Analyzing jazz: a Schenkerian approach 9781576471869

Citation preview

ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

Blank page

il

ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

Steve Larson

HARMONOLOGIA: STUDIES IN MUSIC THEORY No. 15

PENDRAGON PRESS

Other Titles in the series HARMONOLOGIA: STUDIES IN MUSIC THEORY No. 1 Heinrich Schenker: An Annotated Index To His Analyses of Musical Works No. 2 Marpurg’s Thoroughbass and Composition Handbook: A Narrative Translation and Critical Study

No. 3 Between Modes and Keys: German Theory 1592-1802 No. 4 Music Theory from Zarlino to Schenker: A Bibliography and Guide

No. 5 Musical Time: The Sense of Order No. 6 Formalized Music: Thought and Mathematics in Composition (revised edition) No. 7 Eisquisse de l'histoire de ’harmonie: An Enghsh-Language Translation of the Prancots-Joseph Fétis History of Harmony

No. 8 Analyzing Pugue:.A Schenkerian Approach

No. 9 Bach’ Modal Chorales No.10 Treatise on Melody No. 11 A Topical Guide to Schenkerian Literature: An Annotated Bibhography with Indices No. 12 Structure and Meaning in Tonal Music:_.A Festschrift for Carl Schachter

No. 13 Complete Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Harmony (1844) No. 14 = Music Theory from Boethius to Zarlino:_ A Bibliography and Guide

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Larson, Steve, 1955Analyzing jazz : a Schenkerian approach / by Steve Larson.

p. cm. -- (Harmonologia: studies in music theory ; no. 15) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-57647-186-9 (alk. paper) 1. Jazz--Analysis, appreciation. 2. Schenkerian analysis. I. Title. MT146L37 2007 781.65°117--dce22

2009037719

Copyright 2009

iv ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

The ability in which all creativity begins—the ability to compose extempore, to improvise fantasies and preludes—lies only in a feeling for the background, middleground, and foreground. Formerly such an ability was regarded as the hallmark of one truly gifted in composition, that which distinguished him from the amateur or the ungifted ... So it would be of greatest importance today to study thoroughly the fantasies, preludes, cadenzas, and similar embellishment which the great composers have left to us. All music instruction, be it public or private, should assign high priority to such study. Heinrich Schenker Free Composition, 1935/1979, 6-7

v

Dedicated to the other members of the “Gang of Four”—Henry Martin, Keith Waters, and Steven Strunk—with thanks for making music as the Jazz Piano Collective, for inspiring me with their work, for supporting me through their conversation, and for sharing the pleasure of their company, delicious food, and fine wine.

vi ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments 1x Schenker’s conception of hidden repetition 40

Preface x Hidden repetitions in the A sections 40 A note on citations x Consistency and completeness in the A sections 40 A note on the term “classical” x The A sections: Comparisons 41 Audience x Hidden in the bridge 44 42 Why now? xX Therepetitions bridge: Comparisons Voice leading in the introduction 44

Chapter 1. Introduction 1 The introduction: Comparisons 46

Methodology 1 Hidden repetitions in the ending 46 The transcriptions 1 Summary 50 Transcriptions as analyses, analyses as transcriptions 2

The organization of the text 3 Chapter 4. A solo-piano performance by Oscar Peterson 51 “ “Round Midnight” 3 The problem of integration and the jazz performance practice of 51 theme and variations

Chapter 2. Questions about Method + The form of Peterson's performance >t Three questions 4 Pick-ups, lead-ins, cadential suspensions, and elisions 53 (1) Is it appropriate to apply to improvised music a method of analysis 4 The different versions of the linking motive 3 developed for the study of composed music? The suspensions figure 53 (2) Can features of jazz harmony (ninths, elevenths, and thirteenths) not 5 “The structure as he wants to indicate it” 56

appearing in the music Schenker analyzed be accounted for by Withholding 56 Schenkerian analysis? (3) Do improvising musicians really intend to create the complex 10 Similarity and substitution 00

structures shown in Schenkerian analyses? Elisions and structural puns 62 The lead-ins in the improvised variations 62

Chapter 3. “ ‘Round Midnight” 33 Fills and cadenzas 63

Monk’s theme as a variation 33 The ending 63 Harmonic rhythm in the A sections 35 Summary 66

vil

Chapter 5. Ensemble Performances by Bill Evans 72 The Transcriptions

The problem of integrating formal sections 72 Monk’s live recording 109 The closing motive 72 Thelonious Monk, “ ‘Round Midnight,” Monks Greatest Hits

— (19 November 1968, Columbia CS 9775 and 32355)

The problem of integrating instrumental parts 74

The form of Evans’ performances 74

Monk’s studio recording 117 Thelonious Monk, “ “Round Midnight,’ Thelonious Himself

The A sections 74 (5 April 1957, Riverside 12-253) re-issued on ‘Round Midnight

The bridges 77 (Milestone M-47067, M-47004 and M-47064)

x, y, and z 77 Powell’s introduction 127 Closure and motive in the live recording 77 Bud Powell, “ “Round Midnight,” Bad Powell (Quintessence QJ-25381)

The double-neighbor figure and the closing motive in the live recording 79 Peterson's solo performance 131

P a a Oscar Peterson, “ “Round Midnight,” Freedom Song (20 February

Withholding, substitution, and a lead-in in the live recording 80 1982, Pablo-2640-101).

Climax and motive in the live recording 87 Evans’ live recording 143

Th lustcence fE nse ioNSised in Midnight,” the li di |. Manne-Hole cooennne INNISvariations Bill Evans, “ “Round Live87 at Shelleys

Roles in the live recording 90 (30 or 31 May 1963, Riverside R-9487 and ABC 3013) re-issued on Roles and closure in the studio recording 99 Time Remembered (Milestone M-47068) re-issued on Bill Evans:

Summary 103 Evans’ studio recording 177 The Complete Riverside Recordings (Fantasy, Riverside R-018, 1984)

Bill Evans, “’Round Midnight,” Conversations with Myself

Chapter 6. Conclusions 106 (Verve V6-8526)

Variations 106 Notes on the transcriptions 196 Artistic content 106 Bibliography 202

Rhythm 106 Style 107 Recommendations for further study 107

Vili ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book is a revision of my University of Michigan Ph.D. dissertation “Schenkerian The University of Michigan provided two grants to support the dissertation: the Analysis of Modern Jazz.” I would like to thank my dissertation advisor James Dapogny, Horace H. Rackham Predoctoral Fellowship supported me for a full-time academic year for his generous assistance and patient guidance. He proofread the transcriptions, offered of work on the dissertation, and a Rackham Dissertation Grant allowed me to hire Elaine valuable suggestions on all aspects of the dissertation, and helped to keep it focused. Zajac to do the music copying of my transcriptions. In this book, Elaine’s beautiful handAll the membets of my dissertation committee, Professors Rudolf Arnheim, Rich- drawn music notation has been replaced by computer-generated music notation, but the mond Browne, Richard Crawford, James Dapogny, Douglas Hofstadter, and William formatting of the transcriptions still shows the traces of the work she did for me. JenRothstein, made valuable suggestions. Professor William Malm also read the dissertation Kuang Chang and David Heyer turned the transcriptions and my hand-drawn musical

and offered suggestions. examples into computer-generated notation.

My ex-wife, Winifred Kerner, offered not only patience and support, but also her I appreciate the patience and assistance of Bob Kessler (editor of Pendragon Press) considerable musical skills and common sense: she proofread the transcriptions and gave and ‘Thomas Christensen (editor of Pendragon’s Harmonologia Series) who helped turn

valuable suggestions on the text. my manuscript into a real book.

Without special tapes of the recorded performances it would have been mote dif- Although I did not ultimately include them in the final version of this book, I would ficult to transcribe them. Ken Richardson of the South Carolina Educational Radio Net- like to thank Warner Bros. Publications, Inc., for allowing me to reproduce a lead sheet work provided a tape of the dialogue between Bill Evans and Marian McPartland that and an arrangement of “ ‘Round Midnight”—and I would like to encourage readers to appears in Chapter 2. Richard Seidel and Beebe Jennings of Polygram Special Projects provided consult not only Warner Bros’ published piano-vocal arrangements, but also their series dubs of the individual piano tracks that make up Bill Evans’ three-piano version of “ ‘Round of jazz transcriptions, as well as commercially available lead sheets for “ “Round Mid-

Midnight.” night” (e.g., Hyman 1986). Thanks also to Hal Leonard Publications, for allowing me to The Institute of Jazz Studies and the radio stations WEMU and WUOM allowed me reproduce lead sheets of “The Touch of Your Lips,” and to Pendragon Press for allowing

access to their record collections. me to reproduce examples from Schenker’s Free Composition.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS /PREFACE ix

PREFACE I chose to study Schenkerian analysis of modern jazz because of my interest in the (1976) or visit the online description at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_notation. theories of Heinrich Schenker and because of my interest in jazz. But this study attracted In fact, I imagine that graduate courses in music analysis might profitably include part or me for an additional reason. I am interested in exploring some distinctions commonly— all of this book among their readings. Third, the book will provide jazz musicians with a but often superficially or artificially—drawn: distinctions between art music and popular view of current music theory. Because the book often relies on a carefully limited version music, between jazz and classical music, between improvisation and composition, between of Schenkerian analytic notation (called “strict use,’ see Larson 1996), even musicians technique and art, between intellect and emotion, between theory and practice, etc. Making with no training in Schenkerian analysis may be able to follow and appreciate many of the such distinctions is a necessary and useful part of scholarly inquiry. Yet, closer study often important points that it makes about the music. reveals that differences are not always clear-cut, that interesting similarities abound, that Because it is written for three such different audiences, members of each will inevi-

interactions ate significant, and that such categories can overlap. tably find some portions too difficult or maybe even painfully simple (1 hope the design

A note on citations of the book will help such readers find the passages they wish to skip). But I hope all will find something of interest, too. In this book, reference to other works uses the “author-date” style of citations. For

example, when I describe Dapoeny’s (1982) edition as a model, readers will find the work Why Now?

by Dapoeny in the references listed alphabetically by author (Dapogny) and then by date , , , ,

11982). The reference list begins on nage 502. Where such (epee 0 given for cute I finished the dissertation upon which this book is based in 1987. The dissertation was

the first work to publish complete transcriptions of the same piece as played by different tions, or where they direct the reader to particular pages in the work cited, the page numbers jazz performers. Transcriptions into musical notation of five recorded performances of

appear after the date. There are no footnotes for this book. Thelonious Monk’s classic jazz composition, “ ‘Round Midnight” (two recorded by the composer, one by Oscar Peterson, and two by Bill Evans) may be found on pages 109-201.

