixolydian scale, the third of the G7 chord, B, will not clash with the

“avoided” C, the eleventh of the chord. Second, it addresses local voice-leading. In

5 Richard Graf and Barrie Nettles, The Chord Scale Theory and Jazz Harmony. (Rottenburg,

Germany: Advance Music 1997): 17.

100

Figure 3.1 we saw that although there were ostensibly three different scales, they

were all from the C diatonic collection. The designation of certain tones as “avoid

notes” engages the idea that the function of a particular pitch changes as the

foreground harmonies change. Figures 3.5 and 3.6 show how this idea plays out in a

simple cadence pattern; ii-V-I in C major. The basic progression is shown in Figure

3.5.

Figure 3.5: Voice-Leading in a ii7-V7-Imaj7 Progression in C Major

Figure 3.6 then shows the appropriate chord-scales for each harmony, minus their

respective avoid notes. For each collection, the avoid note is one whose presence

would obscure the resolution of a crucial tendency tone. In this figure the slurs are

used to illustrate how the chord tones (indicated by open noteheads) move as one

chord moves to the next.

Figure 3.6: Chord-Scales for Dmi7-G7-Cmaj7 with Avoid Notes Omitted

For the Dmi7 chord, the B of the Dorian collection is omitted because its

inclusion would weaken the resolution of the seventh: C should resolve down by step

to B. Next, C is left out of the collection associated with G7 because its presence

101

would negate the pull of the leading-tone B. The B’s drive toward resolution is

actually frustrated as G7 moves to Cmaj7; it is retained as a common-tone. This type

of avoided resolution is common in the seventh-chord dominated textures of jazz and

certain types of popular music.

George Russell’s Lydian Chromatic Concept

Alhough the concept of avoid notes allows chord-scale theory to consider

voice-leading at the local level, it is still incapable of addressing longer-range or

global voice-leading. George Russell’s Lydian Chromatic Concept is a chord-scale

theory that features many elements that go beyond the simple mapping of pitch

collections to harmonies. Russell considers scales and chords to be essentially

equivalent entities; scales are merely ways of melodically expressing the quality of a

particular chord. He asserts that the Lydian scale forms a “unity,” a tonally stable

sonority that requires no further resolution. In the latest edition of The Lydian

Chromatic Concept, published in 2001, he eschews the term scale entirely, preferring

the locution “Chordmode.” One of The Lydian Chromatic Concept’s central claims is

that the Lydian scale is the best way to melodically express a major harmony. In

addition to Lydian, Russell offers a series of chromatically inflected scales, each of

which more or less preserves the fundamental quality of a major chord. Figure 3.7

shows the scales to be used with a Db major chord. These scales are arranged in a

graded order, from those most “closely-related” to Db major, to those more

102

“distantly-related.” Taken together, they form the aggregate, giving us the

“chromatic” component of “Lydian Chromatic.”6

Figure 3.7: Russell’s Lydian Chromatic Scales for a Db Major Chord

At the heart of Russell’s view of tonality is the idea of a single central pitch to

which all other pitch classes (in an equal-tempered system) relate, mostly along a

sequence of fifths. Figure 3.8 shows this arrangement over a “Lydian Tonic” of F.7

Figure 3.8: Russell’s Schematic of Tonal Relationships

6 Russell (1964): 4-5. 7 Russell (2001): 12.

103

The one anomaly in this array occurs at the seventh step, where the expected F#/Gb is

skipped in favor of C#. The sequence of fifths continues as before, the missing pitch

appearing at the end. Tonic is the lowest pitch of a stack of fifths, and thus, tonal

gravity flows downward by fifth, in terms of both relations between individual

pitches and in harmonic progressions. As shown in Figure 3.9, the Lydian scale,

formed by six fifths, can be parsed into two tetrachords that tonicize ^1 and ^5, thus

establishing this scale’s tonal stability.8

Figure 3.9: Russell’s Demonstration of “Lydian Tonic”

According to Russell, the major scale is inherently unstable because of the

pull of ^4 as a competing tonal center. Significantly, Russell’s schematic of tonal

distance given in Figure 3.8 is similar to the array of pitches in Hindemith’s Series 1.

Figure 3.10 shows that Series 1 also enumerates an ordered list of tonal relations to a

single pitch.9

8 Russell (2001): 5-6. 9Paul Hindemith, The Craft of Musical Composition: Book 1. (New York: Associated Music

Publishers, 1945): 96.

104

Figure 3.10: Hindemith’s Series 1

Like Hindemith, Russell believes that the interval of the fifth defines a chord’s

root most strongly, and that it plays the pivotal role in the definition of tonal centers

in pitch space. Figure 3.11 gives a famous instance from Hindemith’s Craft of

Musical Composition where he elucidates his theory of chordal roots based on fifths

and fourths.10

Figure 3.11: Hindemith’s Theory of Chord Roots Based on Fifths and Fourths

In an attempt to classify chord quality, Russell groups chords into what he

calls Harmonic Genres, essentially a taxonomy of chord quality using extended

tertian stacks as reference sonorities. Figure 3.12 shows the Harmonic Genre of a C

major chord.11

10 Hindemith (1945): 97. 11 Russell (2001): 26.

105

Figure 3.12: Russell’s C Major Harmonic Genre

At the leftmost part of the staff Russell presents the C Lydian collection as a

stack of thirds. He refers to the resulting Cmaj13 #11 chord as the Principal

Chordmode. This is the superset from which it is possible to derive the common

major chord formations, or Sub-Principal Chords, found in jazz. Russell derives

these sonorities on the right side of the staff. Russell’s Lydian Chromatic Concept

features four Harmonic Genres: major, minor, dominant 7th, and minor 7th b5 (or half-

diminished seventh). There are also variants to the Principal Chordmodes that

chromatically alter various scale degrees, but in a way that Russell claims does not

disrupt a chord’s essential quality. He calls this property Polymodality, the idea that

more than one scale can map to a particular Harmonic Genre.

Russell’s Lydian Chromatic Concept shares much with chord-scale theory, but

it also attempts to address some of the latter’s drawbacks, especially its inability to

engage tonal relationships beyond the span of individual harmonies. Russell attempts

to address this weakness by distinguishing between two types of chord-scale

relationships. He claims that some of the chord-scale collections he presents

correspond to individual chords in the foreground (Vertical scales), while others map

onto tonal centers that govern larger areas (Horizontal scales). He refers to these

tonal centers as Tonic Stations. According to Russell, the improviser is free to

106

construct melodies that correspond to Tonic Stations at virtually any time span

beyond that of an individual chord. With these different species of scalar collections,

Russell implicitly outlines a theory of structural levels. For him, a tune’s individual

chords are the foreground, the various Tonic Stations comprise middleground levels,

and the scale that corresponds to the key of the piece is considered to be the

background level.

In the most recent edition of the Lydian Chromatic Concept Russell posits

three structural levels where improvisation can take place. Figure 3.13 is a diagram

of what he calls the “River Trip” explanation of jazz tonality.12

12 Russell (2001): 56.

107

Figure 3.13: Russell’s “River Trip” Diagram of Structural Levels

In this illustration Russell identifies four different strata, along with players

whose styles he associates with each structural level. The surface of the music is

described as displaying Vertical Polymodality where “the choice of scales is

determined by the prevailing chord.”13 The next level is Horizontal, where the

intermediate tonal centers, or Tonic Stations, of Ab and C are what determine scale

choice. The top level Russell labels Supra-Vertical where the Ab tonal center of the

entire composition is what governs melodic improvisation.

13 Russell (1964): 22.

108

John Coltrane occupies a special position on this chart, placed in between the

Horizontal and Supra-Vertical levels. This may be a little visually misleading in that

Russell seems to be describing Coltrane’s style as operating at both the Vertical and

Horizontal levels. The Vertical quality of Coltrane’s style is shown in Russell’s

analysis of the first chorus of Coltrane’s tour-de-force solo on “Giant Steps.”14

Figure 3.14: Russell’s Analysis of mm. 1-16 of Coltrane’s “Giant Steps” Solo

As seen in Figure 3.14, Russell identifies the Lydian Chromatic scale Coltrane

chooses as he articulates each chord. This reading stands in stark contrast to Henry

Martin’s analysis of “Giant Steps,” which is driven by Horizontal improvisational

concerns, as shown in Figure 3.15.15

14 Russell (2001): 95. 15 Martin (1988): 23-25.

109

Figure 3.15: Martin’s Structural Level Analysis of “Giant Steps”

Martin identifies four distinct levels, the middle two of which could conceivably be

used to define the Tonic Stations of a Horizontal approach to soloing on this tune.

Russell’s description of chromaticism in improvised melody is also

diagrammed in Figure 3.13 using the terms Ingoing and Outgoing. As we saw in

Figure 3.7, Russell offers several Lydian Chromatic scales that are available to

110

express each Harmonic Genre. These scales are arranged along a continuum and are

described as having either Ingoing or Outgoing qualities, with the former term

representing the diatonic end of the spectrum which supports the tonic, and the latter

representing the chromatic, which tends to obscure or negate the tonic pitch.”16

Though it is true that many of the ideas in The Lydian Chromatic Concept blur

the distinction between stable and unstable pitches, Russell’s system nonetheless

classification uses that distinction to describe these two properties in a more general

way. Ingoing melodies can be seen as representing tonal stability while Outgoing

melodies represent tonal instability. By the same token, Vertical melodies coordinate

with tune’s foreground chords, while Horizontal melodies coordinate with harmonies

at the middleground or background. These concepts provide a means to evaluate

improvised performances in jazz, along two dialectical axes: Ingoing/Outgoing, and

Vertical/Horizontal. Russell’s terminology reflects the way that jazz musicians

themselves often describe this music: references to playing “inside” or “outside” (to

describe a melody’s chromaticism) and to “making the changes” (to describe a

melody’s coordination with the foreground chords) are an integral part of jazz lingo.

In this way, The Lydian Chromatic Concept can be seen as a theory of style in jazz.

In addition to offering a new pedagogical method for the study of

improvisation, The Lydian Chromatic Concept provided a foundation for the

emergence of modal jazz in the late 1950s. As mentioned in the Introduction, modal

jazz stands out for its relatively slow harmonic rhythm and its linear way of

16 Russell (2001): 141.

111

embellishing fundamental harmonies.17 Its harmonic syntax can perhaps be described

as a series of changes of “state,” where a tune’s chord changes are seen less as a

“progression” of chords that lead from one to the other and more as a “succession” of

static harmonies, each ostensibly associated with a scale or set of scales. Chord

function per se is either minimized or altogether absent. Russell was a key

contributor to this new style, collaborating as a composer and arranger with the likes

of: Bill Evans, John Coltrane, Gil Evans, and Miles Davis.

Russell’s Theory and John Coltrane’s “So What” Solo

Let us now use some of Russell’s ideas to analyze John Coltrane’s solo on “So

What.” According to Russell’s theory, scales for minor chords are generated by

rotating the parent Lydian Chromatic collection for a major chord so that it starts on

^6. Figure 3.7 showed the group of scales for use over a Dbmaj chord; Figure 3.16

rotates and transposes these collections so that they map to Dmi and Ebmi,

respectively.

17 Waters (2000): 53-55.

112

D minor:

Eb minor:

Figure 3.16: Lydian Chromatic Scales For Use Over

D minor and Eb minor Chords

113

This rotation generates two collections with unexpected anomalies; the “Auxilliary

Augmented” and “Blues” scales do not contain the corresponding chordal root (these

discrepancies are noted with exclamation points in Figure 3.16). Certainly, a more

likely “blues scale” for this context would certainly have to be the original rotation,

transposed to D or Eb.

One half of Russell’s stylistic framework is the distinction between Vertical

and Horizontal melodies. In the case of “So What,” it is initially difficult to see how

any kind of meaningful Vertical playing is possible; if there are no chord changes to

articulate, then Horizontal improvisation would seem to be the only option.

However, as shown in Chapter 1 (in Figure 1.4) there are indeed foreground

harmonies in “So What.” One of the most salient compositional features of this tune

is the famous “So What” plagal gesture that is the “response” to the bass melody’s

“call” in the head of the tune. In Chapter 1 we examined this figure (in Figure 1.2)

and its relationship to the 1958 recording of “Moanin’” by Art Blakey and the Jazz

Messengers (in Example 1.3). This gesture forms the basis for harmonic motion in

“So What,” providing a way of composing out D minor with chords that represent

motion away from and back toward tonic harmony. The D minor triad can be found

at the middleground levels, and a D pedal is the background.

Coltrane projects these chords at various times over the course of his solo. In

mm. 18-19 he clearly outlines this “So What” cadence over the B section’s tonal

center, Eb, as we can see in Figure 3.17.

114


Figure 3.17: The “So What” Gesture in mm. 18-19, 19-20, and 24 of Coltrane’s Solo

This example also illustrates chromatically embellished iterations of this lick,

in mm. 19-20 and m. 24, along with reductions of these short passages. Figure 3.18

shows Coltrane exploiting the same idea over the D minor key center of the A section

in m. 38 and mm. 43-44, along with their reduction. He returns to this figure ten times

over the course of his 64-bar solo.18

18 Kernfeld extensively Coltrane’s techniques of motivic development in “So What” and other

compositions in: Kernfeld (1981) and Kernfeld (1983).

115


Figure 3.18: The “So What” Gesture in. mm. 43-44 and 38 of Coltrane’s Solo

Chromaticism is one of the important tonal elements that Russell’s method

addresses. Measures 19-20 from Figure 3.17 present a highly embellished version of

the “So What” gesture in Coltrane’s solo. Figure 3.19 is an attempt at classifying

these melodic gestures in terms of the Eb Lydian Chromatic scales offered in Figure

3.16.