A note on the term “classical” Analyses of these performances lead to a consideration of relationships between The word “classical” has been used to describe a variety of musics. I have found it improvisation and composition, and between technique and art. This book also reflects

_ my continued interest, apparent in my Masters thesis (“Some Aspects of the Album Out

convenient to use it in one particular sense throughout this book: it describes any western of the Woods by the Chamber Ensemble ‘Oregon? ” University of Oregon, 1981), in

“concert” music written during the common-practice tonal era (including styles that have exploring relationships between affect and structure “a per formances, ° °

been called baroque, classical, and romantic). Thus, as I use the term in this book, classical

music includes the “masterworks” of composers to which Schenker devoted his analyses Before my dissertation, some scholars (such as Thomas Owens and Steven Strunk) (that is, works by C. P. E. Bach, J. S. Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin, Handel, Haydn, had applied Schenker's analytical approach to passages of improvised jazz, but that apMendelssohn, Mozart, D. Scarlatti, Schubert, and Schumann)—as well as music written by proach had never been systematically applied to entire modern jazz performances. At that their contemporaries. I use the term “jazz” in a similarly general sense, and I use the term time, T was also working on additional projects in jazz analysis. Those projects included “modern jazz” it in its commonly accepted sense: it refers to “bebop”—a style associated studies of improvisations by Charlie Parker and Dave McKenna and investigations of with Charlie Parker and his contemporaries and having its origins in the 1940s—and some thythmic displacement in the music of Bill Evans. And I felt that when I finished those

subsequent jazz styles incorporating its innovations. projects—which flow from the ideas in the dissertattion—I would turn them into additional chapters for this book. I thought the added chapters would round out the disserta-

Audience tion to offer a more-complete view of jazz analysis. However, now that I have completed This book may interest three different types of readers. First, the transcriptions will be (and published) those projects (and sone others), it has become increasingly clear that a

a complete view of jazz analysis is neither possible nor desirable. Scholars such as Steven

of interest to a wide audience of readers and performers who just want to know which Block, Cynthia Folio, Ben Givan, Patricia Julien, Steve Lindeman, Henry Martin, James Mcnotes were actually played in these remarkable performances. Second, the book addresses Gowan, Steven Strunk, and Keith Waters (just to name a few) have expanded the field of

musicians with some background in music theory who wish to know how analysis can . a oo XP _— illuminate jazz improvisation. Because the book presumes no special knowledge of jazz jazz analysis with wide-rangt hg treatments. It how seems TO me that, instead of trying give repertoire, nomenclature, or skills, its main arguments may be followed by those with the such a complete account, it 1S best to offer one view of jaez analysis—from the petspecequivalent of an undergraduate background in music theory. Those unfamiliar with “lead- tive of Schenkerian analysis—which was the original intent of the dissertation. Thus, this sheet notation” for chords may wish to consult a reference such as Brandt & Clinton book presents the original dissertation with limited revisions.

x ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION Methodology study of jazz requires accurate and complete transcriptions of its best recorded performances. Unfortunately, available editions of jazz repertoire—whether in lead sheets, in While much has been written about the history of jazz, comparatively little attention has published sheet music, or in transctiptions—are often inaccurate and/or incomplete. been oiven to individual jazz performances. Those analyses that have been published One exception to these poor editions is James Dapogny’s Ferdinand “Jelly Roll” Morton: include studies of relationships between chords and scales (Gonda 17-72, Jungbluth The Collected Piano Music (1982), the first scholarly edition of a body of a jazz musician’s

, aoc _— wor ave use pogny y p pogny

1983, Pressing 1978, and Russell 1959) and the use of melodic-motivic “formulas” and k Th d Dapoenv’s edition as a model for mv transcriptions. As Dapoeny notes processes of motivic development in jazz improvisations (Blancq 1977, Gushee 1977/1981, (34), a transctiption of a performance differs from a notated composition:

Kernfeld 1981 and 1983, Owens 1974, Martin 1996, Schuller 1979, and Smith 1983). Other studies have investigated the role of polyrhythms in jazz (Folio 1995, Larson 1997—98b and The notation of jazz raises the question of just what notation can actually represent. It 2006b, Strunk 1998, and Waters 1996) and have applied function theory (McGowan 2005), should be borne in mind that modern music notation developed largely as a presctiptve

information theory (Winter 1979), pitch-class set theory (Block 1990 and 1997, Lindsay system, design ete give ettormers directions on now i. tealize a Dloce tn pettonmance.

1995, and Pressing 1982), or computers (Williams 1982 and 1985) to aid their analyses. taken place. S peve’s P ) The field of jazz analysis continues to grow (see the periodic bibliographies that appear Our notational system, with a simple proportional scheme for rhythm, does not in the Annual Review of Jaxx Studies and the online bibliography maintained by the Jazz lend itself to descriptive use for jazz because rhythms that the system cannot easily record Theory and Analysis Interest Group of the Society for Music Theory at http://music.uncg, ate commonplace. (A truly accutate notation of a performance—as opposed to the comedu:2001/). But scholarship has been inhibited by the scarcity of reliable and/or complete position itself{—of a Western classical piece with its rubato would be similarly difficult to

transcriptions of recorded jazz performances into musical notation and by the difficulty in achieve.)

producing such transcriptions. In the transcriptions in this book, I have attempted to notate the actual pitches and Given its proven power and usefulness in the analysis of tonal music, it is not surpris- durations played. However, in four situations, it seemed desirable not to do this. ing that Schenkerian theory has also been applied with some success to the analysis of jazz First, I followed the jazz convention of notating “swung” subdivisions of the beat as (Check 2003, Larson 1981, 1993, 1996, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, Martin 1975 and 1996, Ow- if the subdivisions were equal in duration; in a jazz performance, the beat is often subdiens 1974, Simon 1978, Stewart 1973/1974—75, and Strunk 1979, 1985, and 1996). These vided unequally. The practice resembles the French baroque convention of sores inégales. In last studies suggest that Schenkerian analysis may be useful for explaining certain features “The Touch of Your Lips,” the beat is the quarter note, and eighth notes are played so that of jazz performances. My work also suggests that Schenkerian analysis is useful not only those that fall on the beat are longer than those that fall off the beat; in this situation, the for explaining the technical features of jazz performances (such as harmony, rhythm, and eighth notes ate said to be swung. In “ “Round Midnight,” sometimes the eighth notes are melody), but also for illuminating their artistic content. Because this book is the first study swung and sometimes the sixteenth notes are swung (jazz musicians call the latter “double to analyze complete transcriptions of entire performances of the same piece by different time”). At medium tempos, on-the-beat swung eighth notes are generally about twice as

artists, it is better able to make a convincing case. long as off-the-beat swung eighth notes. However, the ratio between the durations of these differing “eighth notes” varies with style and tempo. It also tends to vary somewhat within

. a performance. Where a group of notes that would usually be swung is played with what

The tr anscriptions sound like equal durations, I have written the auxiliary number 2 or 4 with that group of

INTRODUCTION 1

Heinrich Schenker considered himself “the true founder of the discipline of auto- notes. For example, since the sixteenth notes in the first measure of Evans’ live recording eraph-study” (1935/1979, 7) and devoted considerable energy to the creation of editions (see page 144) sound equal in duration, I have written the auxiliary number 4—in a triplet, of music. Just as the study of classical music requires carefully prepared editions, so the the auxiliary number would be 3.

Second, in some cases the players make what seem to be mistakes. ‘The number of For “The Touch of Your Lips,” I have numbered the measures 1-32. Where Evans these mistakes is remarkably small. In each case I have written what I think the player in- uses the final measures of this song as an introduction, I have numbered those measures tended and have noted the discrepancy between transcription and sound in the notes fol- as they would have been numbered had they occurred at the end of a chorus, except that I

lowing the transcriptions. have placed a mark (') after that numbet.

Third, in some cases I was unsure what was actually played. Modern jazz piano per- In the transcriptions, smaller noteheads indicate cadenzas (passages of elaboration formances can be difficult to transcribe. Sometimes the harmonics generated by lower that suspend the meter); the durations in the cadenzas indicate only approximate length. In strings—particularly the first and second overtones (the second and third partials)—sound Evans’ live recording, the lowest staff indicates the string bass part and is written an octave as loud as the notes actually played. In other cases, higher notes may “hide” in the har- higher than it sounds. In Evans’ studio recording, one system appears on each page. The monics of lower notes. hese performers voice their chords in many different ways. Their top two staves on each system indicate the piano in the left channel (when the original alchords may be dissonant, dense, staccato, and soft. This sometimes makes it difficult to bum recording is played in stereo), and are labeled “Left.” “Center” appears on the middle tell exactly which notes appear in these chords—and in which octave they appear. In such staves and “Right” appears on the lowest staves. cases, I have written what seemed most likely and made a comment in the notes following In the text, references to specific pitches are made according to the notation suggest-

the transcriptions. ed by the Acoustical Society of America (ASA): The pitch class 1s symbolized by an upper-

Finally, many important expressive elements of the performance have not been no- case letter and its specific octave is symbolized by a number following that letter. The octave tated: rather than attempt to indicate all the changes of tempo, articulation, dynamics, tone, number refers to pitches from a given C to the B a major seventh above it. Cb5 is the same pedaling, and other nuances, I have only indicated a few of these. (For example, it seemed pitch as B4. Scale degrees are referred to with capped numbers: 2 in E} is F In naming interapproptiate to indicate which of Evans’ chords are rolled; the rolled chords in his perfor- vals above the bass, I have followed the jazz convention of using the accidental that would mance stand out as significant—even though I did not find space in the text to discuss this. be used if in the key of C (e.g., G is a b13 above B). In order to stress important similarities, The rolling of chords seems even more important in Peterson’s performance, but I did the figured-bass numerals in the voice-leading analyses sometimes omit accidentals. not notate his rolls, because Peterson rolls so many of the chords he plays—but in subtly

yet significantly different ways—that to indicate his rolls would clutter the transcription Transcrip tions as an alyses analvses as transcriptions

without making it more informative.) Such elements contribute an important part to the ° y P

quality of these performances. But the transcriptions are not intended as complete records In making the transcriptions, I had to make a number of decisions: Which passages

of performances—the recordings are that. contain “mistakes”?, How precise should the notation of durations be?, Where should I On the transcriptions, I have numbered the measures (1-8) within each formal section notate a change of meter?, To which “voice” does this note belong?, Which notes are “or (this numbering of measures and designation of formal sections resembles that employed naments”’’?, etc. Because the transcriptions reflect these decisions, they may be considered, by Kernfeld 1981 and Owens 1974). The measure numbers are circled Arabic numbers and to some extent, “analyses” of the performances. The idea that the transcriptions share appear above the bar line that begins that measure. Measute numbers ate circled in the tran- something with the voice-leading analyses can be appreciated in two additional ways. On scriptions and musical examples, but not in the text. I have also designated the beginning of one hand, since so much of the quality of these performances cannot be captured in notaeach formal section. The formal section designations appear in square brackets (| ]) above tion, the transcriptions, like the analyses, should be considered a supplement to—rather

the bar lines that begin a formal section. than a replacement for—histening to the recordings. On the other hand, the voice-leading For “ ‘Round Midnight,’ the formal-section designations have three parts. For nna yses hcg also be considered bonne of the pesformances ne vores ‘. snalyses example, 2A, is the third A section of the second chorus. The first part of the formal- “iy © ne ne IL rures ‘ ‘ © pet Ormance that i oeany au f can fact, ik ten section designation describes the (32-bar) chorus. The second part describes the (8-bar) Fought ° ut by articu ation, ynarnics, etc yet not explicit i a note “for note rencering

3 . _. ; _. og. , of each pitch played. This reflects Schenker’s remark (1935/1979, xxiii):

section (A=A section, B=bridge, x=introduction, y=interlude, and z=ending). ‘The third part (subscript) distinguishes the first A section from the second and third. In Peterson’s The musical examples which accompany this volume are not metely practical aids; they have performance, he plays an original introduction, which he then reuses as both interlude and the same power and conviction as the visual aspect of the printed composition itself (the ending, so the formal sections include 1x=introduction, 2x=interlude, and 3x=ending. foreground) . That ts, the graphic representation is part of the actual composition, not merely an educational means.

2 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

The organization of the text “ “Round Midnight” Chapter 2 discusses three questions raised concerning the application of Schenkerian “Round Midnight” is the “centerpiece” of this book: Chapters 3—5 analyze perforanalysis to jazz performances: (1) Is it appropriate to apply to improvised music a method mances by ‘Thelonious Monk, Oscar Peterson, and Bill Evans. “ ‘Round Midnight” is probof analysis developed for the study of composed music? (2) Can features of jazz harmony ably the best known composition by the most famous modern jazz composer, ‘Thelonious (ninths, elevenths, and thirteenths) not appearing in the music Schenker analyzed be ac- Monk. Monk’s band leader Cootie Williams and Bernie Hanighen (who supplied lyrics for counted for by Schenkerian analysis? and (3) Do improvising musicians really intend to its melody) are also credited as composers. It appears that parts of what we now think of create the complex structures shown in Schenkerian analyses? The chapter answers yes as “ “Round Midnight” may also have been contributed by Dizzy Gillespie, Art Pepper, and to these questions, and also argues that the questions themselves imply mistaken assump- Miles Davis. As Michael Cuscuna (in his liner notes to Te Complete Blue Note Recordings of tions about the content and origin of Schenker’s theories, about the role of analysis, about Thelonious Monk, 7) writes:

the function of dissonance in common-practice harmony and in jazz, about the nature of Round Midnight is more than a standard; it is an anthem. Thanks to Bud Powell, it was improvisation vs. composition, and about the role of simplicity and complexity in popular first recorded in a rather four-squate reading with a corny bridge by Cootie Williams’ and art music. /As I address each question in turn, I offer basic theoretical principles and orchestra in 1944. For this favor, Williams demanded a co-writer credit from Monk: this practical examples for explaining dissonance treatment in jazz, qualify the applicability of was an unfortunate but not uncommon practice of the day. Dizzy Gillespie recorded a Schenker’s theories to jazz, and emphasize the importance of models in creating, explain- mote emphatic version with his big band in 1946. In fact, Dizzy’s bravura introduction

ing, and experiencing jazz. has almost attached itself to the composition . . . Incidentally, the original Blue Note 78 and countless other versions carried the original title Round About Midnight, but Monk preferred the shorter title.

INTRODUCTION 3

CHAPTER 2

QUESTIONS ABOUT METHOD The intellectual treatment of any datum, any experience, any subject, is determined by the nature of our questions, and only carried out in the answers. Suzanne K. Langer (1942, 4)

Three questions masterworks he analyzed. In fact, it would be inaccurate to suggest that Schenker did not Analysts have used Schenkerian techniques to describe linear progressions and structural study improvisations. Recognizing the overt improvisatory orientations of certain types levels in a variety of jazz styles, although greater attention has been focused on modern of pieces, Schenker suggested that “it would be of greatest importance today to study jazz. And yet a certain skepticism has arisen about such applications (see, for example, thoroughly the fantasies, preludes, cadenzas, and similar embellishment which the great Purtwaneler 1947, Hodeir 1956, Keil 1966, and Smith 1983). In general three questions composerts have left to us” (1935/1979, 7). Indeed, any musical composition may be conhave been raised about the application of Schenkerian analysis to improvised jazz: (1) Is sidered a record of a successful improvisation. it appropriate to apply to improvised music a method of analysis developed for the study Schenker’s essay, “The Art of Improvisation” (in Das Meisterwerk in der Musik, 1925), of composed music? (2) Can features of jazz harmony (ninths, elevenths, and thirteenths) suggests that the study of improvisatory music was important in the development of his not appearing in the music Schenker analyzed be accounted for by Schenkerian analysis? theories. That essay discusses a chapter of C. P. E. Bach’s Essay on the True Art of Playing and (3) Do improvising musicians really intend to create the complex structures shown in Keyboard Instruments (1949, 430-445) in which Bach offers a record of an improvised free

Schenkerian analyses? fantasy and a plan or framework (in the form of a figured bass and commentary) for his

In this chapter, I answer yes to these questions, and also argue that the questions improvisation. Schenker shows how Bach’s plan resembles his own conception of musical themselves imply mistaken assumptions about the content and origin of Schenker’s theo- structure. As Sylvan Kalib observes, “this article also reveals the corroboration and probries, about the role of analysis, about the function of dissonance in common-practice har- able inspiration for some of the major concepts and bases of Schenker’s own theories. mony and in jazz, about the nature of improvisation vs. composition, and about the role of Schenker points out how his terminology describes more specifically the procedures that

simplicity and complexity in popular and art music. Bach calls for, but that both Bach’s and his conceptions of musical composition basically As I address each question in turn, I offer basic theoretical principles and practical constitute one and the same approach” (1973, 4). John Rink (1993) also underscores the examples for explaining dissonance treatment in jazz, qualify the applicability of Schenker’s importance of improvisation in the development and content of Schenker’s theories, and theories to jazz, and emphasize the importance of models in creating, explaining, and ex- he shows how analysis informed by an awareness of plans such as C.P.E. Bach’s can help

petiencing jazz. us better understand not only the nature of composition and improvisation, but also the artistic content of works by composers such as Chopin.

(1) Is it appropriate to ap ly to improvised music a method of | Indeed, our first question implies misconceptions not only about Schenker’s theoanalysis developed for Pe study cf comp osed music? ries, but also about analysis in general. It implies that an analysis is justified by its intent, not by its results. Of course, the opposite is true. Andre Hodeir writes that “to try to find This first question suggests misconceptions about the content and origins of Schen- in [jazz] the formal rigor of European art” would be to listen “with too demanding an ear” ker’s theories. Schenker valued the ability to improvise, calling it “the ability in which all (1956, 164). But as the following chapters will show, to listen without such a demanding ear creativity begins” (1935/1979, 6) and often praised the quality of improvisation in the would be to miss some of the beauty of modern jazz improvisations.

4 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

Another implication of our first question is that improvised music differs fundamen- (2) Can features of j AZZ harmony (ninths, elevenths, and thirteenths)

tally from composed music, presumably in that composed music has structure because it not appearing in the music Schenker analyzed be accounted is “worked out.” Currently available “alternate takes” of jazz performances, which show for by Oehenerian analysis?

improvisers working out their solos in successive takes—“composing” them, if you will— Thi 4 b he f € “disso-

should help to dispel any notion that a sharp line divides improvisation and composition. . MS secon question Suggests misconceptions about the unction ° sso

By the same token, we should keep in mind that even though jazz solos typically vary much nance” in both classical music and JAZZ. Disagreements amon music theorists—even more from performance to performance than do other sections (such as opening and clos- amons Schenkerians—about the function of dissonance are hot uncommon, but I ing theme statements, introductions, interludes, and endings), improvisation and variation believe that a good account of the phenomenon Requires Schenkertan theory (Larson may both occur throughout a jazz performance. As Simon (1978) and Smith (1983) note, 1997). So-called ninths, elevenths, and thitteenths occur in both tepertories. And in

the distinction between composition and improvisation is not always clear-cut. In fact, I either case, a complete explanation of the functions of these chord extensions ne argue (Larson 2005) that composition and improvisation, rather than being poles of a con- cluding the seventh—seems to require an account of their melodic relationships with tinuum, may best be understood as ways of creating music that are not mutually exclusive, more stable notes at more basic structural levels.

and that, furthermore, many common assumptions about composition vs. improvisation In classical music, one can find pitches whose functions may seem difficult to (for example, regarding deliberation vs. instantaneous creation, training vs. talent, revising explain in conventional terms. For example, sevenths, ninths, elevenths, and thirvs. incorporating mistakes, tradition vs. innovation, constraint vs. freedom, intellect vs. teenths may appear unprepared. They may be embellished before they resolve. They intuition, and complexity vs. simplicity) attribute qualities to composition that are more may remain unresolved until or after a change of harmony. They may not be explicitly

essential to improvisation, and vice-versa. resolved in their own register. They may appear simultaneously with the tone to which The commonly made analogy between music and language underscores the impor- they will resolve. They may “resolve” to notes that are dissonant. tance of not overemphasizing the distinction between improvisation and composition. As In their harmony/voice-leading textbook, in a chapter entitled “Seventh Chords John Sloboda has noted (1985), Schenker’s theories describe musical structure in ways that With Added Dissonance,” Aldwell and Schachter (1979, 123-135) offer examples of ate analogous to the ways in which Chomsky’s theories (1957, 1965, and 1968) describe the all of these. (In their example of a dissonance that appears with its resolution, they structure of spoken language. Both theorists distinguish between the surface of music or note the importance of the fact that the dissonance and the pitch of resolution occur language and a mote abstract, wader/ying structure. And both theorists show how the surface in different registers, but one may also find examples of dissonance and resolution may be thought of as derived from the underlying structure by processes of transforma- appearing in the same register; for example, an acdaccatura (a cluster of step-related tion. No one who accepts Chomsky’s claims about the structure of sentences would assert pitches) in a Scarlatti keyboard sonata may described as the simultaneous appearance that spoken language, solely because it is improvised, lacks the underlying structure that can of an appoggiatura and its resolution in the same register). he authors’ explanations be found in written language. Likewise, no one who accepts Schenker’s claims about under- of the functions of these tones invoke Schenkerian principles of voice leading and lying structure in phrases of music ought to assert that un-notated jazz, solely because it is structure (132-133): improvised, lacks the underlying structure that can be found in notated composed music. Partly because these tones typically appear in the highest voice, some theorists refer One could note that this analogy between music and speech is restricted to the level to such 4ths and 6ths as “1 1ths” and “13ths.” ‘These terms also result from the erof sentences of speech and phrases of music. Schenker’s claims about the structure of roneous idea that such dissonances are chordal in origin, that “9ths,” “T1ths,” and larger musical units are controversial and find no easy analogy with Chomsky’s theories. “13ths” result from adding 3rds above seventh chords. In some twentieth-century

But since, in jazz, we are dealing mostly with the eight-measure units that make up the MUSIC, dissonant chords might really result from the piling uP of 3rds a But in

_ .; i earlier music, dissonant chords originate in melodic motion, not in the piling up of

phrases of a theme and variations, the structure of larger musical units is not a central vertical intervals. There is no reason, therefore, to regard “11ths” and “13ths” as concern. And in any case, the structures of larger musical units in jazz performances tend anything but 4ths and 6ths that replace, rather than resolve to, 3rds and 5ths belongto be more a result of the simple fact that the performance is a theme and variations than ing to seventh chords. Some passages in music of the late nineteenth century might,

a result of any improvisational impulse on the part of the performer. perhaps, form an intermediate category.

However, even if one suspects that there are significant differences between the struc- ; _

tures of composed and improvised music, one should not therefore rule out Schenkerian ; As an example of dissonant chords that really do result from the p ‘ling up of analysis of improvised jazz. On the contrary, such differences would seem to encourage thirds, Aldwell and Schachter cite a passage from Ravel's Valse nobles of sentimentales.

QUESTIONS ABOUT METHOD 5 structural analysis: how else could those differences be identified and understood? Even for this passage, they offer an explanation that invokes Schenkertan principles

of voice leading and structure (451). Presumably, “passages in music of the late nineteenth Steven Strunk (1985) has described the distinctive contribution of sevenths, century that might form an intermediate category” would also be illuminated by Schenker- ninths, elevenths, and thirteenths to modern jazz. His explanation of the function of ian analysis. (For a possible example of such a passage, consider the piling up of thirds that these tones invokes Schenkerian principles of voice-leading and structure, preceding begins the Brahms Intermezzo in B minor, Opus 119, Number 1. Schenkerian analyses of and resembling Aldwell and Schachter’s explanation of the same phenomena in clas-

this piece appear in Cadwallader 1983, Salzer 1952, and Forte & Gilbert 1982.) sical music; here is Strunk’s explanation (97-98): Other phenomena in classical music may seem difficult to explain. For example, pas- The terms “chordal extension” and “superimposition” have been used along with sages of parallel motion in dissonant intervals defy conventional explanations (for examples, numerical designations for these tones when they are explained as arising from see Aldwell and Schachter 1989, 212-216). Similar problems arise for pieces that appear to superimposed thirds over the chord root. This explanation is probably not the best begin and end in different keys (Krebs 1981 gives examples), or that end with dissonant or way to understand the phenomenon, as these notes generally behave as melodic, non-tonic sonorities (see, for example, Chopin’s Mazurka in A minor, Opus 17, Number 4, not harmonic, events. I have maintained the numerical designations in the follow-

and his Prelude in F major, Opus 28, Number 23). ing discussion because of their firmly established general use. However, in order

— a. to separate these pitches from the vertical concept of chordal extension, these and

Schenkerian analysis would be successful in illuminating such non-standard phenom- certain other notes will be referred to collectively as tensions, defined as follows: In ena even if it only served to show how they depart from more standard phenomena. How- a tonal diatonic setting, a tension is a pitch related to a structurally superior pitch ever, the published analyses of Schenker and his followers demonstrate that his theories go (usually a chord tone) by step, such that the tension represents and substitutes for beyond merely defining or identifying standard and non-standard phenomena in classical the structurally superior pitch, called its resolution, in the register in which it occurs. music. (It is also always possible that, in individual cases, the appearance of non-standard Most tensions are located a step above their resolutions. The concept of tension 1s phenomena may be an indication of aesthetic weakness. In Das Meisterwerk, Schenker used broader than that of suspension, appoggiatura, passing tone, or neighbor tone, as his analytic method to point up what he considered deficiencies in the music of Stravinsky there is no tequirement of manner of approach, manner of leaving, or rhythmic and Reger. Regardless of how one might feel about these particular judgments by Schenker, position in its definition.

it should be easy to imagine examples of both classical music and jazz in which non-stan- Strunk notes that “the sense of dissonance of a tension derives, usually, from

dard phenomena indicate artistic weaknesses.) a potential seventh interval between the tension and a chord tone below it” (98) and Notes whose functions defy conventional explanations are more common in jazz goes on to describe contextual limitations on the use of tensions within jazz style. than in classical music. The fact that sevenths, ninths, elevenths, and thirteenths may make These limitations include constraints on voice-leading (99):

the surface of modern jazz more harmonically complex than that of some classical music A potential tension, will be avoided if it might obscure the local harmonic progrescan create problems for the listener and performer as well for the theorist. When disso- sion. For example, 5 /117 (a thirteenth) in a II7}NWWNWNAN— f) f)

° 8 Q ———_ 8

S$ aaynszaszddsSSsSSYWTSSo——

2 JdYh-—,[|_JTYST[TWfNYSsor2oHH,7TT—__—————— a

4 = —— 3f_)AA _ 3 Eee Ps

oo JdSv—_TST_daSHoyfaSTT + oo

dvds oo se 1 TTT

\\ Oe eee OT eOeeE>="="LE ss >

por _OH!.SoOWTSoTTH—————— en Sy ymT_TSS SS] [THTHfWYSH 3 —$ aS

OOOO. TTT 2 ooo 6 —— 5 6 —————_ 5

Example 2.1: Immediate Resolutions of “Ninths,” Elevenths,” and “Thirteenths.” Example 2.2: “Ninths,” “Elevenths,” and “Thirteenths” Delayed by Embellishment. Strunk also describes resolutions that are delayed: “Only slightly more elaborate than Strunk cites four cases in which a tension may find another kind of resolution. Howimmediate resolution is the case of a resolution which is delayed by melodic ornament, ever, we shall see that, in each case, the meanings of those tensions still arise from their but not delayed so long as to allow the chord to change before the resolution appears” melodic relationships to more-basic structures. (1985, 110). Models of such delay by melodic ornament appear in Example 2.2. In strict The first involves b7/V7, whose juxtaposition of the lowered and taised seventh scale counterpoint, such delays may appear as embellished suspensions in fifth species. Again, degrees occurs also in classical music:

such “ninths” (Example 2.2a), “elevenths” (Example 2.2b), and “thirteenths” (Example A ee

2.2c) are better explained in Schenkerian terms than in purely “harmonic” terms. As Strunk The minor-derived b1/VT, (an augmented ninth), Receiving its dissonance from the chord observes, “such immediate and relatively immediate resolutions of tensions ate extremely tone 7 a major seventh below, can resolve that dissonance by progressing to 6, itself a common in bebop melodies” (1985, 110).