Figure 3.19: Melodic Gestures From mm. 19-20 of Coltrane’s Solo on “So What,” Classified In Terms of Russell’s Lydian Chromatic Scales

In this excerpt Coltrane primarily relies upon an (0124) lick, a local motive

that he transposes to different pitch levels. There is not a single Lydian Chromatic

scale that governs this passage; in fact, none of the tetra- and tri-chords that form this

line will fit neatly into any of the Eb Lydian Chromatic scales. However, these pitch

cells can be found in several scales that fall outside the orbit of Eb minor. Figure

116

3.20 shows the scales associated with each iteration of (0124), along with the four

scales where the (015) trichord can be found.

Figure 3.20: Lydian Chromatic Scale Segments That Correspond to the Gestures in mm. 19-20 of Coltrane’s Solo on “So What”

On this basis, the passage seems to be Outgoing, or tending to obscure the

tonal center. And yet, the chromatic pitches in this passage may be more fruitfully

interpreted as surface tonicizations of the tones of the Eb minor triad, a distinctly

more Ingoing reading. This view is illustrated in Figure 3.21.

Figure 3.21: Embellishment of the Tonic Triad in mm. 19-20 of Coltrane’s Solo on “So What”

An examination of the composing out of tonal centers of varying lengths

provides a general schematic of the ways Coltrane’s solo on “So What” moves

between Horizontal and Vertical orientations. As we saw earlier in Figure 3.18, he

first outlines the “So What” gesture in mm. 18-19, and returns to this idea nine more

times over the course of the rest of the solo. Significantly, he closes out the solo with

repetitions of this idea in mm. 62 and 64. We can see how Coltrane moves between

composing out longer time spans with scales that project the D or Eb minor tonal

117

centers and expressing the individual chords of the “So What” gesture. Table 3.1

gives an overview of how the solo moves between the two poles of Horizontal and

Vertical organization. This table illustrates how Coltrane utilizes the “So What”

gesture as a kind of idée fixe that he returns to again and again in his improvisation.

Chorus 1 A: Horizontal

mm. 1-8 A: Horizontal 9-16 B: Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Vertical 17 18-20 21-23 24 A: Horizontal 25-32

Chorus 2 A: Horizontal Vertical Horizontal 33-37 38 39-40 A: Horizontal Vertical Horizontal 41-42 43-46 47-48 B: Horizontal 49-56 A: Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Vertical 57-58 59 60-61 62 63 64

Table 3.1: Overview of Horizontal and Vertical Organization in Coltrane’s Solo on “So What”

Analysis of this and other solos using some of the ideas expressed in The

Lydian Chromatic Concept tells us some important things about improvisation in

modal jazz. Chief among these is how improvisers can focus on either local or global

tonal orientations, and move back and forth between them during the course of a solo.

Table 3.1 shows how Coltrane explores different structural levels—at times and for

durations of his own choosing—in his solo on “So What.” Russell’s conceptual

framework captures this aspect of Coltrane’s playing in a way that other theories do

not. Though The Lydian Chromatic Concept is intended primarily as a method for

118

jazz improvisation and composition, it has much to tell us about modal jazz style.

Russell’s signal achievement may well be his recognition and description of the

interplay between local and global elements in modal jazz improvisation.

119

Part II

Analytical Application

Chapter 4

Analysis of “So What”

Phrases in “So What”

When embarking on an analysis of “So What,” a good place to start is with

Paul Chambers’ bass part. Beginning with this melodic line helps to locate cadences,

and thus determine phrase lengths. In this context, cadence must be defined very

broadly as an arrival on scale ^1. Generally this happens in a metrically and often

hypermetrically “strong” position. Next, the task is to observe how similar gestures

in the solo melody and piano accompaniment line up with the bass’s cadences.

Observing the degree to which they coincide allows us to gauge the relative

coordination or stratification of the concurrent lines, a crucial stylistic determinant in

modal jazz.

Chambers’ playing in the A sections is generally quite straightforward and

articulates each phrase boundary with clear arrivals on ^1. This is no longer the case,

however, in the B sections. There his bassline is more tonally obscure, and even

seems to contradict the sense of tonic communicated by the other performers. As will

become clear later, Chambers’ performance illustrates yet another discrepancy

between the conventional account of “So What” and the actual performance of the

piece on Kind of Blue. Since Chambers does not express Eb as the central pitch in the

120

B section of the tune, there is reason to question whether the passage can legitimately

be regarded as a half-step transposition of the A section.

To begin, it is instructive to examine how the work’s phrase structure is

affected by that of the tune’s head. The two-bar repetitions of the melodic “calls” in

“So What,” along with their corresponding “responses,” set up various metric and

hypermetric expectations for arrivals on ^1. As shown in Figure 4.1, the nature of the

head is such that there are subdivisions in two, four, and eight bar groupings.

Figure 4.1: Regular Phrase Groupings Implied by the Head of “So What”

The tune arrives on ^1 at regular intervals of two, four, and eight bars. When

accompanying the soloists, Chambers’ walking basslines transform this underlying

model, sometimes fulfilling metric and hypermetric expectations, and sometimes

playing against them. The normative phrase length established by the head is two

bars long. In the case of Davis’ trumpet solo, Chambers initially adheres to the

original metric/hypermetric model, but, as shown in Example 4.1, he soon follows a

different path.

121


Example 4.1: Chambers’ Phrasing in Davis’ Solo, mm. 1-5

In m. 3 Chambers shortens his phrase to a single bar, thus putting the next

two-bar phrase “out of phase” with the prevailing two-bar hypermeter. Example 4.2

shows how he subsequently inserts another one-bar phrase in m. 8, thereby landing

correctly on D at the downbeat of m. 9. This point of arrival marks the beginning of

the second A section. Chambers then maintains the two-bar pattern for the remainder

of the A section.



For the most part, Chambers’ phrases express motion from the initial central

pitch to some sort of gesture that sets up the arrival of the next tonic. The prototype

for his two-bar phrase can be seen in the first two measures of Davis’ solo as shown

in Example 4.1. In a general sense the line consists of motion away from the central

122

pitch D, and a new arrival at D in m. 3. In m. 2 , however, this arrival has been

prepared by the pitch A, which is the dominant of D. Though he shortens his second

phrase to a single bar in m. 3, it still displays the same properties as the first one:

beginning on the central pitch D and ending with a gesture that sets up the next arrival

of D in m. 4, suggesting resolution from tonic to dominant. Here, the end of m.3

outlines clear V-i motion, with the pitches A and C# tonicizing the upcoming D.

Most of Chambers’ phrases reinforce this pattern, no matter their length. They

begin with a clear statement of ^1, and end with a gesture that sets up the next central

pitch. This is especially true in the A section where the tonic pitch of D is

unchallenged in his bassline. In the B sections of the piece, however, the central pitch

is not quite so clear-cut. Example 4.3 shows the first time Chambers walks through

the B section of the piece underneath Davis’ solo.


Example 4.3: Chambers’ Phrasing in Davis’ Solo mm. 17-20 (B section)

He begins in the expected way, with Eb at the downbeat of the section.

However, he seemingly becomes confused as to the tonality of this section and his

bassline becomes more obscure and seems to correspond more closely to a Db major

tonality rather than Eb minor. This is perhaps an easy mistake to make since the Db

major and Eb Dorian collections contain the same pitches. Moreover, upon hearing

123

the dense cluster chords that Bill Evans was playing at that moment, it is highly

possible that Chambers became uncertain that the central pitch was really supposed to

be Eb. By m. 21—the next four-bar segment of the section—it is clear that Chambers

is walking a Db major bassline rather than an Eb Dorian one. His apparent confusion

does not go unnoticed by Bill Evans. In mm. 21-22 of this section, Evans abandons

his impressionistic sustained piano chords and reverts to the “So What” gesture from

the tune’s head. It is as if he is trying to tell Chambers that this section really is in Eb.

Evans’ cue, however, seems to confuse Chambers even further, as he starts to walk in

D minor midway through m. 23. Perhaps he thought that Evans was signaling the end

of the B section. In any event, Chambers apparently makes the decision that the B

section’s tonal center is Db major, and his basslines reflect this choice throughout the

rest of the solos.


Example 4.4: Chambers’ Phrasing in Davis’ Solo mm. 21-24 (B Section)

Since the tonal center in the B section is obscured by the discrepancy between

Eb Dorian and Db major, it is difficult to parse mm. 17-20 of Chambers’ line into

coherent phrases. However, Chambers settles on Db as the second half of this section

(mm. 21-24): from this point forward, every arrival on Db in the bassline seems to

124

serve a conventional cadential function analogous to the arrivals on D in the A

section. Example 4.4 shows a phrase one and a half measures long in mm. 21-22 and

then a longer two and a half-measure phrase from mm. 21-24, which leads back to the

closing A section of this chorus.

Chambers begins the next chorus by employing an ostinato pattern. Example

4.5 shows his playing in the first a section of Davis’ second solo chorus.


Example 4.5: Chambers’ Ostinato in mm. 33-40 of Davis’ Solo

Here, the phrasing is very regular and can be seen as either a one-bar pattern, or a

two-bar pattern if one takes into account the grace note that Chambers inserts in every

other measure. He keeps this up over the entire eight-bar section, and comes back to

this figure at the same point in the later solo choruses. It is here that the pedal basis of

“So What’s” tonal processes is the most apparent, as Chambers clearly articulates a

static D minor triad while the upper voices in the ensemble move against the tonic

pedal.

As he enters the second A section of this chorus, Chambers delays the

beginning of his phrase by two beats, arriving on D on beat three in m. 41. In doing

so, he displaces his line against the underlying metric and hypermetric pattern

established by the tune’s head. This moment is a rare instance where he fails to

125

articulate a strong arrival on ^1 at the eight-bar hypermetric level. This is shown in

Example 4.6.



Here we can see he begins with a one-bar phrase followed by one of his

longer phrases, four and a half bars. Although there is an arrival on the tonic pitch D

in m. 45, its extremely weak metric and hypermetric position make it hard to hear as

the initiation of a new phrase. The D on the downbeat of m. 47 is more definitive,

and signals a return to the underlying two-bar hypermetric pattern.

As he begins than the B section in phase with the hypermeter, Chambers

clearly decides on Db as the tonal center and his line reflects this (see Example 4.7).

126


Example 4.7: Chambers’ Phrasing in Davis’ Solo, mm. 49-52 (B Section)

But, by including Cb, he seems to be thinking of a Db dominant seventh chord, rather

than the Db major tonality he had played in the previous chorus’ B section. It is

important to note that at the beginning of this section there are no Cs (natural or flat)

in either Davis’ solo line, or Evans’ comping, so Chambers chooses Cb as ^7 for his

bassline, utilizing C natural as a chromatic passing tone in m.50. Again, his line goes

out of sync with the prevailing two-bar hypermetric pattern. His first phrase is one

and a half bars long, as is his second. At the tail end of these four bars he plays a two-

beat neighbor figure around Db (what I call a “holding pattern”) to reset his line vis a

vis the hypermeter as he moves into the next four bars, mm. 53 to 56. In m. 52, his

Cb forms a cross-relation with the C natural in Evans’ piano chord. In the second

half of this B section, Chambers begins in a similar fashion, with a one and a half-bar

phrase. This time however, he follows it with a single-bar phrase, then another one

and a half bar phrase (see Example 4.8). Later, in m. 55, Chambers now chooses C

natural, apparently in response to Davis’ selection of that pitch in his melody earlier

in the measure.

127


Example 4.8: Chambers’ Phrasing In Davis’ Solo, mm. 53-56 (B Section)

In the final A section of Davis’ solo, Chambers reverts to the normative two-

bar pattern, followed by another, followed by a one-bar phrase, a two-bar phase, then

a final single bar phrase. At this point, he has resolved all of the metric and

hypermetric conflicts his bassline has created and coordinates his arrival on D with

the beginning of Coltrane’s solo. Example 4.9 shows his bassline in mm. 57-60, and

Example 4.10 shows his performance in mm. 61-64.



128


Example 4.10: Chambers’ Phrasing in Davis’ Solo mm. 61-64

At this point we can now take stock of the different strategies Chambers

establishes during his accompaniment of the soloists in this performance of “So

What.” Chambers’ line underneath Davis’ solo lays out various elements that he

employs throughout the rest of the piece. His basic phrase length is two bars,

corresponding to the two-bar phrase established by the tune’s head. However, he

uses the underlying hypermetric pattern of the tune merely as a point of departure and

offers phrases of varying lengths and also occasionally displaces phrases so that they

start in metrically or hypermetrically unexpected positions. Over the course of the rest

of the solos, Chambers uses one- and two-bar phrases a vast majority of the time.

Chambers also uses the tonic triad as an ostinato. He plays this during Davis’

and Coltrane’s solos, and in the first measure of Evans’. At several other points he

uses short segments as “holding patterns” that function as metrical or hypermetrical

“resets.” These short gestures are suffixes at the ends of phrases that serve to mark

time until the next metrically or hypermetrically strong downbeat that begins the next

phrase. Table 4.1 summarizes the phrase lengths implied by Chambers’ basslines to

the solos of Davis, Coltrane, Adderley, and Evans.