. 55 minor ninth tension, dissonant with the root.

QUESTIONS ABOUT METHOD 7

|

Cm Se aJ oF?a| ———_ On lp

ES 9XFa P>TeTADATFsDPSGBsWMH™W~!.>*2433. LL 424-.o20CR-2OA€_—8

b

JSee oe eDRoRO,,.EeeeeeHXXx***&yFr_emeym™ Wd s]T=”_ DDS OOD OOOO TT TT eee, nn OeAOE2ONTHTOTOO I 8S — : Ory FF TT ATT TTT TTT oo

I II VI Uf V I Ul V I Il VI Ol V I 6 ——————_ 5

4 —— 3

f— — a a ts ood a

pO et 3es2SNee eee.8S —=Eeaso9— - OOO EO OT Oooo }—8haoeOoo LS (ey_.'"XYVTY—] 1 @ o_O Ve35g ELL or (wNT’YT ge op o_O ONOOS ee oO

OO ep a 06$@[VWM—S"S. TS > a SD ete oe oo DD. NO 9 OE ali es Foe ae C

yes sesS—XmWXn— ir NH_LHNHyrHyys_s_-7NN2HT Ha ?37§$. Wg 9 3Tee = ™_ _._-226-NTNT00TDMDMNNVT”T"85__(—,.w7-_._OJ7vw@=_=7T ETT SO _—~$_woroouoe-.ee_e_|___,—_ SHHA,!* OOD 0000 0——00— Sno EEF=8 i ooo ooo TawaOO OHOuU0UNHp oo 9 —

Neeees@=$M$MMH” s LL OO on EO OO eee eee e.w ws Example 2.18: Voice-Leading Analysis of the Original Melody of “The Touch of Your Lips.”

22 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

a Dee apS 9 5 I BG = = ¢ 6 ie = ~. 4_ po ,eg a© a

© 4 pre. @ © @ ©

Ig ITIIb5 80aee oo _—————— 7 aI Ce ee —=e= ee VI IIb5 Vv I

iM. ge = eee=eee es mg eTTy— - eT

CR OO Ce ( i 0AsWaT 1077 VQ); EF SS 190 AS

§ ———— 7. —————__ 55 2. 8 SS _ 5 a9 ——— 55

|L@pe @ | Fg ee {)

gS ,)}y,}>N)NT Ta §_W Av 9 — $5 0° _§ 5 —_—¥_ | *—_e—_ |g —_———_**—1_+@ ©

dPe 3 sg 2 . be TT gm)

, a am ee ete de ee ooo |—"~, —~ Se i + Ft ES $$$ gf to + 8 y | CG Pg + ___}___}|__,___gl ~__ 4 7—EA SS eee Oe eee ee P| tele y mp mn hg —_—

A Re Re Re QO CO OA CO CO ne Example 2.19: Voice-Leading Analysis of Evans Improvisation on “The Touch of Your Lips,’ Right Hand, Measures 6-11.

QUESTIONS ABOUT METHOD 23

Evans’ improvisation exploits the different characters of each tonal space between Planing (parallel motion in several voices that produces a succession of similar chords), members of the tonic triad. In Example 2.18b, the structural soprano (stems up) descends which is uncommon in classical music (but common in Debussy’s music), may raise quesdiatonically E—D-C. The structural alto (stems down) descends chromatically from C to tions about the applicability of Schenkerian analysis. In jazz, planing frequently introduces G, the root of the dominant. (This fourth progression balances the ascent of the opening parallel motion in dissonant intervals (especially tritones and sevenths, as in this example). It may measures with a softening descent that exploits the sensual sound of the lowered scale also introduce parallel motion in perfect fifths. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the best explanadegrees over the cycle of fifths Evans describes in measures 6-11. In the original song, tions of planing necessarily involve Schenkerian principles of voice leading and structural context the notes C, Bb, Ab, and G occur respectively on the words “cool,” “sweet,” “tender,” and (see, for example, Schenker 1935/1979, 78-80, on leading and following voices).

“soft.”) Together, they provide the underlying melodic structure of both the original mel- Example 2.21 shows some of the tonal and motivic significance of these upper voices. ody of “The Touch of Your Lips” and the right hand of Evans’ improvisation (a portion The top voice connects the octave of the tonic down to its fifth (which begins the melody of which is graphed in Example 2.19). Thirds and sevenths above the bass line provide the as a pick-up). The resultant fourth progression is a hidden repetition (or “foreshadowing’’) underlying structure of Evans’ left-hand inner voices, as demonstrated in Example 2.20. of the middleground of measures 5-11: both measures 31'-32' and measures 5-11 contain Evans’ remark “I can work around that differently, or between the strong struc- the descending fourth progression, C—(B)—Bb—A—Ab-G.

tural points differently, but I find the most fundamental structure, and then I work from The conclusion of the full chorus (measures 29-32) not only recalls the closurethere” calls to mind the strong relationship between Schenker’s theories and the practice avoidance and linking effect of measures 29'—32', but also confirms the voice-leading expla-

of theme and vatiations. Furthermore, an examination of Evans’ improvisation shows nation of these measures. The progression continues the motion forward for another chothat the nature of its structure agrees with his explanation—and that his ways of Mov- rus (again using the initial ascent figure without closing descent). The voice-leading events ing “between the strong structural potnts differently” preserves aspects of voice-leading (the G—F#-F_E third progression, the top-voice hidden repetition, and the chromatically tather than specific chords. For example, n the original tune, measures 21—24 are identical descending inner voices) are the same, but the chords are different. Again, Evans moves to measures 5—8, part of a thematic reprise. In Evans’ performance of these two fout- “between the strong structural points differently’”—preserving aspects of voice leading but measure groups, (see Examples 2.10 and 2.15), the succession of chords is different but not preserving specific chords.

co-ordination. , 7 _

aa . ;

the aindividual strands of voice remain the (“Now same—what is altered 1s their timing cc Evans’ explanation of leading measures 5—11 we start moving away fromand the; ,thing

a . into ...a cycle”) reflects the fact that the original melody moves away from the opening

Let's look more closely at Evans’ 8-bar introduction, in which he sets up the tempo tonic prolongation (and its tonal space E—C). An analysis of his improvisation on these and key by playing a variation on measures 25-32 (labelled 29-32 in Example 2.15). Such measures appears in Example 2.19. Just as the original melody departs from the opening ause of the last eight measures of a tune as an introduction is common. This introduction tonic prolongation in measures 5—11, so Evans departs in these measures from the original also states the melody, but departs from it in important ways. These departures eliminate melody. And yet, like the original melody, these measures are organized by a simple underlythe perfect authentic cadence by retaining the dominant as a pedal tone through measures ing pattern: the descending fourth progression, C-(B)-Bb— A—Ab-G. 30'-31'. The top voice also avoids closure; it states the melody as it occurs in measures This fourth progression (Example 2.19a, structural soprano; compare Example 2.18b)

1-2 (remaining on 3) than as itobvious appears in measures 29-32 on be 1).felt Measures .., . , _ . og may notrather be immediately to the listener. Yet, once (closing heard, it can as controlling

31'-32' contain; ;a; harmonic sequence that improvisation. jazz musiciansPerhaps call a “turnaround” or this “turn--.a_ ; thetypically direction of Evans’ this iswith because middleground makes back.” ‘Turnarounds replace the final tonic of itself a formal section a cycle of , felt in the foreground. For example, when the Ab arrives on the downbeat of measure

chords that-_ leads into the next formal section. _ i. 9 (see Example 2.19, all levels), it is approached by a motion in the foreground that is the

Hete, Evans’ turnaround links his introduction to the following chorus both hat- same as the larger middleground motion that includes it. This simultaneous completion of monically and melodically. Harmonically, his turnaround links sections via a dominant the same pattern on two different levels of musical structure helps the listener to feel the pedal and by not allowing the top voice to descend to the cadence. Melodically, his in- organizing power of deeper levels by vivifying the experience of structure and ornament. troduction not only anticipates the melody of measutes 1—2 (by changing the melody Such simultaneous completions (a kind of hidden repetition) occur surprisingly often in of measutes 29'—32! to that of measures 1-2 instead of 29-32), but also anticipates two both classical music and jazz (in fact, every performance transcribed in this book contains middleground melodies important in the following measures. The turnaround of measures hidden repetitions of this type). I call the shorter pattern (which ends simultaneously with 31'-32' is based on the chromatic third progression G—F#-F-E in the left hand. This voice the longer pattern that contains it) a “confirmation” (Larson 2002 says more about the connects the fifth of the tonic triad to its third. The upper voices follow this leading voice to create a “planing” of colorful sonorities.

24 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

ee

re 7 9f)a ~-----er

| gf a

ee 3 prg. ————

sy:

5 prg.

a a a a tf Sd N Sn Cc SN ee

b

@— oeCC P| 5— |@pe @ mm

ee o

AN ee, ee a sy sy a ee ee ye - 7

LS SS ES EE gi’ ld wt ld le 3g 4bg alee

|[os owe a a a ee ™|:®@:®@= I] Pet ________4 Eee |b ae ba = © wf rf —~ / ep Ff pe @) @ @ ® © © @ ®

d

a ZA mh| Ce ys —aa HO — xe Lo |+@yo «> ey aZa SYOe SCE TS ee aryCS Aaeiha a eS ONand(

@) PF) PF) PF) @) 3p. mt § 0 to 0 NN —— b7 ————_ 7 ——————__ #10 47 19 ———————- 10 ———- 6 49 ——— }6 ——____9 ——-~\ 6-10 a a eo

5 —________ #10“ ~b7 10-~" ~.7 ——— #10 b7 ———— 10

I Il ———- V II———_ VI —__ II ———_ V ———_ I YW —_—_—_—_. V ———_ of I Example 2.20: Voice-Leading Analysis of Evans Improvisation on “The Touch of Your Lips,” Left Hand.

QUESTIONS ABOUT METHOD 25

ee r,r

_—— 3preg.

: cB r .—— ee Sees o A — . r: rr— r r tf r—_h—F ae r a

roe) r r OU r © © © ©) © oooooouo——— dg tg dg

c : r PP Pf Ff

a | A 2 eed

97), 1.) 10 — 9-7 7 > + 1.001S10 Os 7 ———_ to 7. F110 ——— tt 7——10-7*7 10 Sa OO ——— ——— 7 —— 10> 7- 4-10 — |] ———————Y v———_ I Il ———_v ——— III V of II] —————— II] Il ——-V of I Example 2.20: (page 2).

26 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

3 pt f\ TT ee a ere pg oououoO oo+_ |2 \SiVy —————? Jpg pa bFFh, follows adds - ° o oe > oo > —— hh a

-o):

ee ee 5 prg.

TN ne ne Cc oN . , r @) id id leads @ @ @)

~ a — ie PS} Fg y__| [74 oo eee ——— FT -*}:—_ 3 org 3 8 iq ONA!_RHpJ7,}yfdJdHASA2N>}?7TNT,_1._]1]1————_4

ie ao ‘a te Le a follows yl - 77 7h,

oe} 88 ee -——— f p>_#_»—____+e—___, +—______# ~____4_—__—— + yp ti“‘C;CC;C;*C*Cst‘(‘®#’NYSYYNNN’NYNWNWNWNYWNCWYWCW”CWSUCLT

Jp $$

e) P) f? P? e) oe) ~ — 10 1191 0 7 0 6 1 1 to “4

tJ ee Oe a A”eee neeenn — ee nce ennCT nen©nnn enn| ence SS(ek | —7 410 ———6 6 — 410 ———— 6 ———— 9 410 ——— b10 ———— 410 ————————- 6 :

#10 ~ ~47 10 ~~ 7——— #10 “7 ~>47 ————10 410 ——— bio ——— to 47 10

—] Il ——— V tI vl ————_ I ——_ vy ————_ 1 vy ———__ of II

QUESTIONS ABOUT METHOD 27 Example 2.20: (page 3).

es r=, ‘r _ ee 3 prg.

a ~~

en a pf} PO Dg oy

b

re See ; Gf] $$$,

|_f Cc

—s ee > es a ie j

@) Qs) @) @) @)

pPor!|OUPCOP rt s*

—10 ———10 ——— #10 ——— 10 ————— 10 ———._ 10 —————- 10 = #6 - 7 7 7 7 > >. 7 ———_ 10 —— 6

ON 6 ————7 7 ~~ 10 ———#10-7 77 > §7~ ———————— _ 10 Us —_—_—_——__ V Vilof VI —— VI ——__ I _ ———__ 6 ——_ | Example 2.20: (page 4).

28 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

SS —— Spe e to fo. N P| a—— — a 7r pre.Ae SS eo °

A

a=PoOXsX>—a eee —Xm™—O iTED O_o? 4 prg.

a —~—e—er- oe eee OOO - °"T—-eORONH,_—— 7 § ——————. 9). ———________ 5 —————__ 9 ——_ 8 ———__ 5

5§ —————— —————_#10 46 ne 410h7——————— 6 a8 -7 ~~. ——————— 10

@) @) © Fe FS = eS aSSA2A? 6 7| (a6 5a 7 ————_—_—— 410 -~ a - ys 1)

| ——————_ VI - —_. F_-s MS. V m_ 1!

Py og a ; nd ; e 7=a te FS — SS = 4 #4 4 3

$8 8

OT ot OFT oO. O8F OOOH 7 11 —————— 510 ———————_ 9 ———————_ 59 —___. 8 ————__ 5

8 aN ft ss bp ———_ 10

Example 2.21: Evans Improvisation on “The Touch of Your Lips,’ Measures 31'—32'.

QUESTIONS ABOUT METHOD 29

psychological effects of confirmations). The confirmation of the arrival of Ab in measure The right hand of these measures of Evans’ improvisation contains sevenths, ninths, 9 is marked with nested brackets in Example 2.19c. A similar confirmation echoes this one elevenths, and thirteenths. Schenkerian analysis makes the melodic functions of these rightat the arrival of G in measure 11 (also bracketed). This echo occurs at that point in the im- hand tensions clear (Example 2.19). The functions of Evans’ left-hand tensions throughout provisation that corresponds to the point in Evans’ explanation where he says “now again.” may at first seem more difficult to explain, but they too are best explained in terms of their And the structural alto of Example 2.19c shows a confirmation at its conclusion, G—F—E. melodic relationships to more-stable tones at deeper structural levels. Example 2.20d reproIf the listener does not grasp these deeper “formulas,” the surface may well sound like duces Evans’ left hand in simpler durations and with a “fundamental bass” (in parentheses). a meaningless collection of patterns that just happened to fall under the hand. However, This fundamental bass is replaced in some places by a dominant pedal. (As noted above, consistent techniques of diminution balance the rich variety of this foreground, making the “The Touch of Your Lips” moves to III on two different levels of structure: it tonicizes I underlying patterns easier to percetve. Of measures 6-11, all but measure 10 introduce one in measures 12-15, and the first new chord after the opening tonic prolongation 1S also TH, new note of the middleground. ‘These new notes usually occur on downbeats. (The Bb that in measure 7, The fundamental-bass analysis of Evans’ opening tonic prolongation sugappears in measure 6 of Example 2.19d anticipates the harmony of measure 7—as does the gests that it also features a motion to III.)

left-hand Eo7 chord—and so has been shifted to the downbeat of measure 7 in Example The bass line of measures 5—7 is conceptually an inner voice that moves from the 2.19c. In the foreground, the Ab of measure 9 does not resolve to G until measure 11; the fifth of the tonic triad chromatically down to its third. Evans’ left hand repeats this chroF of measure 10 is an inner voice.) The C-Eb of measure 6 is answered by the Bb—-G that matically descending third-progression from chordal fifth to chordal third at a variety of belongs to measure 7. Chromatic passing tones and double neighbor notes appear in a pitch levels (bracketed in Example 2.20c). Since this motive is such a simple one, it is not similar rhythm throughout: a pair of elaborative pitches leads to a more structural pitch in striking, and yet the cohesiveness that it adds is strong; it usually appears registrally intact, the rhythm downbeat-upbeat-downbeat. The ascending register transfer is associated with and its directed motion draws the music forward. the double-neighbor pattern, while the descending register transfer is associated with the Each of the individual lines above the bass in Example 2.20c (the stemming distinupper-neighbor-of-upper-neighbor pattern. This consistent use of diminution techniques guishes these lines) is a descending chromatic linear progression that fills the tonal space highlights deeper levels of structure by relating harmonically paired measures and associat- of some interval between adjacent chord tones (cf. Examples 2.20b and c). The only ex-

ing middleground events through similar treatment. ceptions in measures 1—25 are simple neighboring motions. For example, the F on the Two of these patterns might be called “formulas”—(1) the chromatic double neigh- downbeat of measures 2 and 18 is an upper neighbor to the third of the tonic triad, and A bor leading into an ascending arpeggio of a seventh chord and (2) the upper-neighbor-of- on the downbeat of measures 6 and 22 is an upper neighbor to the fifth of the tonic triad. upper-neighbor transferred down an octave through an arpeggio (although either or both In measures 25—32, some lines ascend, but—as the analysis shows—these measures are of these patterns occur in every one of the transcriptions in Smith’s dissertation, he does relatively straightforward; in these measures, ninths, elevenths, and thirteenths occur only not identify them as significant patterns or “formulas’’). The first may be found in Example in the right hand. 2.19, measure 9, and the second may be found in the following measure of the same exam- The descending chromatic linear progressions of the left hand in measures 1-4 are ple. One may assume that these patterns fell readily under Evans’ hand, for he played them based on simpler diatonic patterns. The diatonic patterns of Example 2.20b result analytifrequently in his improvisations. It may be that he played them frequently because they cally from the elimination of chromaticism and delay from Example 2.20c. The accidenfell readily under his hand. But it may also be that they fell readily under his hand because tals removed from Example 2.20c may be explained both harmonically and melodically. he played them frequently—and that he played them frequently for musical reasons. ‘The Harmonically, the C# in measure 3 and the F#s in measures 2 and 4 are the inflected thirds upper-neighbor-of-upper-neighbor pattern is strongly directed downward (in the direction of the chords “on A” and “on D” respectively; these accidentals make “VI” and “II” into of the resolution of its unstable upper neighbor notes) and thus its association with the applied dominants of the chords that follow. The F# in measure 3 is the preferred tension descending register transfer is natural. When the chromatic double neighbor functions as for “III” where it functions with “VI” as II-V of II (Strunk notes constraints on tension a turn (which points upward, see C. P. E. Bach 1949, 115), its association with the ascend- formation in chord voicings, restricting “the minor ninth to only one location—between ing arpegeio is natural. Furthermore, while these formulas appear in the “bag of tricks” of the root and minor ninth of a dominant seventh chord” (1985, 98), and while this restricmany performers, such formulas generally serve specific musical functions in Evans’ play- tion is not always strictly observed—for example, Evans sometimes voices a minor ninth ing. For example, the “confirmations” noted in measures 5—11 are all appearances of the above IIo7 in minor—it is usually observed when the II of a II-V progression is a minor-

upper-neighbor-of-upper-neighbor pattern. minor seventh). Melodically, each accidental appears on a note that resolves down by half

30 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

step, turning a conceptually diatonic descent into an actually chromatic one. ‘The thirds and My concepts show that the art of music is much simpler than present-day teachings would sevenths (Example 2.20c, bass clef) form a 7-10 linear intervallic progression (which may have it appear. However, the fact that the simplicity does not lie on the surface makes it also be understood as an elided 8—7—10 progression). The ninths and thirteenths (Example no less simple. Every surface, seen for itself alone, is of necessity confusing and always 2.20c, treble clef) may be explained in two ways: (1) as stand-ins for the chord tones that lie complex.

a step below; ot (2) as suspensions whose resolutions follow. The first explanation (a verti- Wilhelm Furtwangler also stresses the importance of simplicity, but makes a different

cal substitution) derives from the possibility of the secondabout (a horizontal In some ~~ * complaint jazzdelay). (1947, 45):; ;

cases, a dissonance may be understood as a substitution even though the resglution does not appear (as when 3/V7 substitutes for 2/V7, and 8/V7 may substitute for 7/V7—typi- Some time ago a young man In Switzerland expressed his enthusiasm for jazz by procally at cadences). However, here both explanations apply. The ninths and thirteenths stand claiming that jazz 1s much mote up-to-date than the symphonies of Beethoven because

° , . . . . it is far more refined and complicated, and, therefore, incomparably better suited to the

for an 8—5 linearintellectual intervallic progression tones are delayed. The delayed pitches formrela.; ; ; oo, advanced capacity of whose modern man. as well as in harmonic linear progressions that move between members of In therhythmic tonic triad. ; ; eer 7 or tionships the intricacies which it can produce under certain circumstances are extremely

It may be objected that this demonstration proves only that Schenkerian analysis is interesting, while Beethoven’s symphonies lie before us like exercises for children. The applicable to the playing of Bill Evans and not that it is applicable to modern jazz in gen- young man was, of course, put in his place by several offended defenders of tradition, but eral. Such an objection might be based on two contentions: first, that Evans was unusually is, if one considers it carefully, not completely wrong, In fact, the melodic, rhythmic, and talented as an improviser; and second, that his way of thinking was radically different from harmonic elements of which music Is ultimately composed ate temarkably more simple that of other jazz musicians. The first of these contentions seems justified. That Evans was ina peethoven symphony than in a jazz oes he The “cotsive difference hes in only an unusually talented improviser—and that Schenkerian analysis can help show this—is a one EhINg: 1 fa22Z, long-range NEaring 18 absent, MAC ICAICACIES CXISE TOF Fhe Moment

i. ; ; which they sound. The totality runscontention its coursealso likecontains a path through a dense jungle, principal argument of this book. The second some truth. As Martin ; ; where

Wil 1) has ob dE “could have b - ‘tic. Indeed if from right and left ever new nuances, rhythms, creeping growths of all kinds approach ams (nd) has observed, vans COME Nave een a Major musictan-critic. naeed' Ir Wwe us; then suddenly it is at an end and we simply step out of the jungle into the open again. were to collect all he wrote and said about the music and the players, he might appear to have In a Beethoven symphony, on the other hand, the first measute refers to the fifth, eighth, been just that.” And that Evans was a student at the Mannes College of Music may also help twentieth, thirtieth, even to measures up to the final cadence; and so it goes throughout to explain why some of his comments resonate with Schenkerian theory. (Mannes was, and the whole composition. ‘The individual measute is simple, but the relationship among the continues to be, an institution that strongly supports and deeply reflects Schenker’s ideas.) measures, among the themes—the hundredfold correspondences and variations, intenYet it seems unlikely that Evans’ thought processes were totally unlike those of other sifications and diminutions that are the result of this most ingenious long-range hear-

; . . .artists. i. . . ing—produces mass of influential complications which, correctly comprehended, all jazz Evans wastoone ofa the most pianists—perhaps the most influential ; - . surpasses i . . that jazz has offer, in the same way that a living organism, as a product of nature, pianist—of modern-jazz era. The every fact thatman-made he also performed and in recorded a on: - ; i _ ;the infinitely surpasses machine inner with complexity. range of musicians suggests that his ideas may have been transmitted through them, too.