129

Davis’ Solo

Coltrane’s Solo

Adderley’s Solo

Evans’ Solo

Totals

1 Beat Fragment

25 1

2 Beat Pattern

41, 52, 56 30, 56 12a, 12b, 24a, 24b, 27, 37

4a, 4b, 11, 17, 32

16

1 Bar 3, 8, 22, 27, 41, 54, 61, 64

5, 6, 9 10, 15, 16, 19, 24, 27, 28, 54, 55, 59, 60

3, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 30, 33, 40, 48 (Holding Pattern-not a phrase), 53

3, 12, 13, 22, 27

40 (8 metrically out of phase)

1.25 46 1 1.5 Bar 21, 23, 49,

53 29, 43, 47, 49, 53,

1, 9, 10, 23, 28, 29, 31

17

1.75 Bar 45 1 2 Bar 1, 4, 6, 9,

11, 13, 15, 25, 28, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 47, 50, 54, 57, 59, 62

1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 25, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 57, 61

4, 6, 28, 31, 38, 41, 43, 49, 58, 63

1, 5, 7, 17, 25,

49: (3 metrically out of phase, 11 hypermetrically out of phase)

2.25 Bar 25 1 2.5 Bar 17, 50, 63

(overlaps into first bar of next solo)

17, 21, 51 9 7

3 Bar 45 60, 14, 19 4 3.5 Bar 20 (?) 34, 2 4.5 Bar 42 1

Bold indicates Metrically Out Of Phase Italics indicates Hypermetrically Out of Phase ? indicates uncertainty because bassline is inaudible on the recording

Table 4.1: Summary of Chambers’ Phrasing (by measure #)

130

Figures 4.2-4.8, below, graphically represent Chambers’ phrases in relation to the

underlying hypermetric grid established by the head of the tune. It shows how he uses

displacement as an improvisational strategy, playing off of the regular harmonic

rhythm established by the head. These figures suggest that the use of pedals provided

the players with a large degree of freedom, even in the realm of accompaniment.

Chambers was able to define his own phrases underneath the soloists in ways that

would not have been possible in the standards-based repertoire with its preset chord

progressions. Table 4.1 and Figures 4.2-4.8 underscore the diversity of phrase

lengths in Chambers’ accompaniment. Other than during the two-bar ostinato

sections, it is relatively rare that two phrases of the same length appear more than two

times in a row. This is especially true for phrases that are longer than one bar.

Figure 4.2: Chambers’ Phrases in the First Chorus of Davis’ Solo (mm. 1-32),

Compared With Underlying Two-Bar Hypermetric Pattern

131

Figure 4.3: Chambers’ Phrases in the Second Chorus of Davis’ Solo (mm. 33-64),

Compared With Underlying Two-Bar Hypermetric Pattern

132

Figure 4.4: Chambers’ Phrases in the First Chorus of Coltrane’s Solo

(mm. 1-32), Compared With Underlying Two-Bar Hypermetric Pattern

133

Figure 4.5: Chambers’ Phrases in the Second Chorus of Coltrane’s Solo (mm. 33-64), Compared With Underlying Two-Bar Hypermetric Pattern

134

Figure 4.6: Chambers’ Phrases in the First Chorus of Adderley’s Solo

(mm. 1-32), Compared With Underlying Two-Bar Hypermetric Pattern

135

Figure 4.7: Chambers’ Phrases in the Second Chorus of Adderley’s Solo (mm. 33-64), Compared With Underlying Two-Bar Hypermetric Pattern

136

Figure 4.8: Chambers’ Phrases in Evans’ Solo Chorus (mm. 1-32), Compared

With Underlying Two-Bar Hypermetric Pattern

Chambers’ basslines in the B section pose a very interesting analytical

problem. As noted earlier, his playing in these sections can be tonally obscure: in

mm. 17-24 of Davis’ solo, it is unclear what central pitch he is expressing; in later

choruses, he settles on Db as the local tonic, sometimes projecting a simple triad, and

sometimes a Db7 sonority. The problem is compounded by the fact that the other

players for the most part retain the expected Eb as the section’s central pitch. At first

sight, the B sections seem to be stretches of stratification, and as such are impervious

to any sort of tonal “reconciliation.” Upon further analysis, however, several striking

instances of melodic coordination help to explain Chambers’ choices. Example 4.11

shows how Chambers’ bassline seems to follow the basic contour and pitch structure

of Davis’ melody.

137


Example 4.11: Chambers’ and Davis’ lines in mm. 17-20 of Davis’ Solo (B section)

In m. 17 both musicians play the members of a Db triad more or less simultaneously,

though Davis’ line includes other pitches. In m. 18, Davis and Chambers actually

play a four-note unison figure, C-Db-Eb-C. Later, in mm. 19-20, we see that

although the two players choose the same pitches in the same order, though they

displace them temporally. Figure 4.9 shows the pitch coordination in mm. 17-20.

Figure 4.9: Coordination in mm. 17-20 of Davis’ Solo

The passage demonstrates a subtle interplay between soloist and accompanist, in

which both present a similar idea and play variations of the same melodic line. The

beginning of this line is more loosely coordinated, the middle coalesces into the

unison gesture, then at the end the texture “falls apart” as the pitches are displaced at

further and further temporal distances. In Figure 4.9 the lines sometimes lean left,

sometimes right, and, in the case of the unison section, are straight up and down.

This would seem to indicate that this is not merely a case of one player following the

138

other, but rather that the interaction between the two fluctuates in a more dynamic

way.

Similar processes are in evidence in the next four bars of the B section as well

(mm. 21-24), as shown in Example 4.12.


Example 4.12: Chambers’ and Davis’ lines in mm. 21-24 of Davis’ Solo (B section)


Figure 4.10 shows that the two players often draw on the same pitches, and even hit

the same note at the exact same time; the Bb in m. 22, and the G natural in m. 24.

Again, the lines connecting the coordinated pitches show the dynamic temporal “push

and pull” between soloist and accompanist. The lines leaning to the right show

Chambers “in the lead” while the ones leaning left show Davis “out front.” In mm.

23-24 there are two remarkable instances of pitch coordination that both involve

chromaticism. In m. 23, the trumpet’s prominent D natural-Ab figure seemingly

139

prompts Chambers to raise the prevailing Db to D natural. However, he “ghosts” this

note, possibly reflecting a hasty “on the fly” response to Davis’ pitch choice. In m.

24, there is a chromatic cross-relation as Chambers anticipates the upcoming D minor

tonality with the use of A natural, G natural, and E natural. Davis picks up on this,

employing G natural, A natural, C# (an enharmonic reinterpretation of the passage’s

many Dbs) and D natural. However, the Ab he plays on beat two—before he

switches gears to D minor—clashes with the A natural in the bass.

Taken as a whole, the two lines interact in what is almost a mirror image of

the process seen in mm. 17-21 (see Figure 4.9). The coordination of the lines begins

loosely, coheres into a unison, then dissolves toward the end of the melodic gesture.

Conversely, in mm. 21-24 the coordination is tight at the beginning of the line,

loosens considerably in the middle, then gradually realigns as the upcoming A

Section approaches.

These two examples suggest that there may be an alternate, and perhaps more

compelling, explanation for the tonal stratification evidenced by Chambers’ playing

in the B sections of the solos in “So What.” It may well be that Chambers is actually

attempting to play with Davis, rather than provide a typical bassline as a counterpoint

to his solo. Chambers may not actually be “lost,” per se, but rather has abandoned the

traditional walking role of the bass in favor of becoming a second solo melody.

Considering that the bass is the melodic voice of the head of the tune, this

interpretation of Chambers’ performance is not necessarily so farfetched. On the

140

other hand, his attempt to coordinate his line with Davis’ may reflect his uncertainty

about the central pitch of the B section.

It turns out that there is remarkable coordination between Chambers’

basslines and Davis’ melodies in this performance of “So What.” Example 4.13

shows mm. 13-15 of Davis’ solo.


Example 4.13: Chambers’ and Davis’ lines in mm. 13-15 of Davis’ Solo (A Section)

Once again, the two players seem to be playing the same ascending gesture.

Figure 4.11 shows how the two lines coordinate temporally. There is another

instance of chromatic cross-relation as well, with C natural in the upper voice

contrasting with C# in the bass in m. 15.


141

Example 4.14 shows how both Chambers and Davis “agree” on Db as the central

pitch. Here their coordination does not initially take the same form as the previous

examples (Examples 4.11-13): the two players initially move in contrary motion as

they arpeggiate a Db major triad in mm. 48-49. Then, in mm. 50-51 their lines

descend stepwise in parallel 5ths.


Example 4.14: Chambers’ and Davis’ Lines in mm. 48-51 of Davis’ Solo (B Section)

The pitch coordination of this passage can be seen more clearly in Figure 4.12.


Particularly notable is the chromatic inflection of the fifth that occurs in the middle of

m. 51: there Davis’ sustained Eb initially forms a diminished fifth with the bass A

natural. This is the only deviation from the prevailing perfect fifths in mm. 50-51.

However, as the bassline descends to Ab, the perfect fifth is restored.

142

A few bars later, the two players return to their earlier procedure, and perform

differently elaborated versions of the same ascending line in mm. 53-54. Example

4.15 shows these measures, and also shows how they both continue to express Db as

the central pitch in this B section.


Example 4.15: Chambers’ and Davis’ Lines in mm. 53-55 of Davis’ Solo (B Section)

Interestingly, Chambers seems to be expressing a Db dominant harmony (Db7) while

Davis chooses a Db major tonic harmony. The Db major scale is, of course, a

rotation of the Eb Dorian collection that this passage is usually described as

possessing.


Chambers’ coordinated interactions are not limited to his accompaniment of

Davis’ solo. While it is true that Chambers and Davis seem to have the most frequent

moments of interaction, there are important instances where the bassist and other

143

soloists link up in musically interesting ways. The first instance of this appears in the

beginning of the second chorus of Coltrane’s solo. As shown in Example 4.16,

Chambers’ static D minor triadic ostinato pattern is met by Coltrane with a strong

melodic emphasis on the tonic pitch, D.

So What By Miles Davis Copyright © 1959 JAZZ HORN MUSIC CORP. Copyright Renewed All Rights Controlled and Administered by SONGS OF UNIVERSAL, INC. All Rights Reserved Used by Permission Reprinted by permission of Hal Leonard Corporation Example 4.16: Coltrane’s Line, Tonally Coordinated with Chambers’ Ostinato

mm. 33-36 of Coltrane’s Solo (A Section)

At this point, Coltrane seems to be staking out octave Ds (in a way

reminiscent of the incipit of Davis’ solo) as a kind of ambitus for this section of his

solo. During the next four bars, he increasingly uses chromatic neighbor notes to

obscure the third and fifthof the D minor triad, while still retaining a strong tonic D at

the top and bottom of the line. It is as if he begins with a straightforward D minor

triad in m. 33 and then proceeds to “smear” the chord tones without obliterating the

boundaries (See Figure 4.14).

Figure 4.14: Reduction of mm. 33-36 of Coltrane’s Solo

144

Later, in mm. 41-42 of Coltrane’s solo, there is a single, brief moment where his and

Chambers’ lines are similar, as shown in Example 4.17.

So What By Miles Davis Copyright © 1959 JAZZ HORN MUSIC CORP. Copyright Renewed All Rights Controlled and Administered by SONGS OF UNIVERSAL, INC. All Rights Reserved Used by Permission Reprinted by permission of Hal Leonard Corporation Example 4.17: Chambers’ and Coltrane’s Lines in mm. 51-52 of Coltrane’s Solo

(B Section) Figure 4.15 shows the pitch coordination in this passage.

Figure 4.15: Coordination in mm. 51-52 of Coltrane’s Solo

This instance is more than likely merely coincidental and is not indicative of a high

degree of interaction between the players. However, this is the only time during

Coltrane’s improvisation where Chambers even approaches a unison line with the

soloist. Given this single, relatively weakly coordinated excerpt in the tenor solo, the

degree of melodic synchronization between the bassist and Davis during the trumpet

solo becomes even more remarkable.

At the beginning of Cannonball Adderley’s solo, Chambers times the

beginning of his first phrase so that it coordinates with his colleague’s delayed

145

opening gesture. Chambers does not play the tonic D until beat three of the first

measure; this lines up with both the end of Coltrane’s solo, and the start of Adderley’s

(see Example 4.18).


Example 4.18: Chambers’ and Adderley’s Lines in mm. 1-3 of Adderley’s Solo (A Section)

This is the only time when Chambers does not play a strong tonic at the beginning of

a solo, and thus in this instance he elides the “hyper-form” of the solo sections (64

measures long for Davis, Coltrane, and Adderley; and 32 measures long for Evans).

There are a number of instances in Adderley’s solo where there is pitch

coordination between the saxophonist’s improvised melody and Chambers’ bassline.

Example 4.19 shows the end of the first A section, mm. 6-8.

146



Figure 4.16 shows how Chambers supports Adderley’s Fmaj7 arpeggio with the root

and third of that chord.

Figure 4.16: Reduction of mm. 6-8 of Adderley’s Solo

(A Section)

At first sight this passage seems to exploit the same degree of coordination as Davis’

solo. On closer inspection, however, this is not the case. Chambers’ presents an

idiomatic, even clichéd, D minor walking figure. It spans two measures (mm. 6-7),

and its contour is such that in its second bar the pitches A and F are emphasized on

beats 1 and 3 respectively. The tail of this line ends weakly with an implied

resolution from dominant to tonic. Adderley’s line, runs a quite different course. In

fact, it seems to project a descending-fifth sequence beginning on Cmaj7 in m. 6. In

m. 7, the Fmaj7 arpeggiation is the next step in the sequence. And, it is possible that

147

the next melodic pitches—though not clear harmonic arpeggiations—could be

consonant with chords whose roots are B (in the remainder of m. 7) and E (in m. 8).

So, while the pitches apparently “match up” in m. 7, it is likely that this is not a case

of coordination, but is rather one of stratification where the two performers are

expressing two different tonal processes in parallel with one another.

Later, near the beginning of the second chorus, there is a coordinated passage

whose nature is more ambiguous. Example 4.20 shows mm. 34-36 of Adderley’s

solo.



Adderley’s slightly elaborated Dmi7 arpeggiation lines up with every other pitch of

Chambers’ ascending D Dorian scale. Figure 4.17 shows this coordination.

Figure 4.17: Coordination in mm. 34-36 of Adderley’s Solo

148

This excerpt brings to light an important question. Do these kinds of pitch

correspondences actually represent meaningful interaction on the players’ part? Since

both performers are playing fairly basic musical structures—a tonic arpeggio and a

“tonic scale”—at this moment, it is not hard to see how the fact that the notes of the

Dmi7 chord appear in both lines close almost simultaneously may just be a

coincidental by-product rather than evidence of coordination or interaction between

Adderley and Chambers. In this case, it is not completely clear, but caution would

seem to favor viewing this passage as tonally coordinated at a somewhat more

middleground level. Since both players stay very close to the D minor tonic harmony

in these measures, we can see that as a more general type of tonal coordination. The

individual pitch correspondences, on the other hand, are likely not particularly

significant. This example further illuminates the strength of the melodic coordination

between Davis’ and Chambers’ lines during the trumpeter’s solo.