While others may not be able to put so clearly into words what they put into music, other Furtwangler’s remark contradicts assumptions suggested in my third question. It raisjazz artists have produced improvisations whose coherence is illuminated by Schenkerian es, however, another question: Does jazz encourage “long-range hearing’’? analysis. The following chapters analyze several such performances of a single composition When Furtwingler’s asserts that “in jazz, Jong-range hearing is absent,” he is suggesting

(“Round Midnight”) by various artists. that jazz lacks the global relationships that would reward long-range hearing. To be more We have seen that the third question mentioned above, concerning the intent of im- precise: when long-range hearing is absent, it may be so because of some lack in the music, provising musicians to create the complex structures illuminated by Schenkerian analyses, but if it is absent, it is absent in the listener rather than in the music (Larson 1997). Actuembodies misconceptions about the relationship of tmprovisation and composition. But ally, Furtwangler’s description of jazz has a ring of truth to it. Much jazz improvisation other misconceptions implied by this question are more fundamental. This question misun- consists, as Hodeir obsetves, of “disconnected bits of nonsense” (1956, 168). (Schenker derstands the role of simplicity and complexity in music. Neither simplicity nor complexity seemed fond of pointing out that much classical music—if we include all the music of the by itself is a virtue. Artistic expression grows out of their balanced interaction (the writings “common-practice era,” not just what are called “masterworks”—is similarly flawed.) But of Rudolf Arnheim make this point clear). Schenker stresses the importance of simplicity the fact that jazz musicians often say that “a jazz improvisation should tell a story” suggests

in Free Composition (1935/1979, xxii): that many jazz musicians are concerned with creating and experiencing global relationships.

QUESTIONS ABOUT METHOD 31

That they do not always achieve this goal in performance is not surprising—the task is dif- Is Schenkerian analysis applicable only to jazz performances that are exceptions? No, ficult. (Actually, the fact that a jazz performance generally takes the form of a theme and Schenkerian analysis may be applied to any jazz performance—and it may show the shortvariations means that the underlying structure is often clear enough. What is often lacking comings of that performance. One need not buy the “great man” theory of musical history, is an artistically convincing relationship among structural levels.) However, there are ex- nor Schenker’s claim that his theory distinguishes the “genius” from the everyday musician, ceptions. The following chapters examine jazz improvisations that do reward long-range to clatm that Schenker’s theories can illuminate the exceptional quality we experience in

hearing. some of the most-admired Jazz performances.

32 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

CHAPTER 3

“ ‘ROUND MIDNIGHT” Careful analysis leads one to see that what we choose to call a new theme its Semper idem sed non eodem modo itself always some sort of variation, on a deep level, of previous themes. [Always the same, but not in the same way.]

(Douglas R. Hofstadter 1985, 232-259) (Heinrich Schenker 1935/1979, motto) Monk’s theme as a variation Because the Monk performances are variations, it is possible to compare formally Hofstadtet’s remark comes from an article entitled “Variations on a Theme as the Crux of analogous measutes (e.g., the same-numbered Measures of two different A sections). Such Creativity.” His article suggests that the crux of creativity lies in recognizing “the internal comparisons support the assertions of this chapter’s analysis. However, analogous passages

structure of a single concept and how it ‘reaches out’ toward things it is not” (1985, are compared here not merely for the purpose of finding the “correct” solutions to analysis 250). Chapters III-V of this book examine Thelonious Monk’s composition, “ “Round problems. Schenkerian analyses suggest that we hear more elaborate passages as variations Midnight,” from two perspectives: first, what does its internal structure tell us about how it of other, simpler ones. And tn hearing analogous passages of a theme and variations, we may be considered a variation on previous themes; and second, how does it reach out and compare varied realizations of the same structure.

become Oscar Peterson's or Bill Evans’ theme and variationsr If these variations ate to be perceived as such, there must be certain constraints upon Hofstadter’s remark may be viewed as a variation on Schenker’s famous motto. And the types of variation used. Because such perception is an act of association that includes Schenkerian theory can contribute an important part to the careful analysis described in recall, and because recall is influenced by organization, some of the constraints on variation Hofstadter’s remark. Each performance analyzed in the following chapters takes the form reflect the organizing power of simpler structures (Koehler 1947, 248-319). And because music of a theme and variations on “ ‘Round Midnight.” But Monk’s theme is itself a variation happens tn “real time,” some of these constraints concern the timing of structural events. on musical patterns that may be found in the deeper levels of a Schenkerian analysis. By At the deepest levels, the patterns of “ ‘Round Midnight” are simple and very comshowing the relationships between such levels, Schenkerian analysis not only illuminates mon. Example 3.1 shows the form and underlying tonal plan of its AABA theme. Its 3-2-1 the interaction of voice leading, harmony, rhythm, and motive, but also highlights features Ursatz appears in countless other tonal pieces. Its 32-bar AABA form is the most usual that contribute to the distinctive character of “ “Round Midnight.” Because Monk’s theme one for themes upon which modern jazz musicians improvise their variations: the first forms the basis for the five performances discussed, it deserves particularly careful, detailed eight-measure phrase (A,) ends with a half-cadence (a common alternative ends A, with an

analysis. imperfect authentic cadence); the second eight-measure phrase (A,) ends with an authentic

Por this analysis, I have transcribed two different solo-piano performances by Monk. cadence; the third eight-measure phrase (B)—a contrasting phrase referred to by jazz musiThe first is a live recording from an album entitled Monks Greatest Hits (19 November 1968, cians as the bridge, release, or channel—ends on a half cadence; and the final eight-measure Columbia CS 9775 and 32355). The second is a studio recording originally released on phrase (A,) ends with an authentic cadence. Thelonious Himself (5 April 1957, Riverside 12-235) and reissued on an album entitled “Round The basic form of both performances presents variations on this theme. Example Midnight (Milestone M-47067 also on Milestone M-47004 and M-47064). The album entitled 3.2 describes the form of the live recording. Example 3.3 describes the form of the studio ‘Round Midnight is of particular interest because it also reproduces studio tapes of the com- recording. The addition of an introduction (x), interlude (y), and ending (z) to a theme, alposer working out his performance of “ “Round Midnight.” I will refer to the first of these though atypical, is not unprecedented (the interlude does not appear in Monk’s solo-piano performances as “Monk’s live recording” and the second as “Monk's studio recording.” performances, but does appear in both of the performances recorded by Bill Evans).

“ROUND MIDNIGHT 33

A rN rN N\ A rN N rN N AN

A | a a, A) a SS ( ( ANS 9 A | At ——_ A2 — —_ B A

HA A— —— 9DO A9A=

ee ee ee nn ne ce cc cc cc ro Pe F99IqINISS$sVo€####nasII7ITIm7Y777W9lIm]9B@39mIDlIIIlm9p]IlmWP@P@P@]Z@]@JmImIllmWV TTT TTT TT /SsoT YY /.]."."+"]-".-."-_|

——EEEeeeeeere ewes? ss esgves So Example 3.1: The Form and Underlying Tonal Plan of the AABA Theme of “‘Round Midnight.”

x |1A 1A, B 1A, |2A, 2A, 2B 2A, |z | Example 3.2: The Form of Monk’s Live Recording.

x |1A. 1A, B 1A, | 2A, 2A, 2B 2A, || Example 3.3: The Form of Monk’s Studio Recording.

34 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

Even at levels closer to the foreground—and thus more specific—the structure of The events of the next level (Examples 3.4b and 3.5b) also articulate a rhythm of “Round Midnight” shares simple patterns with many tonal pieces. The introduction and measures. In the initial four-bar tonic prolongation, a fourth progression (tenor, stems up ending are based on sequences of II—V progressions—the most common type in modern on the lower staff) connects the octave of the tonic chord down to its fifth. This fourth jazz. The bridge is a 2+2+4 sentence (on sentences, see Caplin 1998). And the A sections progression articulates an underlying rhythm of one harmony per measure. These harmoate based on a middleground pattern of durations and pitches (described below) that ap- nies may be described as tonic (measure 1), neighbor harmony (measure 2), tonic or tonic pears in other modern jazz compositions and in several popular tunes upon which jazz substitute (measure 3), and dominant-of-the-subdominant (measure 4). (In the studio re-

musicians improvise. cording, the harmony of measure 3 has Eb in the bass and C appears as an inner voice; this

The simplicity and commonness of these patterns helps the listener recognize varta- harmony may be described as tonic with added sixth. In the live recording, the harmony of tions in their timing. One of the constraints on the timing of events in this theme is that, measure 3 has C in the bass; this harmony may be described as VI, a tonic substitute.) as a vatiation of underlying structure, this theme follows the general principle that such The middleground bass line shown in Examples 3.4b and 3.5b resembles a pattern structural events tend to be delayed rather than anticipated. Placing events “late” allows the of durations and pitches common in modern jazz. This pattern may described as (1) initial

participation of listener predictions in a way that placing events “early” does not. tonic prolongation, (2) departure to subdominant, (3) return to a tonic or tonic substitute Levels even closer to the foreground introduce such delays. These levels also intro- that initiates a circle-of fifths motion to the dominant, and (4) cadential tonic. Example 3.6 duce harmonic enrichment, balanced oppositions of event rhythms, a variety of hidden shows the bass lines for the A sections of some other modern jazz compositions and Popur repetitions, and a high degree of relatedness between sections. These features appear in lar songs upon which jazz MusiClans often IMPFOVISC. All of the «A sections shown in this many other compositions, but their combination in “ ‘Round Midnight” adds to its distinc- example have this pattern. To facilitate comparison, bass lines for the final A sections (as tiveness—and at the same time, such features may also be thought of as “themes” in the st ven in published sheet music) have been transposed to Eb, notes following the final tonic

sense intended in the quote that begins this chapter. (which make up the turnaround —a generic set of harmonies that return to the tonic) have been omitted, and the register of some pitches have been changed. Of course, mod-

. . . ern jazz musicians tarely restrict themselves to the chords given in published sheet music,

Harmonic r hythm in the A sections but this comparison shows that the pattern shown may be considered a paradigm.

Schenkerian analysis of the A sections of “ ‘Round Midnight” reveals typical underly- In the most regular versions of this pattern, each of these events lasts two measures ing tonal patterns (Example 3.4 analyzes the A, section, which ends with a half cadence, (Examples 3.6g and h). In a common alternative to this rhythm in pairs of measures, the and Example 3.5 analyzes the A, and A, sections, which end with an authentic cadence). initial tonic prolongation lasts three measures (Examples 3.6c, d, e, and f). This alternative Schenkerian analysis also identifies salient rhythmic features; the vertical alignment of may be common because of its stmplicity: the initial three-bar tonic prolongation (measures events at different structural levels may be taken as an assertion about underlying levels of 1-3) usually consists of three parts (the most common being essentially I-V—D, and the

rhythmic structure (Rothstein 1981 and 1990; Schachter 1976, 1980, 1999). single-measure subdominant (measure 4) may be just a single chord. Note that this alternaA neighbor note shapes the first level of the A sections (Examples 3.4a and 3.5a, cf. tive may be heard as delaying [TV from measure 3 to measure 4. In either case, the midpoint Free Composition, Figure 32.3). The events of this level articulate an underlying rhythm of (measure 5) of the phrase is articulated by a harmonic change: the return to tonic. functional harmonies. The initial tonic lasts four measures (measures 1-4). The appearance In “ “Round Midnight” (Example 3.6a, cf. Example 3.5b) and in Charlie Parker’s comof the neighbor note signals the midpoint of the A section (measure 5). In the A sections position “Confirmation” (Example 3.6b), it is the arrival of IV that articulates the midpoint ending with authentic cadences, each of the subsequent harmonies lasts one measure: the of the phrase. (For a more detailed analysis of “Confirmation,” see Larson 2002). Again, tonic returns in measure 6, the dominant announces the cadence in measute 7, and the final the pattern of durations is based on a simple association of one pitch event per measute: tonic artives in measure 8. In the A section that ends with a half cadence, this harmonic both compositions feature a fourth progression in measures 1—4 that connects the octave

rhythm is adjusted so that the dominant takes up measures 7 and 8. of the tonic to its fifth. Because the arrival on IV displaces the following I1I-VI-I1-V, the John Rothgeb (private communication) suggests an alternative reading in which IV cadence does not occur until measure 8 (Monk usually plays I in measure 6, but in the stu(first as Abmin7, then as Ab7) is prolonged in measures 5—6, supporting 4 in the top voice dio recording, 2A,, measure 6, he plays HI’, the chord that other performers often play in (according to this interpretation, the Bb on the downbeat of measute 6 is a passing tone that measure). The arrival of TV in measure 5 also recalls the 12-bar blues. In fact, Parker’s between Cb and Ab). This reading finds a similarly clear rhythm of underlying basic harmo- “Blues For Alice” uses the chord changes of “Confirmation” in a 12-bar blues.

“ROUND MIDNIGHT 35

nies.

rN AN3AN 3N 2| |

IV]

a } r iy P r

}aI——— _—— TEN rr4 (6 Now ©4ft ye 5)

A PO }Te edTroy nd a. In each of the comparisons that follow, I cite two passages that may be related to

Qne can find “paths” of voice leading that connect gach of the initial voices (top one another as a variation is related to a theme. I claim that each comparison supports an voice 3, second soprano 8 and alto i through to the closing 1. The reasons for this are that analytic assertion—often because one of the passages omits a note that I claim is a tone of (in Examples 3.4b and 3.5b) the Dp of mesure 4 connects the second soprano to the alto elaboration when it appeats in the other passage. While this does not “prove” the analytic and that (in Examples 3.4c and 3.5c) the A of measure 6 connects the superposed alto to assertion (one could claim that the omitted note is an implied tone), I believe that readers the tap voice. Example 3.8a shows two paths from 8 to 1. Example 3.8b shows a path from who experience the comparisons will find them persuasive. Perhaps the deeper points are 5 to 1. These different paths should not be understood as conflicting; they offer comple- that heating jazz meaningfully relies on making such comparisons, and that such compatimentary ways of analyzing this phrase. The relationship between the motto and the linking sons rely on the kinds of variation alluded to in the quotes from Hofstadter and Schenker motive makes it clear that3 is the primary tone in “ ‘Round Midnight.” The facts that 5 plays that begin this chapter

Q A a oe a | FrN8NN ss 7 Va6nda aTLae

an important role and that one can find a descent to the cadence from 5 or 8 suggest not eth -stinctive f gee Jdnioht” is th eth that the phrase is ambiguous, but that it ties up the threads of all that it sets in motion. The One of the most distinctive catures 0 Round Midnig rast © Fecurrence ° t c

, raised sixth degree, C. A distinctively Schenkerian aspect of this analysis is its explanation

performances analyzed in the followingofchapters show that suchincluding a rich framework offers f in theaFmotive, this C (including i we. repeated Eh Db C ‘ton dif much to the improvisine musician. the tunction of this its appearance Eb—Lb—C, on dit-

P S ferent structural levels): (1) the first four measures prolong tonic harmony (Examples 3.4

SQ A A A 5 7 6 2 N N 3 5 es ; a eS Sr Se5 4Se

and 3.5, levels a and b); (2) the essential bass line of measures 1—4 (Eb—Db—C-B), stems

0 ye A OOO 8?) P= 9°WO P= Oe ESoF? SG1 02fe? OOO

a A) A FA PS reaching over

bFs A 5A SS = EF SS = Sf eeA ee CC —[_"V]}]11. 8 72aEo Oooo o> ————— OT7> es ss a aT SF Se Se o 5 N N , a KN mT A 5

“ROUND MIDNIGHT 41 Example 3.8: Different “Paths” Through the A Section.

up, Examples 3.4c and 3.5c) may be understood as a motion to an inner voice—the octave 1—4 and measures 1-6 present structurally similar tonic prolongations. One could even of the tonic triad descends to its fifth above an unsounded but conceptually-present pedal compare the entire Examples 3.4a and 3.5a to a passage in Peterson’s performance (1A,, Eb (Examples 3.4b and 3.5b); (3) the lowest voice of measures 1—2 prefigures this motion measute 8), where a similar pattern clearly prolongs a single chord. in shorter note values—also presenting E>Dp-C as a motion to an inner voice above an To experience the higher levels of Examples 3.4 and 3.5 aurally may be another matunsounded but conceptually-present pedal Eb (Examples 3.4c and 3.5c). In the interest of ter. However, there are certain points at which these relationships seem to crystallize. To clarity, this explanation has been stated from background to foreground; however, in the experience the last beat of measure 4 as V of IV 1s to be aware of imminent departure from interest of making greater aural impact, the following comparisons work from foreground the initial tonic in a way that aids recognition of the larger motion to the neighbor chord of to background. In every case, details of one or both performances appear to confirm ana- measure 5. And the pick-up notes to measure 7 recall the motto and introduce the primary

lytical judgments. structural tone from a measute whose immediate context makes this Gb felt as a note atExamples 3.4d and 3.5d show the lowest voice of measures 1—2 as Eb-D-Db-C. rived at by descent. It is at these points that the underlying structure seems clearest. And it Examples 3.4c and 3.5c assert that the D in this line is a chromatic passing tone that embel- seems a mark of a well-crafted piece that it is at these same points that important motivic lishes the more basic pattern Eb-Db-C. In the studio recording, the first two measures of relationships are emphasized. 2A, support this reading; they contain F)b—Db-_C (not D).

Examples 3.4c and 3.5c also assert that this line is a motion to an inner voice above Hidden repetitions in the bridge

an unsounded but conceptually-present pedal Eb. In the studio recording, the first two . measures of LA, support this reading; here the conceptually-present lower voice actually Some repetitions build a simple underlying pattern in the bridge. The melody of the ° bridge moves repeatedly to notes of the dominant triad, expressing one of the most basic sounds through these measutes.

; patterns of phrase rhythm: the 2+2+4 sentence. Example 3.9 shows the structure of the

Monk usually plays the leap from Eb2 to D3 shown in measure 1 of Examples 3.4d bridge

and 3.5d. Examples 3.4c and 3.5c assert that this D3 comes from an unsounded but con-

here D3 comes from an actually sounded Eb3. “es aa In the Li di a E les 3.4d and 3.5d 3 of the A of the bridge repeat the last two measures of the A, section with its characteristic leap to

ceptually-present Eb3. In the live recording, the first measure of 2A, supports this reading; Other repetitions relate the bridge fo the A sections. The bridge begins with a chord

on C—a chord given distinctive emphasis in the A sections. In fact, the first two measures

n the ve recording (as in Examples 3.4d and 3.5d), measure ° the sections Bb (this leap to Bb occurs in the bridge of most performances of “ “Round Midnight”; howalways has C in the bass. Examples 3.4b and 3.5b assert that this C is an inner voice of a , ; , ever, although the leap to Bb always appears in half cadences of A, sections in the Monk

chord on Eb. The studio recording supports this reading; measure 3 of its A sections always f ‘bed. it of, ° d a half cad fA , laved has Eb in the bass pertormances transcribed, often does the not appear in halt cadences o , Sections playe as by other performers). I call these twoit measures “linking motive” because they partictExamples 3.4b and c assert that the C of measure 3 continues through the passing pate in that kind of hidden repetition that Schenker called “linkage technique.” A different tone Cb to Bb in measure 4, and that this Bb is the fifth of a chord on Eb. In the studio re- version of the linking motive occurs at the end of the A, and A, sections, in which the final

cording, 1A, supports this reading; in measure 3, C appears above E>—and in measure 4, note is Fb. :

not only ss the succession C—Ch—Bh uninterrupted, but the chord on Bb becomes A chord This use of linkage technique to smoothly introduce a contrasting bridge is artful, but

on ;Eb suspended Ab). the inner-voice status of to thethe linear progression , , , , modern ; ; (with ; not auncommon. The Furthermore, same technique relates the bridges A sections in other

that includes C-Cb—Bb is easy to hear as this C—Cb-B} is preceded and followed by the Eb ; a d 1 h as “As T; > Bod d L” and bel compositions and popular(for songs such as “As Timea Goes By,” “Body and Soul,” “tO.jazz Monk’s “Well You Needn’t” more on what makes good bridge, see Larson 2001).an belli samples 3.4b and ? OL aus eee hh voice ot online. ome The third and fourth measures of the bridge repeat the first two measures, but with

ems cs a more structural E>—Dp (8—7 above t ¢ tonic). In the studio Fecor ng, LA, sup- the final Bb in a different octave. This change of octave, placing Bb fitst below and then ports this reading; here the Eb—Db appears without the Ebb. We recognize 1A,, measures above the linking motive, answers the Bbs that surround the motto

34, of the studio recording as a version of A, measures 3-4, not because the chords are Oo , the same (in fact they are different), but because the essential voice leading is preserved. The prominence of this inner voice B Increases gradually within the bridge: in measure 2 it appears below D on a weak beat; in measure 4 it appears above D on a weak beat; Because the same patterns appear on various levels, one might accept the relation- a yy - - hins ch ‘a the hicher levels of ; 4 ‘ae b in measure 5 it is emphasized with its upper neighbor Cb, is in the upper register, and 1s

ships shown in the higher levels of Examples 3.4 and 3.5, reasoning by analogy. Measures on a stronger beat; and in measure 8, this Cb—Bb is prepared from above and is the goal

42 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

a

eae = A A . ! y J:~~

A A A A 3 2 2 2 p eee — rs—— ee eeeS aOa ieee "i A NS—""__ a SS. @YF Se . SS, > OY YY D5 PD ee ee — OS 8 ES

dy CE? A= |! @—_ _— @ @ ® © © @ yy rr eet et FE of Fc A) = CS 5 = A = A |= SS SA Sa A =< a iSh ~ SS 5 | OO _| _]| ES | aye ee OE OOS Ta eG OE ee SE ee eeeeeeessSA: ;]2]2®P@eg wT rN

6 8——5 _—___ — 8710-710 —5 | $$ SSB 5: — 8 5 g-n5—8-558 § se 10 7 10i$7——_—i0 10 7 78YOST ~5—8 7—————q§_ 1 oO Ts 5 XS———_ 10

NT © @, -——te ® @ © © @ ©

—_ 1A1 ( 5= cover tone)

F===e

A

a : 7 ; ; ic 7 qe os D be

A ae) a A a ce I ia

-F—Eb-D-E}) ties together the A and one accompanying a 9-8 suspension in the melody). It may seem odd, at first, to focus so B sections of Monk’s theme (and how the linking motive appears in multi-level hidden rep- much attention on a brief figure. However, this figure will appear in increasingly elaborate etitions in Monk’s ending). The linking motive also ends Peterson’s introduction. ‘Thus, the versions throughout the performance and it plays a central role in the “strategies” revealed

linkine motive integrates all the sections of Peterson’s performance. by this chapter’s analysis. In Monk’s performance, appearances of the linking motive serve as hidden repeti- An examination of the linking motive shows that it has a hidden relationship to this tions because two factors conceal their identity. First, time separates statements: although suspensions figure. While the suspensions figure suspends notes of V7)9 into the tonic the linking motive appears in the same shape at the end of the A, section and the beginning triad, the linking motive suspends notes of the tonic triad into V. Example 4.6 shows an the bridge, eight measures intervene. Second—and perhaps more important—this single analysis of the linking motive in levels (compare this to Example 4.7, which reproduces shape serves different functions within the different phrases that contain it. Fieure 43b from Schenker’s Free Composition). While Example 4.6a is clearly related to the ae In Peterson’s performance, a third factor differentiates appearances of the linking suspensions figure that appears in this performance—at an abstract level—this relationship motive: it appears in various versions. In their first appearances, each version is associated between the linking motive and the suspensions figure is a concealed one. with a particular formal section (see Example 4.4). The x-version of the linking motive first This concealed relationship helps to integrate Peterson’s performance. The similarity appears in the introduction. The A,-version ends A sections with half cadences. The A, - of underlying pattern results in an artistic economy of means. Furthermore, this concealed version ends A sections with authentic cadences. The B-version begins the bridges. Later relationship 1s made clearer—one might even say “revealed”—by Peterson’s variations. in his performance, Peterson places versions of the linking motive into the phrase slots

A SOLO-PIANO PERFORMANCE BY OSCAR PETERSON 53

aG=o

Ayms rw

| ES Pf Ag3 — . oo Es A seeS KY eS AA)“a 9 a esc. > ek: yo SS a SS a A 2. WV % , ° FR id xX r~ | [— a = os] ———— —— i S——————————— p-—4—_p Peg Te he /_a LA Pp? SS (ay? == ANSDT 78:TF a 2s

oy ia CN) ss ss

fs 3. —$—_—\_—— |— ee |— >o Aae) =| -—_| ~¢ #2 se

eee Ts dv OD ee OO ee ee SS eeeee eeaooooos— ee eeOOOO ee aeOO a aeee oeoo

°A= ee A) ee eee ” ; 8>5 Example 4.4: Different Versions of the Linking Motive, Bracketed.