Chambers and Adderley coincidentally coordinate their parts again in

mm. 41-44 (see Example 4.21).



149

Here Adderley superimposes an A minor triad over the alternating tonic/dominant

harmonies implied by Chambers’ walking bassline. Figure 4.18 shows the various

pitch correspondences between the saxophone and bass.


Nevertheless, there are signs that these pitches are not really completely

coordinated. The most obvious sign occurs in the first bar of the passage (m. 41),

where Adderley and Chambers seem to project two quite different harmonies:

Adderley’s solo seems to articulate an A minor harmony, whereas Chambers’

bassline projects a D minor triad. To treat these two lines as being coordinated in a

direct melodic way obscures the most salient detail of this passage; the two lines are

stratified as they each project a different harmony.

One last moment of pitch correspondence comes near the end of Adderley’s

solo. In mm. 59-60 both Adderley and Chambers play the same pitches in almost the

same order. The music is shown in Example 4.22, and a reduction in Figure 4.19.

150

So What By Miles Davis Copyright © 1959 JAZZ HORN MUSIC CORP. Copyright Renewed All Rights Controlled and Administered by SONGS OF UNIVERSAL, INC. All Rights Reserved Used by Permission Reprinted by permission of Hal Leonard Corporation Example 4.22: Chambers’ and Adderley’s Lines in mm. 59-60 of Adderley’s Solo

(A Section)


Again, the correspondences found between the two lines are likely coincidental.

However, it is notable that both parts approach the cadence in a simultaneous ^2-^1

gesture. Adderley embellishes this with an incomplete version of the ^2-^7 double

neighbor figure from the tune’s head (shown earlier in Example 1.7).

Bill Evans’ solo on “So What” is perhaps the most enigmatic of the four.

Before offering a detailed analysis, it is worth considering the one instance in which

the piano solo and bass accompaniment coordinate. In m. 11 of the solo, Chambers

plays an “answer” to Evans’ melody. Example 4.23 shows this passage.

151


Example 4.23: Chambers’ and Evans’ lines in mm. 9-12 of Evans’ Solo (A Section)

Figure 4.20 shows Evans’ prevailing use of fourths and fifths in this section of the

solo. As is the case through much of the solo, his melodic gestures seem to obscure

the tonal center of D minor.

Figure 4.20: Prominent Fourth/Fifth (05) Sets in mm. 9-12 of Evans’ Solo

In m. 41, Chambers inserts a brief descending gesture made up of fourths and fifths,

beginning in his instrument’s upper register. But his melodically inverted response to

Evans’ use of fourths and fifths does emphasize the D minor tonal center, so while his

figure is motivically coordinated, it is tonally stratified relative to Evans’ pitch

selection.

152

Ensemble Coordination and Stratification in “So What”

Having established a context for understanding how the bassline functions in

the improvised solos on “So What,” it is possible to see how the ensemble (soloist,

bass, piano) interacts during these sections of the piece. The phrase structure of

Chambers’ bassline provides a framework for evaluating how the ensemble

coordinates during the solo sections in “So What.” Part of this coordination can be

seen in relation to an underlying harmonic progression presented by the “So What”

gesture.

Figure 4.21: The “So What” Gesture and its Implied Underlying Harmonic

Progression

As shown in Figure 4.21A-B, a i-IV-i-v progression presents a framework for how

phrases work at the two-bar level, though this underlying pattern is often abandoned

very quickly in favor of phrases of differing lengths.

In Example 4.24 we can see how his solo initially abides by the two-bar

underlying pattern. The bass and the piano express the “So What” gesture along with

the suggested underlying harmonic progression. The bass especially, articulates the

Dominant-Tonic potential resolution that comes at the end of each two-bar gesture

and leads into the next two-bar phrase.

153


Example 4.24: mm. 1-4 of Davis’ Solo

Example 4.25 shows how this passage might look if it included the “withheld” chords

in Evans’ piano part. It also shows the crucial structural notes in Chambers’ bassline.

Note that the oscillation between tonic and dominant harmonies is especially clear in

the bass part. Also note the remarkable coordination between all three players in mm.

1, 3, and 4 at the arrivals of tonic harmony. All arrive on tonic at the same time.

Though Evans’ “withholds” tonic in mm. 1 and 3, he explicitly presents it in m. 4.

154

Example 4.25: “Withheld” and “Explicit” Chords in mm. 1-4 of Davis’ Solo

During the rest of the “So What” solo section, very often at least two of the parts

converge on the tonic harmony in close proximity. Example 4.26 shows an early

instance of this phenomenon: the soloist anticipates the arrival of tonic by two beats,

the bass articulates the tonic pitch exactly “on time,” and the piano arrives one beat

“late.”


Example 4.26: Ensemble Coordination in mm. 7-9 of Davis’ Solo

A different combination of temporal displacements occurs a few bars later. Example

4.27 shows how in m. 14 the soloist reaches the tonic harmony exactly “on time,”

155

whereas the piano anticipates by one beat, and the bass is “late” by the same amount.

One measure later, however, the bass arrives at the downbeat of m. 15 and the soloist

and piano anticipate tonic arrival by half a beat.



The B section of “So What,” especially in the first time through the form in the solo

sections, is highly stratified and avoids the types of cadences found in mm. 1-16.

At the tail end of the B section, all of the players anticipate—more or less

simultaneously—the upcoming change of tonal center by switching to pitches that

correspond to D minor. With the return of the A section in m. 25, they coordinate an

arrival on tonic harmony in a manner that is very similar to the earlier examples:

Chambers articulates the tonic pitch at the downbeat of m.25, while Davis anticipates

^1 by an eighth note at the end of m.24. Evans plays the tonic chord early as well. All

of this can be seen in Example 4.28.

156



Nevertheless, as the A section develops there is evidence that the underlying

harmonic rhythm that was shown in Figure 4.21 starts to dissipate. Here, Evans

begins to push the boundaries of the temporal displacement of arrivals on tonic

harmony. Example 4.29 shows how, in mm. 26-27 Evans places his tonic chord

ahead of its usual location at the downbeat of m. 27 where Chambers’ straightforward

arrival at ^1 falls. Note also that Davis finesses the temporal displacement by

articulating a tonic arpeggio through the second half of m. 26 well into m. 27.

However, just as the ensemble coordination threatens to pull apart, Evans returns to

the fold in m. 28, playing his tonic chord simultaneously with Chambers’ arrival at

^1.

157



When the tonic returns in m. 29 the trumpet and bass present ^1 at the expected

moment. Davis again anticipates the arrival of ^1. but Evans simply leaves a huge

space. Although he plays the tonic sonority both before and after the downbeat of m.

29, there are five beats of rest, during which the tonic arrival occurs in just the outer

parts. Two bars later, the expected tonic arrival is expressed by the upper voice and

the bass, but not in the piano: Evans plays the first chord of the “So What” gesture in

m. 30, but withholds the second in m. 31. These measures can be seen in Example

4.30 and provide further evidence that at the end of Davis’ first solo chorus, the

underlying two-bar harmonic pattern established by the tune’s head has started to

break down.

158



As the second solo chorus begins, Evans changes his comping strategy. In the A

sections of the first chorus, he had exclusively used the intervallic shape of the “So

What” gesture’s chords. His accompaniment of Davis’ solo during these passages

was essentially diatonic planing of a single chord shape. Here, he retains the essential

voice-leading of the “So What” cadence, but his trichords place the essential voices

an octave lower. Figures 4.22 and 4.23 show Evans’ parody of the “So What”

voicing in the opening measures of the second chorus. In these measures, the third

voice (indicated with filled-in noteheads) serves as a kind of “distortion” or

“registration” that adds color and thickness to the parallel thirds. The clash of the

intervallic second serves to obscure the relative simplicity of planing parallel thirds

that Evans employs here.

159

Figure 4.22: Evans’ Parody Voicing of the “So What” Gesture in mm. 33-36 of Davis’ Solo

Figure 4.23: Evans’ Parody Voicing of the “So What” Gestures in mm. 37-39 of Davis’ Solo

Davis follows a slightly different strategy in mm. 33-40. Here he superimposes a C

major triad in mm. 33-36, and then expands this outward in both directions forming a

stack of thirds ranging from a top note of G, to F a major ninth lower. Ultimately,

this “tall chord” can be seen as forming an Fmaj9 sonority, or perhaps more likely, a

Dmi11 harmony that begins on the chordal third. Davis does this in contrast to the

accompanists’ relatively straightforward articulation of the D minor tonal center:

Chambers pushes ahead with a triadic ostinato on D minor, while Evans pares down

his voicing and moves this chord shape in a way that centers around D minor.

160


Example 4.31: Ensemble Coordination and Stratification in mm. 33-36 of Davis’ Solo


Example 4.32: Ensemble Coordination and Stratification in mm. 37-40 of Davis’ Solo

Moving into the second A section of this chorus, Evans begins to explore more

variegated chord voicings. Figure 4.24 shows the new tonic sonority that he utilizes

in m. 41 of Davis’ solo.

161

Figure 4.24: Altered Tonic Sonority in m. 41 of Davis’ Solo

In m. 42-44, Evans’ “reference collection” is more obscure from a tonal perspective.

Figure 4.25 shows this chord.

Figure 4.25: Altered Tonic Sonority in mm. 42-44 of Davis’ Solo

Taken on its own merits, the pitch content of this chord has little in common with the

preceding D minor tonic chords. But he presents the sonority in mm. 43-44 so that it

seems like another “parody” of the “So What” gesture. Figure 4.26 shows this new

version of the “So What” cadence, alongside the original.

Figure 4.26: Altered Tonic Sonority in mm. 42-44 in Parody of “So What” Gesture

This example shows how Evans retains certain crucial properties of the

original cadence. Three of the five voices are still present, two of them in the same

162

register as their original appearance. The top voice of the new “So What” gesture is a

registral displacement of the lowest voice of the original. Most importantly, the G-F

motion in the middle voice remains, thus maintaining the resolution to the chordal

third that gives the D minor tonic sonority its essential chordal quality.

Despite these parallels, there is a very important qualitative difference that can

be found between the two versions. The new tonic voicing does not contain the

chordal seventh. Since this sonority also includes the 11th (G) and the 6th (B), it

could be interpreted as a G7 chord. Given its cadential context however, it actually

functions as a D minor sonority with an added 6th. This addition of the 6th (B) is an

important modal determinant. This chord voicing emphasizes the ostensible Dorian

quality of the piece in a single sonority in a way that the original tonic chord did not.

From this perspective, the new tonic sonority can be seen as a concatenation of the

plagal-tonic gesture contained in the two chords of the original “So What” cadence

(see Figure 4.27).

Figure 4.27: Altered Tonic Sonority in mm. 42-44 as Concatenation of “So What” Plagal Gesture

In Example 4.33 places Evans’ voicing in a broader context. Chambers’

bassline has now drifted “out of phase” with the prevailing metric and hypermetric

two-bar pattern. He begins his phrase on the third beat of m.41. Davis’ improvisation

163

in mm. 41-44 strongly projects the notes of the D minor tonic triad. Evans’ comping,

with the new tonic voicing, presents a stretched version of the “So What” gesture in

mm. 42-43, and a truncated version in m. 44.



Example 4.33 shows that in m. 45 Evans reverts back to the tonic voicing

from m. 41, in alignment with Davis’ D minor arpeggio. The bassline, however, is

now increasingly “out of phase” with the upper voices and does not arrive at ^1 until

the last beat of the measure. The three voices coalesce around m. 47, as the bass and

piano lock in to a tonic arrival at the downbeat. Although Davis’ melody ascends to

the chordal seventh, C, the tonic arpeggiation and sustained A in the previous

measure puts all three voices in closer synchronization. Additionally, his C-B-A

melodic fragment is imitated by Evans. As the new tonic chord descends by step into

m. 48, the upper voices project C-B-A in quarter notes, creating a stretto effect with

Davis’ eighth notes in m. 47.

164



As shown in Figure 4.28, in mm. 45-46 Evans’ comping also includes voice-

exchange: the outer voices of the tonic chord in m. 46, are reversed and return to the

voicing from m. 45 in m. 47.

Figure 4.28: Revoicing of Tonic Sonority via Voice-Exchange in mm. 45-46 of Davis’ Solo

At the second B section, Davis recalls his technique of superimposing the major triad

built on the lowered ^7 (Db) of the ostensible tonal center of Eb. However, as we

saw in the discussion of Chambers phrasing in these sections, the Db major triad

plays a prominent role in his basslines. Just as before, it is difficult to tell which

165

player is the “follower” and which is the “leader.” Evans’ voicings in this section are

dense and, to a certain degree tonally ambiguous. His first chord contains all of the

notes of an Ebmi11 sonority, but also could be interpreted in a number of different

ways, depending on the root chosen. Given that the bass emphasizes the tonal center

of Db, it is entirely plausible to interpret these pitches in that tonal context. This

interpretation is reinforced by the fact that Evans invokes the “So What” gesture in

Db major in m. 50 (see Example 4.35).



Figure 4.29 shows interpretations of Evans’ m. 49 chord voicing in the

contexts of Eb minor and Db major. In the former case, the voicing is essentially a

“tall chord” stacked third sonority with the root and ninth registrally shifted via voice

exchange. In the latter reading, the pitch collection is reordered to show the Db major

“hexachord,” essentially the Db major scale with ^7 omitted.

166

Figure 4.29: Ambiguity in Evans’ Voicing in m. 49

The interpretation of the chord as representing a tonal center of Db may help to

explain why Chambers’ basslines in the B sections of “So What” seem to vacillate

between Db as tonic, with C natural as ^7, and as dominant, with Cb as the chordal

seventh. In the absence of a clear pitch in the piano’s “tonic” chord to guide him,

Chambers was left to decide for himself. In this iteration of the B section, he seems

to have decided on Cb, though he often “splits the difference,” utilizing both C

natural and Cb next to one another in mm. 50 and 54. Interestingly, both of these

instances come in the exact same point in the four-bar hypermeter: the basslines in

mm. 49-50 and mm. 53-54 are virtually identical (see Example 4.36).

167


Example 4.36: Ensemble Coordinaton in mm. 53-56 of Davis’ Solo

Evans again uses the “So What” gesture in Db in mm. 52-53 so that the arrival on Db

in mm. 53-54 is coordinated in all three players’ lines.

In the final A section of Davis’ solo, the texture of the ensemble suddenly

reverts to that of the first A section of the second chorus (mm. 33-40). Davis again

superimposes a C major triad, which he immediately extends downward by a third,

outlining Ami7 rather than Fmaj9. Evans’ recalls the trichord “parody” voicings, in

the lower register (there is a brief moment in m. 60 where he inverts the intervallic

disposition of the trichord, placing the second on the bottom). Instead of using a

static ostinato, Chambers includes a walking bassline in D minor that articulates two-

and one-measure groupings. Example 4.37 shows Davis’ superimposition, along with

Evans and Chambers’ coordination.

168


Example 4.37: Stratification in mm. 57-60 of Davis’ Solo

Example 4.38 shows how the three performers reunite in closely coordinated tonic

arrivals as Davis ends his solo.



169

At the start of Coltrane’s solo Evans once again changes the reference

collection he treats as a tonic harmony (see Figure 4.30).

Figure 4.30: New Tonic Voicings in mm. 1-2 of Coltrane’s Solo

Clearly the chord from m. 2 must be considered as the “parent” or superset voicing,

with the prior chord as the subset. The lower four voices—F, A, B, and E—provide

the essential quality of this harmony, while the upper two voices—G and B—add

color (in the case of the G) and timbral density (in the case of G and B). Of course, if

this chord were considered in a different setting, then it might be evaluated

differently, perhaps as a dominant harmony whose root is G (a G13 chord).

However, considering its location within the opening phrases of this solo, its role as a

tonic is affirmed (see Example 4.39).

170


Example 4.39: Ensemble Coordination in mm. 1-4 of Coltrane’s Solo

Coltrane’s presentation of ^1 in these cadences is delayed somewhat, by two

and a half beats in m. 1 and by one and a half beats in m. 2. Such details suggest that

Coltrane was reacting to the accompanists’ arrival on tonic; this pattern is actually set

by the previous soloist, Davis, who ends his solo on the first beat of m.1 of Coltrane’s

first solo chorus, thus forcing the saxophonist to play “catch up.”

Example 4.40 goes a step further to show how Coltrane’s initial “reaction” to

the opening tonic harmony is immediately taken up by Evans in his comping.

171


Example 4.40: Imitation Between Coltrane and Evans in mm. 1-4 of Coltrane’s Solo

Evans takes the first three notes of Coltrane’s opening gesture (D, F, G) and

incorporates them into the upper-neighbor gesture employed by him in his comping in

m. 2. In so doing, Evans changes the contour of Coltrane’s opening ascent to A and

diverts it in the opposite direction with a leap down to E. Coltrane then picks up this

transformation of his original line and plays it back in m. 3. These opening measures

are yet another instance during the solos of “So What” where the group interacts in an

extremely close and dynamic way: an opening motive is offered, then imitated and

transformed, then imitated again, in hocket-like interplay between the soloist and

pianist.

Example 4.41 shows how Evans subsequently abandons this back and forth in

mm. 5-8 and places a pedal on the “parent” tonic voicing. Coltrane, however,

develops the melodic material from mm. 1-4, playing first his original “subject” in

mm. 5-6, and a transformed version in mm. 7-8.

172



In the second A section (mm.9-16), Evans moves away from the voicing strategy

used in Davis’ entire solo and the first eight bars of Coltrane’s.

Example 4.42 shows how he begins the passage in m. 9 with a restatement of

the original “So What” gesture, although the top voice of the cadence is withheld.

173



In m. 10 the top voice (A) is restored, but the tonic function of this sonority’s is

compromised by the absence of the chordal third, F. Later in this measure Evans

returns to the Dmi6-type voicing (possibly with the 9th, E, withheld) and in m. 11, he

brings back a tonic chord reminiscent of the one found in m. 41 of Davis’ solo (see

Figure 4.24). To anticipate m. 13, Evans recalls the tonic sonority as it appears in

mm. 42-44 of Davis’ solo (see Figure 4.25).

The second half of this A section (mm. 13-16) finds Evans exploring new

chordal pitch combinations, and, as shown in Example 4.43, it is here that he most

clearly departs from his planing technique. Nevertheless, the tonic is never very far

away.

174



Each time he bass initiates a new phrase with an arrival on ^1, Coltrane’s consistently

emphasizes ^1 in the melody, at least through mm. 9-14. Evans’ chording throughout

this section is much more varied than his previous efforts, both in terms of his

constant introduction of “recycled” tonic chords in mm. 9-12, and his use of more

subtle contrapuntal connections in mm. 13-16. Figure 4.31 shows the voice-leading

of his chords in this passage.

Figure 4.31: Evans’ Voice-Leading in mm. 9-16 of Coltrane’s Solo (Departure From Prevalent “Planing” Technique)

Though Evans seemingly abandons the planing technique in favor of a more elaborate

voice-leading model, Figure 4.31 suggests that he simply displaces one line in a

175

manner akin to Fuxian fourth species counterpoint. Despite its complexity, Evans

still manages to coordinate his part with Chambers’ bassline. Figure 4.32 shows how

essential tonic chord tones are present in close proximity to bass arrivals on ^1.

Figure 4.32: Tonic Sonorities that Coordinate with Phrase Beginnings in mm. 9-16 of Coltrane’s Solo

At the start of the first B section (mm. 17-20) Coltrane’s solo simultaneously

preserves the sense of stratification found in earlier choruses, and creates a degree of

coordination between the soloist and piano accompaniment (see Example 4.44).


Example 4.44: Ensemble Stratification/Coordination in mm. 17-20 of Coltrane’s Solo

As before, Paul Chambers’ bassline emphasizes the tonal center of Db. This time

around, this phenomenon is experienced as a tonal “decoupling” from the prevailing

176

Eb minor tonality. In contrast, the piano presents a lengthened version of the “So

What” gesture in Eb across these four bars. At the same time, Coltrane’s presents

chromatically enhanced diminutions of the same pattern. This is shown in Figure

4.33.

Figure 4.33: “So What” Gesture in Piano and Saxophone in mm. 17-20 of Coltrane’s Solo

Figure 4.33 highlights the fact that Coltrane’s line traverses the voice-leading model

of the “So What” gesture twice as quickly as Evans’ piano chords. Figure 4.34 then

shows how, at the middleground, Coltrane’s melody unfolds the “So What” cadence.

Figure 4.34: Unfolding of Saxophone “So What” Gesture in mm. 17-20 of Coltrane’s Solo

By displacing this gesture, Coltrane and Evans stratify the “So What” cadence, but by

projecting the same tonal and motivic material they also create a strong sense of

coordination.

Recoiling from this sudden close coordination, Evans stops playing altogether

in mm. 21-23. Chambers takes this moment as an opportunity to explore the upper

177

range of his instrument. Since Chambers’ part is almost inaudible in the mix, Evans

vacates the middle register of the piano, but to no avail. At the tail end of this

passage, Evans re-enters the texture with an imitation of the scalar descent from Eb to

Bb embedded in Coltrane’s line, as shown in Example 4.45.


Example 4.45: Imitation Between Piano and Saxophone in mm. 23-24 of Coltrane’s Solo

For the final A section of Coltrane’s first chorus, all three performers

synchronize with each other and the central D minor tonality. Evans employs a

modified version of the “So What” gesture from the tune’s head and coordinates his

arrivals on tonic with Chambers in mm. 25 and 27. Coltrane again reacts to his

colleagues by staggering his arrivals on ^1. This interaction is shown in Example

4.46.

178


Figure 4.35 shows how Evans’ new tonic sonority, which is paired with the original

off-tonic voicing, revoices the chord employed by him at the beginning of Coltrane’s

solo.

Figure 4.35: New Tonic Voicing in m. 25 of Coltrane’s Solo

The result is a strictly quartal voicing that preserves the salient details of the original

spacing; the chordal third and ^5 in the top voice. In m. 25 the new tonic voicing is

paired with the original off-tonic voicing, but in m. 28 Evans begins to utilize the

strict planing technique that he employed throughout Davis’ solo (see Figure 4.36).

179

Figure 4.36: Revoicing of “So What” Gesture in mm. 25-29 of Coltrane’s Solo

In the final four bars of this chorus (mm. 29-32), Coltrane continues to coordinate his

arrivals on ^1 with Chambers’ bassline. However, starting in m. 30, Evans changes

his strategy once again, jettisoning his planing procedure for one where his two hands

exert more independence (see Example 4.47).



Figure 4.37 then shows Evans’ voice-leading throughout the final A section of

this chorus. It brings into high relief the ways in which he gradually deconstructs his

initial use of the “So What” gesture. Over the course of these eight bars he distills

180

this cadential figure down to just its lower two voices, which he continues to plane up

and down in an oscillating fashion. In the latter part of this passage, he separates the

upper voices, first leaving them as static pedals and later planing them in contrary

motion to the lower ones.

Figure 4.37: Voice-Leading in Evans’ Comping in mm. 25-32 of Coltrane’s Solo

The next solo chorus begins with Chambers recalling the bass ostinato

employed by him at the top of Davis’ second chorus. Coltrane coordinates his

melodic material with this static D minor tonic triad pedal by emphasizing the span

between D’s an octave apart. As shown in Example 4.48, this gesture is elaborately

ornamented and chromaticized, but nevertheless projects a kind of registrally-

displaced “drone” in mm. 33-36.

181



In mm. 37-39, Coltrane continues in a similar fashion, emphasizing ^1 (D) as an

upper registral boundary, but compressing the span by using A as the lower one in m.

37. He then gradually widens the space, moving to G, then F, before returning to A at

the end of m. 38 moving into m. 39 (see Example 4.49).

182



Coltrane’s emphasis on D as a melodic tone corresponds to Chambers’ persistent us

of D as a pedal tone. At the same time, pianist Evans carries over his use of the “So

What” gesture in the lower two voices of his comping, while retaining an independent

upper line.


Figure 4.38 beams together the “stripped down” cadential gestures in the left hand

and shows how the upper line moves at first in contrary, then oblique motion, before

“locking in” with the lower voices beginning in m. 38.

183

The next A section finds Chambers resuming a conventional bassline as Evans

uses the lower voice dyads to invoke the “So What” cadence. He starts to expand the

left hand figure by adding a fourth to the lower two voices to form a quartal sonority

that he planes in a stepwise fashion. His arrivals at the tonic sonority are very closely

coordinated with Chambers and Coltrane at mm. 41 and 43, as can be seen in

Example 4.50.



In the second half of this A section (mm. 45-48), Coltrane and Evans’

coordination remains close with arrivals on ^1 and the tonic sonority in mm. 45-47.

At this point the bassline has, to a certain extent, decoupled from the other two

instruments, though it is still ostensibly in D minor. As shown in Example 4.51,

Evans and Chambers briefly come together on tonic for a weak cadence on beat 3 of

m. 47.

184



Evans uses the same left hand dyad throughout to invoke the “So What”

gesture, though at times he supplements this with another fourth above. The right

hand continues independently, sustaining the pitch A as a pedal in the highest voice in

mm. 42-44. In mm. 46-48, the top voice oscillates between the E above the left hand

dyad’s register, to the B between the dyad’s C and G. The effect is that the top voice

“reaches under” into the lower range occupied by the skeletal “So What” gesture,

then leaps out of that space to restore its original location (see Figure 4.39).


185

The next eight measures of Coltrane’s solo (mm. 49-56) demonstrate

remarkable stratification between the three players. Again, Chambers “decouples”

from the Eb tonal center of the B section and walks in Db. Examples 4.52 and 4.53

show that it is actually Coltrane who reinforces ^1, obsessively returning to it in every

other measure.



186



In the meantime, Evans’ comping introduces yet another transformation of the

“So What” gesture. In mm. 49-52, he takes the upper-voice “6/4” chords and

combines them with a pedal F in the middle voice. He then takes these two triadic

sonorities (Gb major and Ab major, respectively) and uses them to harmonize an

ascending ^5-^6-^7 ^1 line, all the while maintaining the pedal F (see Figure 4.40).

In this way he mediates the discrepancy between Chambers’ Db tonal center and

Coltrane’s Eb tonic, the pedal F belongs to Db, and the ascending “So What” chords

belong to Eb.


187

By m. 53, Evans begins to fragment the voicings used by him in the opening four bars

of the solo, utilizing register transfer to generate new sonorities with the same pitches.

But despite his altering of the voice-leading strategy in mm. 53-56, he still retains the

“harmonic rhythm” from the earlier bars. Figure 4.40 labels each of the moving

“triads” as either a tonic (T) or neighbor chord (N). Evans preserves the alternation

between these two until the final bar of the B section. This oscillation also serves to

split the difference between the Eb and Db tonal centers, as the T chords are plausible

Ebmi9 chords, while the N chords can be interpreted as voicings of Dbmaj9.

The last eight measures of Coltrane’s solo finds the three players returning to

a more coordinated texture. Evans holds a single tonic trichord throughout mm. 57-

60 and Chambers returns to walking D minor in two and one-bar patterns. Coltrane

projects a Dmi11 “tall chord” in the opening two measures, then stakes out the space

between A and D in two different octaves in mm. 59-60, as shown in Example 4.54.



188

In the next four bars (mm. 61-64) Evans begins a series of rising and falling

diatonic planing chords, as shown in Example 4.55. Chambers and Coltrane continue

as before, walking in D minor and emphasizing the D minor chord tones,

respectively. They converge on D minor at the downbeat of m. 63, with Evans

closely following this arrival with a simple D minor triad on beat two.



The last melodic gesture of Coltrane’s solo overlaps into the next A section of the

form, ending on the pitch F. Interestingly, Chambers also lands on F rather than the

D that might be expected from the tune’s hypermetric structure. Chambers delays his

next phrase until beat 3 of that measure, as can be seen in Example 4.56. He restores

the two-bar hypermetric pattern in m. 3. Adderley starts his solo by staking out

octave Ds, filling in the interstitial space with the notes of the Dorian scale. His

emphasis on D and F respectively at the beginnings of mm. 3 and 4 coordinate with

189

Chambers’ arrivals on the tonic pitch at the downbeat of those bars. The performers

then extend the phrase beyond the four-measure pattern, ending it in m. 5.


Example 4.56: Ensemble Coordination in mm. 1-4 of Adderley’s Solo

Beginning in m. 6, Adderley initiates one of the signature elements of his solo

on “So What”: a superimposed descending-fifth sequence. Example 4.57 presents

how he arpeggiates a C major triad, followed by an Fmaj7 in m. 7. His following

pitch choice, D, is a chord tone in what would be the next step in the sequence, B.

Although Adderley does not arpeggiate a B chord, he does included E, D, and B in

the next measure, thus confirming Emi7 as the continuation of the sequential

harmonic pattern. Adderley maintains the diatonicism of the D Dorian collection he

employed at the beginning of his solo, preserving the appropriate quality of triad and

seventh chord in the sequence. Example 4.57 shows this passage, along with the

superimposed chordal roots of the sequence in mm. 6-8.

190


Example 4.57: Ensemble Coordination/Stratification in mm. 5-8 of Adderley’s Solo

Throughout this passage, Evans and Chambers continue to highlight the tonic.

Evans shifts his comping from a planing technique to a more static projection of a D

minor chord with an added sixth. He does this by holding the pitches F and B (the

third and sixth, respectively) in the lower register while adding and subtracting

pitches, mostly in the upper register. This process is shown in Figure 4.41.

Figure 4.41: Voice-Leading in Evans’ Comping in mm. 1-8 of Adderley’s Solo

191

This example shows Evans’ persistent use of the F/B dyad and how he often couples

it with E to form a D minor 6/9 chord. The chord voicing that appears in m. 5 can be

seen as a “superset” that includes most of the pitches Evans deploys in this passage.

The chords at the end of m. 6 and in m. 7 are labeled as revoiced versions of the “So

What” gesture.

Adderley continues the descending-fifth sequence across the eight-bar

boundary, following the C, F, B, and E chords in mm. 6-8 with projections of A

minor, D minor, and G chords in mm. 9-11. Starting in m. 9, Adderley’s melody

tends to move by step; this strategy has the effect of obscuring clear chordal

identities. By m. 10, it is possible to hear the superimposed chord as a G7 rather than

as D minor which would then suggest two bars of a G chord rather than one. In m. 12

Adderley abandons the sequence, tonicizing D minor with the use of the leading tone

C#. All of this can be seen in Example 4.58.

192



Evans’ comping is more sparse here, and he reprises his use of the “So What”

gesture. On the second beat of m. 10 he seems to be about to coordinate an arrival on

tonic harmony with Chambers and Adderley, but withholds the expected second

chord of the figure (Example 4.58 notes this in parentheses). He then revoices the

tonic chord, preserving the top pitch A, and presents it in anticipation of the other two

players’ coordinated tonic arrival at the downbeat of m. 12.

In m. 13, Adderley initiates another descending-fifth sequence, with roots on

E, A, D, G, C, and F, respectively. The next step in the pattern, B, is supplanted by a

chromatic variant that is suggestive of Bb minor. This motion seems to anticipate the

upcoming Eb minor tonal center of the B section (See Example 4.59).

193



Evans continues to evoke the “So What” figure in his comping in mm. 13-16.

However, as the passage proceeds, he revoices the chords and employs them in a

descending stepwise manner. As a result, the pitch content of the individual chords

becomes less similar to that of the original versions. By the end of the passage, the

“So What” gesture is preserved, though the pitches that previously defined “tonic”

and “off-tonic” are not present in the same way (see Figure 4.42).

194


Moving into the B section, the ensemble’s tonal centers diverge yet again.

Chambers employs his typical B section strategy of walking in Db while Evans

comps, initially using planing quartal chords then altering these sonorities’ voicings

via register transfer. Although the actual roots of these chords are unclear; the lower

three voices C, Db, and F suggests a Dbmaj7 sonority. Meanwhile, Adderley’s line

clearly outlines an Eb minor triad in m. 17, and ends with a melodic fragment that

lands on the raised leading tone (D natural) of Eb minor. In m. 18, he appears to

initiate a descending-fifths sequence from Eb to Ab, but the scalar line in m. 19

makes it unclear whether the pattern continues (see Example 4.60).

195


Example 4.60: Triple Stratification in mm. 17-20 of Adderley’s Solo

Interestingly, Chambers and Adderley do seem to loosely coordinate in mm. 18-19 as

the bassline articulates Ab prominently in m. 18 and then Db in the middle of m. 19.

At the same time Adderley plays lines that correspond to chordal roots of Ab and Db.

Example 4.61 shows how Adderley embellishes his sequence by

superimposing a modally inflected tonic-dominant-tonic progression in mm. 21-22.

He arpeggiates Eb minor 7, Bb minor 9, and and Eb minor chords before continuing

on by descending root motion through Ab, Db, and Gb chords. At the end of m. 24

he chromatically adjusts the third of the chord, Bb, to B natural to anticipate the

upcoming A section. In this example of triple stratification, all three players project

different surface harmonies. Evans’ comping is oblique, yet plausibly in Eb minor,

Chambers walks in Db, and Adderley’s solo line stakes out its own separate harmonic

progression.

196


Example 4.61: Triple Stratification and Sequence in mm. 21-24 of Adderley’s Solo

The beginning of the last A section of the form (mm. 25-32) finds Evans and

Chambers coordinating their arrival on D minor tonic harmony. Meanwhile,

Adderley superimposes a line that projects a C major triad in mm. 25-26, before

outlining a G7-C-F major9 progression in mm. 27-28. This can be seen in Example

4.62.

197


Example 4.62: Ensemble Stratification in mm. 25-28 of Adderley’s Solo

The last four measures then feature a remarkably strong coordinated arrival

on D minor. In m. 30 all three players project D minor in very clear ways. Chambers

begins his phrase on the downbeat with the pitch D. Evans brings back the original

voicing of the “So What” gesture on beat four of m. 29 and lands on the tonic chord

in slight anticipation of m. 30. At the same time, Adderley arpeggiates a Dmi9 chord

then lands on the upper octave ^1. Having stretched the tonal boundaries throughout

this solo, the players return to an unambiguous D minor to bring closure to this formal

section before beginning the next chorus. This is shown in Example 4.63.

198



As shown in Example 4.64, all three players begin the next chorus by projecting D

minor in a fairly straightforward manner.



199

Here Evans essentially returns to the comping strategy he employed at the start of

Davis’ solo, using the original “So What” gesture in m. 33 and then planing it upward

in mm. 35-36. The strong coordination around D minor at the beginning of the

passage, coupled with the manner in which the previous 32-bar chorus ended,

illuminates how stratification and coordination can be used by the performers. Here

to articulate a work’s formal structure, in this case beginning with close tonal

coordination, stretching outward into more stratified textures in the middle of the

form, then returning to a more coordinated one as the form comes to a close. This

basic strategy is like the phrase model used in tonal music of the Common-Practice

period. Such models tend to include fairly predictable functional progressions at

phrase beginnings and endings, and use less predictable progressions in the middle. It

would be remarkable enough if only one improviser employed this type of device but

here all of the performers take part in this process.

In the next four bars, the unified texture that began this chorus begins to

disintegrate: Evans and Chambers continue in D minor, but Adderley again deploys

melodic patterns that correspond to the harmonies of a decending-fifth sequence,

although this time the rate of harmonic change is compressed and irregular. As

shown in Example 4.65, in mm. 38-39 his florid line evokes the chords of D minor,

G7, C, and Fmaj7.

200



In m.40 Adderley also uses superimposition as he anticipates the upcoming A section.

The C and E belong to an A minor triad that he arpeggiates across mm. 40-43 (see

Example 4.66).

201



At the end of this passage, Adderley expands the A minor arpeggio upward to include

the chordal seventh. His melodic line then fills in the chromatic space between that

upper register G and the D below, projecting an A minor7-D minor progression, a

modally attenuated tonic-dominant relationship. He then “rectifies” this attenuation

by including the raised leading tone, C#, as he outlines A7 at the end of m. 47and D

minor at the beginning of m. 48 (see Example 4.67).

202



The result of this is a reinterpretation of the long period of A minor superimposition

that occurs through mm. 40-45. The addition of the leading tone at the end makes

this whole section seem like an extended dominant pedal that resolves in m. 47.

There is a brief moment of coordination that occurs in mm. 46-47 where soloist and

accompaniment arrive at tonic in close proximity. Evans and Chambers “jump the

gun” and present tonic on beat four of m. 46. Adderley, on the other hand, doesn’t hit

^1 until the second half of beat one in m. 47.

Evans’ comping is sparser through these measures, both in terms of rhythmic

placement and duration, and in terms of pitch content. Beginning in m. 41, he

emphasizes dyads of a second. Even as he expands the voicing to include a third

pitch, the dyad cluster remains a constant. At the same time, the pitches E and F—the

ninth and third of the tonic D minor chord—seem to have a special role as a pedal in

203

this passage. Once he introduces a third voice in m. 43, Evans planes a single generic

trichordal shape (a second on bottom with a third on the top) down by step through

the D Dorian scale, starting on ^7, C. In m. 47 he inverts this shape so that the second

is above the third. Figure 4.43 shows these relationships.


In the B section, the players again split off into 3 parallel tonal streams.

Chambers walks a Db chord, and Evans projects Eb minor with the original “So

What” cadential pattern. Adderley appears to emphasize tonic harmony at the

beginning, arpeggiating a Gb major 7 chord in m. 49. In context this could be seen as

part of a larger Eb minor 9 “tall chord.” However, he begins to emphasize the “upper

structure” pitches of this chord—F, Db, and Bb—in a way that harkens back to his

superimposition of the minor v triad in the previous section. Example 4.68 shows his

use of the Bb minor triad in mm. 49-51.

204



In the final four measures of the B section, Adderley works out melodic

sequential patterns in a tall chord space whose upper boundary is F and lower

boundary is C. He begins with a double neighbor figure that emphasizes Eb in m. 53,

then arpeggiates an Ebmi7 chord in the second half of the measure. He then takes

this figure and reprises it in the second half of m. 54. Example 4.69 shows how mm.

53-56 are a variant of the previous passage: Adderley expands the “tall chord’s”

lower boundary to include C.

205



Meanwhile, Evans continues with the same comping strategy that he employed at the

beginning of Davis’ solo, playing the “So What” gesture and planing it upward

beyond its initial registral boundary. Chambers’ playing here is inaudible on the

recording, but given his work in the previous B sections, it is likely that his line

projects a Db chord. Adderley again anticipates the upcoming A section by

arpeggiating a Dmi9 chord in m. 56.

In the final A section of Adderley’s solo, the accompanists do not make a

coordinated arrival on tonic until m. 58. Almost immediately, Adderley embarks on

another descending-fifth sequence. He moves through Dmi7, G7, weakly articulates

C, and ends with a rhythmically emphasized F arpeggio figure in mm. 57-59. As if to

make up for the ambiguous quality of the C triadic step in the previous sequence, he

plays a C major triad arpeggio in the second half of m. 59, using the chord tones C

and E as a double neighbor to ^1, D, at the downbeat of m. 60. This melodic arrival

206

on the tonic is coordinated with the accompaniment: Chambers plays D at the

downbeat and Evans anticipates this note by a half a beat (see Example 4.70).



In the last four measures of his solo, Adderley reprises the pitches E and G

that he used in his previous low-register arpeggio of a C major triad. He stakes out

two voices that ultimately resolve pitches in a D minor chord to close out the chorus.

The top voice E presented in m. 61 is embellished with upper and lower neighbor

tones F and D# in m. 62-63 before ultimately landing on D natural in m. 64. The

lower G is preserved and resolves downward via a chromatic passing tone (in m. 63)

to the chordal third of F in m. 64 (see Example 4.71).

207



Expanding upon earlier procedure, Evans’ comping in the last A section (mm.

57-64) retains certain dyads and trichords as pedals and allows the other voices to

plane in stepwise motion. This serves to compose out a by now familiar D minor 6/9.

Mm. 61-64 find him revoicing the “So What” chords and oscillating between them.

Evans’ voice-leading strategies can be seen in Figure 4.44.


The final solo belongs to Evans, whose playing is perhaps the most obscure of

the four soloists on “So What.” In this chorus, the accompaniment is joined by the

three horn players, who present a rhythmically accelerated rendition of the upper

208

voices of the “So What” gesture on beat four of every other measure. Chambers’

bassline in the A sections projects a clear D minor tonality, virtually in lockstep with

the horns, as can be seen in Example 4.72.

So What By Miles Davis Copyright © 1959 JAZZ HORN MUSIC CORP. Copyright Renewed All Rights Controlled and Administered by SONGS OF UNIVERSAL, INC. All Rights Reserved Used by Permission Reprinted by permission of Hal Leonard Corporation Example 4.72: Ensemble Coordination/Stratification in mm. 1-4 of Evans’ Solo

In the first four bars of his solo, Evans avoids melodically conclusive pitches

such as ^1 and ^3, favoring open sounding fourths and fifths. He returns to ^5

repeatedly, seemingly in response to the horn parts. In mm. 5-6 he first superimposes

a G major triad over the prevailing D minor in. He continues to emphasize the

melodic pitch G through m. 8. This can be seen in Example 4.73.

209


An interesting moment of hidden coordination between Evans and the horns occurs in

m. 6. Evans’ chord at the downbeat is a revoicing of the first sonority of the “So

What” gesture with the top note, B, shifted down an octave. The horns play the upper

three voices of the “So What” chord, with B in the top voice, on beat 4.

Evans begins the second A section with a true modal sound, an empty D-A

fifth in the left hand in m. 9. Example 4.74 shows how Chambers responds to this

moment by beginning the ostinato pattern employed by him in Davis and Coltrane’s

solos. However, he apparently reconsiders and resumes his walking bassline in m.

10.

210


Evans continues to avoid conclusive triadic pitches in his melodic line.

Instead he seems to stake out an empty sounding “space” with octave E’s as the

registral boundaries. In between, he splits the octave into two fourth spans, with the

lower E leaping to A in m. 9-10, and B jumping to the high E later in m. 10. He

recalls this gesture in mm. 11-12. His only left hand chord seems to contradict D

minor as the prevailing tonal center. In m. 10 he plays an almost pedestrian C major

7 voicing and sustains it for the whole bar. On the other hand, he melodically asserts

D as tonic; in m.12 he descends below his previously established octave E boundary

to land on ^1, D. He sustains this pitch into the next measure, as can be seen in

Example 4.75. His arrival on tonic coordinates with Chambers’ bassline at the

downbeat of m. 13.

211


Example 4.75: Ensemble Coordination/Stratification in mm. 13-16 of Evans’ Solo

Evans then resumes the melodic idea that he established in mm. 9-12. But this time

he extends this idea past the octave E boundary and includes the A and B in the upper

register in m. 14. In m. 15 the alternating descending-fifth B-E and A-D are a

registral compression of the outer voices of the original “So What” gesture, expressed

as a polyphonic melody.

The B section relies on many of the same principles of stratification seen in

the other solos, but with a crucial difference. Although Chambers doesn’t project a

clear Eb minor tonal center, he doesn’t unambiguously walk a Db chord. Rather, he

seems to emphasize the pitch Ab, placing it at the downbeats of mm. 18-23.

Examples 4.76 and 4.77 show this.

212





213

Evans’ solo in mm. 17-24 is an elaborated imitation of the horn lines. In m.

17 he reverses the horns’ figure, with the top voice moving from ^5-^6 and in m. 19

he imitates the gesture directly at first, then reverses direction and extends the top

voice motion up a step, moving ^5-^6-^7. He then oscillates between ^6 and ^7 in

mm. 21-22. The last part of this passage extends the range of the top line stepwise

downward in to ^3 in a ^4-^5-^6-^7-^6-^5-^4-^3 arc. The top line in this passage is

supported by parallel thirds, although this is obscured by the presence of the dense

static diatonic cluster that sustains throughout.

In mm. 25-28 Evans continues with similar melodic material—focusing on ^5,

^6 and ^7—but transforms it by moving to a lower register and using sparser

voicings. He dissolves the dense cluster down to dyads an octave lower, but

continues his development of the ^6-^5 derived melody he established in mm. 17-24.

Example 4.78 shows Evans moving dyad clusters where the top line outlines ^6-^7-^5

in mm. 25-26, then ^6-^7-^1-^6-^5-^7-^5 in mm. 27-28.

214



This is another instance of Evans parodying material presented earlier. In the

previous B section, and in his comping for Davis, he used lines with similar contour

and pitch content harmonized in parallel thirds. Here, the harmonizing interval is a

parallel second. Written notation does not really capture the true sense of Evans’ use

of dyads here. His touch on these types of chords throughout “So What” is “voicing”

in the pianistic sense of the term. Whenever he plays two pitches a step apart he

dynamically emphasizes one over the other so that the subordinate pitch is often

perceived as a “color” rather than as an independent voice. In a way, these cluster

pitches can be seen more as “registrational” than as having traditional voice-leading

properties.

215

In mm. 29-32 of his Evans continues this cluster dyad parody planing of the ^6-^7

figure in a way that is analogous to his planing of the full quartal chords he employed

in mm. 7-8 of Davis’ solo (see Example 4.79).



Taken as a whole, the final A section (mm. 25-32) of Evans’ solo is essentially a

reprise in D minor of the material he presented and developed in the preceding B

section (mm. 17-24) in Eb minor. However, this thematic repetition is stripped down

to its bare essence, in contrast to the thick chordal textures Evans often displays

during the solos of Davis, Coltrane, and Adderley on “So What.” It is also serves as

summary of the crucial elements that inform Evans’ playing on this tune: planing,

revoicing via register transfer, close interaction with the other players, and ingenious

reworking of previously presented material via parody.

216

Epilogue

Two important issues emerge from the Kind of Blue recording of “So What.”

The first is the interaction between players. The second is the transformation of

thematic material as the piece unfolds. These observations reveal Davis’ central role

in this performance and the multiple ways in which he “leads the band.”

“So What’s” open structural framework means that improvisers are freed from

the responsibility of articulating strings of pre-determined chords and may turn their

attention other matters, especially ensemble interaction. This clearly seen in imitative

passages between the soloists and Evans but is also found in the similarities

Chambers’ bassline often shares with the solo melody. The solo, piano, and bass

parts also connect at the phrase level, with periodic convergences on tonic.

Longer-range connections are apparent in the way Davis’ solo informs the

others’ improvised melodies. Coltrane quotes Davis’ famous “octave” incipit, and

also begins his improvisation with a motivic cell similar to the one used by Davis to

open and close his solo. Adderley adopts Davis’ use of superimposition by

arpeggiating an alternate triad against the D minor tonic. Evans relates his solo to

Davis’ in a more abstract way: its initial ascending line emphasizes octaves and fifths;

the former derived from the beginning of Davis’ solo (the “octave” incipit), the latter

from the descending ^5-^1 gesture that closes both Davis’ opening phrase (m. 4) and

the entire solo (mm. 60-61).

217

There are two main sources of material for thematic transformation in this

performance of “So What”: the tune itself, and Davis’ trumpet solo. In the first case,

Evans continually reworks the “So What” gesture both in his accompaniment and his

solo, and Coltrane utilizes the “So What” gesture as the basis for heavily ornamented

melodic passages. In the second case, Coltrane, Adderley, and Evans expand upon

ideas Davis presents in his improvisation. As mentioned above, Coltrane quotes

Davis’ incipit a number of times in his solo, chromatically embellishing and repeating

it each time he returns to that material. Additionally, he and Evans not only reprise

the melodic gestures of Davis’ opening phrase, but use it as the basis for an imitative

“back and forth.” Adderley extends Davis’ superimposition of a single triad into full-

blown descending-fifths harmonic sequences that project entire progressions against

the prevailing tonic. Evans transforms the octaves and fifths that he adopts from

Davis’ solo by avoiding ^1 and ^5, thus preserving a motivic connection and erasing

the tonal one.

All of this shows how Davis stands at the nexus of the interactions and

thematic transformations that take place in “So What.” His composition provides

both a frame for the ensemble coordination and stratification found in the solo

sections, and some of motives that are exploited by the improvisers. Moreover, his

solo also presents material that is developed in individual ways by the other

musicians. With a “hidden hand,” he sets the agenda for this performance,

establishing its boundaries and guiding its players.

218

Bibliography

Aldwell, Edward, and Schachter, Carl. Harmony and Voice Leading, 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1989.

Barret, Samuel. “Kind of Blue and the Economy of Modal Jazz.” Popular Music 25/2 (2006): 185-200.

Bashour, Frederick J. “A Different View: 'On Miles and the Modes.’” College Music Symposium 39 (1999): 124-129.

Berendt, Joachim E. Das grosse Jazzbuch. Frankfurt: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 1989. Translated by H. and B. Bredigkeit, with Dan Morgenstern and Tom Nevill, as The Jazz Book: From Ragtime to Fusion and Beyond. Revised by Günther Huesmann. Brooklyn: Lawrence Hill Books, 1992.

Berliner, Paul. Thinking in Jazz: The Infinite Art of Improvisation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Block, Steven. “Pitch-Class Transformations in Free Jazz.” Music Theory Spectrum 12/2 (1990): 181-202.

___________. “Organized Sound: Pitch-Class Relations in the Music of Ornette Coleman.” Annual Review of Jazz Studies 6 (1993): 229-252.

___________. “‘Bemsha Swing’: The Transformation of a Bebop Classic to Free Jazz.” Music Theory Spectrum 19/2 (1997): 181-202.

Brown, Matthew. Explaining Tonality: Schenkerian Theory and Beyond. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2005.

Burkhart, Charles. “Schenker’s ‘Motivic Parallelisms.’” Journal of Music Theory 22/2 (1978): 145-175.

Budds, Michael J. Jazz in the Sixties: The Expansion of Musical Resources and Techniques. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1990.

Chambers, Jack. Milestones I: The Music and Times of Miles Davis to 1960. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1983.

_____________. Milestones II: The Music and Times of Miles Davis Since 1960. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985.

Cone, Edward. “Stravinsky: The Progress of a Method,” Perspectives of New Music 1/1 (1962): 18-26.

Davis, Miles. Miles Davis-Kind of Blue. Transcriptions by Rob DuBoff, et.al., Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard Corp., 2000.

__________. Miles Davis-Originals Vols. 1 and 2. Transcriptions by Timo Shanko, Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard Corp., 2001.

Davis, Miles, and Troupe, Quincy. Miles: The Autobiography. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989.

219

Dobbins, Bill. The Contemporary Jazz Pianist: A Comprehensive Approach to Keyboard Improvisation Vols. 1-3. New York: Charles Colin, 1984.

___________. A Creative Approach to Jazz Piano Harmony. Rottenberg, Germany; Advance Music, 1994.

Early, Gerald, ed. Miles Davis and American Culture St. Louis: Missouri Historical Society Press, 2001.

Folio, Cynthia. “An Analysis of Polyrhythm in Selected Improvised Jazz Solos.” in Concert Music, Rock, and Jazz Since 1945: Essays and Analytical Studies. Edited by Elizabeth West Marvin and Richard Hermann. Rochester: University of Rochester Press (1994): 103-134.

Forte, Allen. The American Popular Ballad of the Golden Era 1924-1950. Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1995.

Haerle, Dan. Jazz/Rock Voicings for the Contemporary Keyboard Player. Miami: Studio Publishing/Recording Inc., 1974.

_________. The Jazz Language. Studio 224: Lebanon, Indiana, 1980.

Harker, Brian. “ ‘Telling a Story’: Louis Armstrong and Coherence in Early Jazz.” Current Musicology 63: 46-83.

Heining, Duncan. George Russell: The Story of an American Composer. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press Inc., 2010.

Hodeir, André. Jazz: its Evolution and Essence. Translated by David Noakes. New York: Da Capo Press, 1975.

Holdsworth, Allan. Just For the Curious. Miami: Belwin Publishing, 1993.

Horlacher, Gretchen. “The Rhythms of Reiteration: Formal Development in Stravinsky’s Ostinati,” Music Theory Spectrum 14/2 (1992): 171-187.

________________. “Running in Place: Sketches and Superimposition in Stravinsky’s Music,” Music Theory Spectrum 23/2 (2001): 196-216.

Jarvinen, Topi. “Tonal Hierarchies in Jazz Improvisation.” Music Perception 12/4 (1995): 415-438.

Johnson-Laird, Phillip N. “Jazz Improvisation: A Theory at the Computational Level.” in Representing Musical Structure. London: Academic (1991): 291-326.

Joyner, David. “Analyzing Third Stream.” Contemporary Music Review 19/1 (2000): 63-87.

Kahn, Ashley. Kind of Blue: The Making of the Miles Davis Masterpiece. New York: Da Capo Press, 2000.

220

Kernfeld, Barry Dean. “Adderley, Coltrane, and Davis at the Twilight of Bebop: The Search for Melodic Coherence (1958-59).” Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 1981.

_________________. “Two Coltranes.” Annual Review of Jazz Studies 2 (1983): 7-66.

_________________. What to Listen For in Jazz. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

_________________, Ed. The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan, 2001. c.f. “Improvisation,” “Jazz (i) VI,” “Modal Jazz,” and “Russell, George.”

_________________. The Story of Fake Books: Bootlegging Songs to Musicians. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2006.

Kurzdorfer, James. “Outrageous Clusters: Dissonant Semitonal Cells in the Music of Thelonious Monk.” Annual Review of Jazz Studies 8 (1996): 181-201.

Larson, Steve. “Schenkerian Analysis of Modern Jazz.” Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1987.

___________. “Dave McKenna’s Performance of ‘Have You Met Miss Jones?’” American Music (1993): 283-315.

___________. “The Art of Charlie Parker’s Rhetoric.” Annual Review of Jazz Studies 8 (1996): 141-156.

___________. “Schenkerian Analysis of Modern Jazz: Questions about Method.” Music Theory Spectrum 20/2 (1998): 209-241.

___________. “Swing and Motive in Three Performances by Oscar Peterson.” Journal of Music Theory 43/2 (1999): 283-314.

___________. “Triple Play: Bill Evans' Three-Piano Performance of Victor Young's ‘Stella by Starlight.’” Annual Review of Jazz Studies 9 (1997): 45-56.

___________. Reviews of The American Popular Ballad of the Golden Era, 1924-1950, by Allan Forte; The Music of Gershwin, by Steven Gilbert; and Charlie Parker and Thematic Improvisation, by Henry Martin. Music Theory Spectrum 21/1 (1999): 110-121.

Liebman, David. A Chromatic Approach to Jazz Harmony and Melody. Rottenburg, Germany: Advance Music, 1991.

Lindsay, Julie Anne. “Analytical Approaches to Jazz Polyphony, With Special Reference to the Use of Pitch-Class Theory in the Works of Toshiko Akiyoshi and Phil Woods.” Masters Thesis: La Trobe University, 1995.

London, Barbara. “Jazz Theory Education in the USA: From Our Perspective.” Tijdschrift voor Muziektheorie 4/3 (1999): 241-250.

Magee, Jeffrey. “Kinds of Blue: Miles Davis, Afro-Modernism and the Blues.” Jazz Perspectives 1/1 (2007): 5-27.

221

Martin, Henry. “Exempli Gratia: As You Like It (Chord Substitution in Ellington’s Satin Doll).” In Theory Only 1 (1975): 37.

___________. “Jazz Harmony” Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1980. ___________. “Jazz Harmony: A Syntactic Background.” Annual Review of

Jazz Studies 4 (1988): 9-30. ____________. “Jazz Theory: An Overview.” Annual Review of Jazz Studies 8

(1996): 1-17. ___________. Charlie Parker and Thematic Improvisation. Lanham, MD:

Scarecrow Press, 1996.

Martin, Henry, and Keith Waters. Jazz: The First 100 Years. New York: Wadsworth, 2002.

Mehegen, John. Jazz Improvisation. Vols. 1-4, New York: Watson-Guptill, 1959-1965.

Miller, Ron. Modal Jazz Composition and Harmony Vol. 1. Rottenberg, Germany: Advance Music, 1992.

Modirzadeh, Hafez. “Spiraling Chinese Cyclic Theory and Modal Jazz Practice Across Millenia: Proposed Sources and New Perceptions for John Coltrane’s Late Musical Conceptions.” Journal of Music of China 2/2 (2000): 235-264.

Monson, Ingrid. “Doubleness and Jazz Improvisation: Irony, Parody, and Ethnomusicology.” Critical Inquiry 20/2 (1994): 283-313.

_____________. Saying Something: Jazz Improvisation and Interaction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

_____________. “Oh Freedom: George Russell, John Coltrane and Modal Jazz,” in In the Course of Performance: Studies in the World of Musical Improvisation. Bruno Nettl, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998:149-169.

_____________. “Monk Meets SNCC.” Black Music Research Journal 19/2 (1999): 187-200.

Morgan, David. “Superimposition in the Improvisations of Herbie Hancock.” Annual Review of Jazz Studies 11 (2000-2001): 69-90.

Morgan, Robert. “Dissonant Prolongation: Theoretical and Compositional Precedents,” Journal of Music Theory 20/1 (1976): 49-91.

Murphy, Chris. Miles To Go: Remembering Miles Davis. New York: Thunder’s Mouth, 2001.

Nettl, Bruno, ed. In the Course of Performance Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.

Nisenson, Eric. The Making of 'Kind of Blue': Miles Davis and his Masterpiece. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000.

222

Owens, Thomas. “Charlie Parker: Techniques of Improvisation.” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1974.

_____________. Bebop: The Music and Its Players. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Passler, Jann. “Music and Spectacle in Petrushka and The Rite of Spring,” in Confronting Stravinsky: Man, Musician, and Modernist, Passler, ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986: 53-81.

Pettinger, Peter. Bill Evans: How My Heart Sings. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998.

Porter, Lewis. John Coltrane: His Life and Music. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998.

Potter, Gary. “Analyzing Improvised Jazz.” College Music Symposium 32 (1992): 143-160.

__________. “Jazz Theory Texts; An Overview.” Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy. 8 (1994): 201-208.

Pressing, Jeff. “Towards an Understanding of Scales in Jazz.” JazzForschung/Jazz Research 9 (1977): 25-35.

___________. “Pitch Class Set Structures in Contemporary Jazz.” JazzForschung/Jazz Research 14 (1982): 133-172.

___________. “Psychological Constraints on Improvisational Expertise” in In the Course of Performance, Nettl, ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.

Rattenbury, Ken. Duke Ellington, Jazz Composer. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990.

Ramalho, Gerber L., Pierre-Yves Rolland, and Jean-Gabriel Ganascia. “An Artificially Intelligent Jazz Performer.” Journal of New Music Research 28/2 (June 1999): 105-129.

Ricker, Ramon. New Concepts in Linear Improvisation. Studio 224: Lebanon, Indiana, 1977.

____________. The Beginning Improviser. Vol. 1, Advance Music: Rottenburg, Germany, 1996.

Rogers, Lynne. “Stravinsky’s Break with Contrapuntal Tradition: A Sketch Study,” Journal of Musicology 13/4 (1995): 476-507.

Rothgeb, John. “Thematic Content: A Schenkerian View.” in Aspects of Schenkerian Theory, Beach, ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983: 39-60.

Rupprecht, Philip. “Tonal Stratification and Uncertainty in Britten’s Music,” Journal of Music Theory 40/2 (1996): 311-346.

223

Russell, George Allan. The Lydian-Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization for Improvisation, for All Instruments. New York: Concept Publishing, 1953.

_________________. George Russell’s Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization, Vol. 1: The Art and Science of Tonal Gravity. Brookline, Massachusetts: Concept Publishing, 2001.

Salzer, Felix. Structural Hearing: Tonal Coherence in Music. New York: Dover Publications, 1982.

Salzer, Felix, and Schachter, Carl. Counterpoint in Composition: the Study of Voice Leading. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989.

Schenker, Heinrich. Neue Musikalische Theorien und Phantasien.

Vol. 1, Harmonielehre. Vienna: Universal Edition, 1906. Translated by Elisabeth Mann Borgese as Harmony. Edited by Oswald Jonas. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1954.

Vol. 2, Kontrapunkt. Book 1. Vienna: Universal Edition, 1910. Book 2. Vienna: Universal Edition, 1922. Translated by John Rothgeb and Jürgen Thym as Counterpoint: A Translation of “Kontrapunkt” by Heinrich Schenker. 2 vols. Edited by John Rothgeb. New York: Schirmer Books, 1987.

Vol. 3, Der freie Satz. Vienna: Universal Edition, 1935. Translated and edited by Ernst Oster as Free Composition. New York and London: Longman, 1979.

______________. Fünf Urlinie-Tafeln. Vienna: Universal Edition, 1932.

Translated and edited by Felix Salzer as Five Graphic Music Analyses. New York: Dover Publications, 1969.

______________. “Octaven und Quinten u.a.,” aus dem Nachlass herausgegeben und erläuert von Heinrich Schenker. Vienna: Universal Edition, 1933. Translated by Paul Mast as “Brahms’s Study, Oktaven und Quinten u.a., with Schenker’s Commentary Translated.” In The Music Forum. Vol. 2, edited by Felix Salzer. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980.

Schuller, Gunther. The History of Jazz, Vol. 1: Early Jazz, its Roots and Musical Development. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968.

______________. "Sonny Rollins and the Challenge of Thematic Improvisation." in Musings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

______________. The Swing Era: The Development of Jazz 1930-1945. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Sebesky, Don. The Contemporary Arranger. New York: Alfred, 1974.

224

Sechter, Simon. Grundsätze der musikalischen Komposition. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1853-1854. Translated by C.C. Muller as The Correct Order of Fundamental Harmonies: A Treatise on Fundamental Basses, and Their Inversions and Substitutes. New York: W.A. Pond, 1871.

Shipton, Alyn. A New History of Jazz. New York; Continuum Press, 2001.

Smith, Chris. “Miles Davis and the Semiotics of Improvised Performance,” in In the Course of Performance, Nettl, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.

Smith, Gregory Eugene. “Homer, Gregory, and Bill Evans? The Theory of Formulaic Composition in the Context of Jazz Piano Improvisation.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1983.

Stewart, Milton Lee. “Structural Development in the Jazz Improvisational Technique of Clifford Brown.” Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1973.

Straus, Joseph. “The Problem of Prolongation in Post-Tonal Music,” Journal of Music Theory 31/1 (1987): 1-21.

___________. Remaking the Past: Musical Modernism and the Influence of the Tonal Tradition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990

____________ “Response to Larson,” Journal of Music Theory 41/1 (1997): 137-139.

Strunk, Steven. “The Harmony of Early Bop: A Layered Approach.” Journal of Jazz Studies 6/1 (1979): 4-53.

____________. “Bebop Melodic Lines: Tonal Characteristics.” Annual Review of Jazz Studies 3 (1985): 97-120.

____________. “Linear Intervallic Patterns in Jazz Repertory.” Annual Review of Jazz Studies 4 (1988): 63-115.

Sturm, Fred. Changes Over Time: The Evolution of Jazz Arranging. Advance Music, 1995.

Sudhalter, Richard M. Lost Chords; White Musicians and Their Contribution to Jazz, 1915-45. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Sudnow, David. Ways of the Hand: the Organization of Improvised Conduct. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.

Svorinich, Victor. “Electric Miles: A Look at the In a Silent Way and On the Corner Sessions.” Annual Review of Jazz Studies 11 (2000-2001): 91-107.

Szwed, John. So What: The Life of Miles Davis. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2002.

Temperley, David. “The Melodic-Harmonic ‘Divorce’ in Rock.” Popular Music 26/2 (2007): 323-342.

225

Thomson, William. “Hindemith's Contribution to Music Theory.” Journal of Music Theory 9/1 (1965): 52-71.

_______________. “On Miles and the Modes.” College Music Symposium 38 (1998): 17-32.

_______________. “Response to Frederick Bashour.” College Music Symposium 39 (1999): 130-135.

Tinctoris, Johannes. Libre de arte contrapuncti, 1477. Translated and edited by Albert Seay as The Art of Counterpoint. Rome: American Institute of Musicology, 1961

Tingen, Paul. Miles Beyond: The Electric Explorations of Miles Davis, 1967-1991. New York: Billboard, 2001

Tirro, Frank. “The Silent Theme Tradition in Jazz.” Musical Quarterly 53/3 (July 1967): 313-34.

Titus, Jason R. “Register and Spacing in the Voicings of Thelonious Monk.” Master’s Thesis, Louisiana State University, 1997.

Toiviainen, Petri. “Modeling the Target-Note Technique of Bebop-Style Jazz Improvisation: An Artificial Neural Network Approach.” Music Perception 12/4 (1995): 399-414.

Troupe, Quincy. Miles and Me. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.

Tymoczko, Dmitri. “The Consecutive-Semitone Constraint on Scalar Structure: A Link Between Impressionistic and Jazz Styles.” Intégral 11 (1997): 135-179.

Walser, Robert. “Out of Notes: Signification, Interpretation, and the Problem of Miles Davis.” Musical Quarterly 77/2 (1993): 343-365.

Warner, Timothy. Pop Music Technology and Creativity: Trevor Horn and the Digital Revolution. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 2003.

Wason, Robert W. Viennese Harmonic Theory from Albrechtsberger to Schenker and Schoenberg. Rochester, N.Y.: University of Rochester Press, 1995.

Waters, Keith. “Blurring the Barline: Metric Displacement in the Piano Solos of Herbie Hancock.” Annual Review of Jazz Studies 8 (1996): 19-37.

___________. “Introducing Pitch-Class Sets in the Music of Coltrane and Harbison.” GAMUT 9 (1999): 83-90.

___________. “What is Modal Jazz?” Jazz Educators' Journal 33/1 (2000): 53-55.

Westendorf, Lynette. Analyzing Free Jazz. Ph.D. diss., University of Washington, 1994.

Wright, Rayburn. Inside the Score. Delevan, New York: Kendor Music, Inc., 1982.

226

Yanow, Scott. Trumpet Kings: The Players Who Shaped the Sound of the Jazz Trumpet. San Francisco: Backbeat, 2001.

Yudkin, Jeremy. Miles Davis, Miles Smiles, and the Invention of Post Bop. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008.

227

Discography

CD* Blakey, Art, and the Jazz Messengers. “Moanin’,” Moanin’, Blue Note CDP 7 45616

2, 1958. Coltrane, John. “My Favorite Things,” My Favorite Things, Atlantic SD-1361-2,

1961. ____________. “Impressions,” Impressions, Polygram 543416, 1961. Davis, Miles. “When Lights Are Low,” Blue Haze, Prestige PRP-7054, 1954. ___________.“Milestones,” “Sid’s Ahead,” Milestones, Columbia CK40837, 1958. ___________. “All Blues,” “Flamenco Sketches,” “So What,” Kind of Blue.

Columbia CK40579, 1959. ___________. “So What,” Olympia 11 Octobre 1960 Vol. 2, Trema, 710579, 1960. ___________. “So What,” In Person: Saturday Night At The Blackhawk Columbia

CK44425, 1961. ___________. “So What,” Live At Carnegie Hall, Columbia 65027, 1961. ___________. “All Blues,” “So What,” My Funny Valentine/Four and More,

Columbia, C2K-48821, 1964. ___________. “Agitation,” “Eighty-One,” “Mood,” ESP, Columbia 65683, 1965. ___________. “Country Son,” “Paraphernalia,” “Stuff,” Miles In The Sky, Columbia

65684, 1968. ___________. “Agitation,” “All Blues,” “Milestones,” “So What,” The Complete

Live At The Plugged Nickel 1965, Columbia 66955, 1995. ___________. “So What,” Olympia 20 Mars 1960, Trema 710576, 1960. Mobley, Hank. “Up A Step,” No Room For Squares, Blue Note 24539, 1963. DVD Davis, Miles “So What,” Jazz Masters: Vintage Collection 1958-1961, Warner Music

Vision (no catalog number available, ASIN: B00008V6YW), 2004.t

*The catalog numbers are from the most recently issued compact discs. The years, however,

are from the original album release dates. tThis collection contains the Miles Davis group’s television performance of “So What” on The

Robert Herridge Theater Show, CBS Studio 61, New York, April 2, 1959.

miles davis’ “so what” as modal jazz case study jason roger titus

Documents