54 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

a

;a 3 oe|

"A Pe a A CG ee Ly me ge I NN apA a ee A — ee ce CD A Nl ge NN gm =a

FC a Bac A

:SCO —s

> Py NN iPFO GI Ng>OK ga

9 ——_———. 6 ——_5

7 — —~4 ——3 5 ——_———- 9 —__8

| ——______—————. Vv ;

se eka ir a bpo[N 5 SP DT ? — [1x] rN @ wiz esc. © @ @ [ 1 @ 1A,]

tra’ Ts |A4A—©0OY , @& an A A) ° Pye Dh | refo 6 eo 0 | te Te: #@F@aaeaé NS) Es Sl —a es

Gi «wo ||Oo” D2? fy, 1a eds ee CO PP Se Lor=espyly a 2@pe a) eefe eememe ee ee es On COA aL@pe me ~TO lead in

Example 4.5: Voice-Leading Analysis of Peterson’s Introduction (x).

A SOLO-PIANO PERFORMANCE BY OSCAR PETERSON 55

AS , 7. 7 : « to ebindicate ° 199it 0, The 5 eestructure De as he wants

PD PP OT . IOa Pop sh io , A = , ae ; C Withholding

— ————— Peterson’s variations are variations not just on Monk’s theme, but on Peterson’s version of | Monk’s theme. (This recalls a remark made by Bill Evans, at another point in the interview quoted in Chapter 2, that one improvises on “the structure as he wants to indicate it.”’)

a Schenkerian analysis shows this structure as a “composite reduction”: Example 4.8 analyzes

f) ae,

the basic structure of Peterson’s :\, section (which ends with a half cadence), Example 4.9

————————— shows features common to Peterson’s A, and A, sections (which end with an authentic

—t cadence), and Example 4.10 shows features common to Peterson’s bridges.

7 : Obviously, Peterson changes Monk’s theme in ways that reflect Peterson’s distinctive style. Less obvious—but perhaps more profound—is the fact that Peterson changes

/) a » +4 re TR aay » performance: oat jon DN APa 9a a+ a» 1a Ia lAPra Sats! theme repetitions in ways that a premise 1 an aMonk’s ce uses hidden of reflect the linking motiveoftoPeterson’s integrate his performance,that andis, hisPeterson changes in Monk’s theme itself highlight the linking motive.

b I have already noted how Peterson adds an introduction (repeated as interlude and ending) that includes a version of the linking motive. Peterson’s version of the A sections

oye rt P also differs from Monk’s in ways that reflect the heightened significance Peterson gives to

i the linking motive. Co7—the chord that supports the first downbeat of the linking motive—is given greater prominence in Peterson’s performance; he reharmonizes the motto so that Co7 appears earlier, on the third beat the first measure. ‘he pick-up notes to the linkine motive not only announce it, but recall the initial ascent of the motto. Peterson

a a embellishes these pick-ups and the other pick-ups in the theme in a way that not only draws Spe oe —> rr? attention to the linking motive but relates it more strongly to other gestures in the theme.

g . b = b eo

1 S se a devi all w1 ino. =ByeewithfooTtead-ins _< —_—_@-_——— ; = ae|are zZ Thecertain lead-ins in the notes, opening theme statement use a arouses device Ithe calllistener’s withholding. Bytowith AN | i =are holding implied Peterson’s performance desire hear

2 3 4 5 b) sini , ~ — ,ee =—a== See=——_ > ee So a to - oo aig

simple patterns completed. Paradoxically, withholding can emphasize a note that does not

Example 4.6: Voice-Leadiag Analysis of Linking Motives sound and it can emphasize the forward motion of a pattern that is broken off. (Most of us feel we want something even more when we think we won’t ect it!)

) $5 — _—s———_ — | oo B A j= —4 10-10, 6 - 6 6 - 6, 10-10

Example 4.7. Schenker, Free Composition, Fig. 43b.

56 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

ed

4 N 3 2 He? Fe. NS a a pg 1p25 r 3ppre.r= f ee bI!0b we SPR eye V . ; — ee a ae “VY r |Lig Dm7 G7 a hg gt my PT sp

-e)--b +

'Lg efFSTy ses! rch over oo a ee Ee SST IIT. Oe my Boo =" Se ff eo Ne y J = |-~——_—_#—_£__@—__e- P__\4 rr a a pr Cll CU BS ———C—C—C“(“F7m

2Sly 4 preg. eo H}-2£—_p_,-1SS 2 _|i¢EE "=m SE WZ GG SS SE BN

A Ebm C27 F7 Be7 E>m7 AQT Bm7 E7B>m7E57 A?m7 D7 om ADT C27 Gb7 FT C7 BT *— = —719, — ~ (—*—) ——_ —* ~@ 4 1 O — £@ == 1® QO Fy. © » Hh ps Pp 0 EB Bi a ae ot i te oO Bh oT EE

FH Ppen hr 2 aG| aaSS i a ae ) GS adht 5_ try ——(_ )-II—( )— V

-~" + ¢ ££». #-__o° 5g?) —_ 59 99 _—__. +] o> @_ 9 —_5 +5 —_—__3_+1 po) te te PO i 9 oH + ott + 5$§$_—_—_——4

Cc

beEE7 »7- De \ ae | @ee Jo a aH Pigs mam Hg tae I), Ig | oUt hg a eee 7 >107 7——10]~ 10 7 — >= 6 10°" ~-7-—7->10 58 10 7— | 10]-10 ~7|-7 7 SO ——— 10 ~ 7-10-7. 101077-10 ——— 7 ~7 |—10]-10 7— 10-10 6 —10 7

1 —— Iv —— If —— vy ———— | —— (ivi) —— II] — VI-II—Vv —Il —————— DI — I] ——— (Iv) ——vi ——( )-II—( )— V

g. of IVb 7 of III

Example 4.8: Voice-Leading Analysis of Peterson’s A ; Sections.

A SOLO-PIANO PERFORMANCE BY OSCAR PETERSON 57

a

3 N 3 4 t —o pot ft Tw ty DT aI id p fr r 1? S&S =a

eee = !beel f)SS — pe eT He 4

Se — s ia 2 a rf o——____- : . —_— — LW =

a7| ~po ky 77> ee by |\[9~ee | TF Gm EN ——————— 4 rs, =n) Oe P7

NAL aS A Aa A 2 ee N ~COA A ce eS (a es A — DC 7 —10 ~~ 7 7 —10 7 ~ 7 7-10~7—6~ ~ 10 — 7 7—107 7—10~ > 7 —10

4vI ——Ilkh ——— V hI ——-Ik —— V IV—VII—ll ———— 4vI —— If IV—Vu—III—VvI — 18 —— Vv Example 4.10: Voice-Leading Analysis of Peterson’s Bridge.

lead in

- rch over | TIP’ mm J7 ke 7a Ott. _SY Db, YS aA e—"ee ST~i| C— | SS)LT E CTC a a a NSCs a->

ce 0 eS (A et Os C—O Yh 9 0 oe - TT me! a7 TTT ee ae

10 - 5 ——— 8- ~b5 [=44 ———______- 5- ~b5 - ~49 — 8

ay CR 9 Fa a SP CO QO CS Oe Example 4.11: The Lead-in to 1A,

A SOLO-PIANO PERFORMANCE BY OSCAR PETERSON 59

v4 3 2 3 2z 1 °

ia are not resolved directly as they were at the beginning of 1A,. Instead, we must wait for the

A A | A A A melody itself to provide the notes that resolve these suspensions. eke ee The third lead-in (from 1B, measure 8, to LA,, measure 1) grows out of a cadenza that

elaborates the last two notes of the first bridge—the “closing motive” Cb—Bb—each with its own flourish (Example 4.13 shows the second of these). After both flourishes, a final gesture leads into 1.\,. However, this final gesture is broken off; its dissonant pitches are not explicitly resolved in their own register until the melody of «A, enters. The Bb and G} in

I- Va I= ' parentheses at the end of Example 4.13 show how this gesture could have been completed

(=I you tT hCUy I) had it not been broken off. Withholding emphasizes the forward motion of this lead-in.

Furthermore, this cadenza contains a concealed repetition of the linking motive that re-

Example 4.12. Schenker, Free Composition, Fig. 32-7. lates this brilliant technical display to the plot of the piece (the notes of the linking motive,

:”ViI

Gb-F-Eb-D-Bh, appear with the fifth progression F—Bb and are bracketed in Example Peterson withholds the final D of the A,-version of the linking motive (1A,, mea- 4.13), but with Gb altered to G. sures 7—8), replacing that note with a lead-in to 1A, (see Example 4.11). This lead-in is

more elaborate and smoother than was the lead-in to 1A pe bt involves some very rich har- Similarity and substitution

monies which may be called polychords: the ninth, eleventh, and thirteenth Bb13(11) :; _ ; Cadential also create anfifth, effect of withholding; at anof authentic cadence, form ae a C: major triad; and suspensions at the end of the measure, the seventh [=augmented sixth], ,

. - the suspensions complete on tonic they are In 2the first and ninth of Fb7thentic (#9) withhold create a Gthe major triad. arrival This lead-in alsountil involves theresolved. mixture of 65 ~ aueatione (Gh cadence (1A,(Gb measures 7—8, seefor Example 4.14), a >a suspension is elaborated as| es b2;cc and several “tritone substitutions” for C, and Cb F) that result in compound . 2 . 4—3 .. ; ; ; : bass : by double neighbors, recalling the suspensions figures ofhas thethe introduction and the lead-ins chromatic line. Despite this harmonic complexity, this lead-in same underly: ee A . i ; ' first to both LA, and LA,. Mixture introducesfigure 6 and at 3 from the parallel major mode. ine structure. ;as the lead-in; it contains a suspensions aanticipate deeper structural level hs 2Further_;_ eee ee s _. more, thepassage spacing and chromaticism of this figure the parenthetical elaborations (compare °the analysis of this in Example 4.11, with Schenker’s Free Composition, . s,;. . that appear here in theasfollowing bridge. (The chromatic doubleand neighbor isofa4characteristic Figure 32,7—reproduced Example 4.12—noting the interruption the use . . . . . . aa? ficure in modern jazz improvisations; it typically arises as a chromatic embellishment of

moe [AG] ae 2 ee ee ee | . che-#£ | Pele he ben a 51A? ae aD DS eeTO OSOeSSS

as an upper neighbor to: the primary structural tone). However, this time, the suspensionsstructure.) .:2 converging diatonic lines tn a compound-melodic

—™~ bfeeo —— . “3-@i, Wii oe I2|) = |— — — -@f) a per Y= = he’= o We eh A babe PF OD EE oo s4wNOOS BO OO T™| Sie SO 8 TWToOUW#WZWaATSTodS ST7TT]TYSTTSTYTSYTSTT][7-ToT TTT 77—— re Ee \ sl LY @ we tN eee =,,, @ ee4a@ee d

er aé;ee DC CS OO Ge TAN” OY ly fe) ee NT Pp NSN ma | am Cl) IN dN gl tC i" rar, PB by! Nd Le __ = rf poet CES pip | :

| A — version of linking motive

po ly Ty GR A A)etC—O A —ARS OS ge DP _ ; Laeof; linking motive . [1B] B — version witb TL eee Go TAN” YF ly fll) NOI transposed version _ J 7 | | 1 46 ————— —______ _235

L@pye fo iA CO9ly PPS > (0CC Oe AY PF ggI aTP se a _— oO oO

YJ EEE del — —-."N jFTnnnnornW.-—- —---— Hee pS SH .em a) | CCQ ag Led I OC —————="__ ti‘ re ee ee

: ae ee D A. =

i} §—— 5motive f—— , B — version of linking "A PST AGP eA _7OL D — eee ee ee A Me Me es| Ws i90 © ee 0° Tey” YP bh fey FOC iDctt ON ANS9cr 9G(R aeee OE —_) TY DDwe (eel

p @ ® —— CO he. 4 é a= SF 8 OTe: ss SS —— ————

|dyA @pe teO-PS Ula NN CEOG A cece =PA GG GOlee OO YOAeG GG A A eC ©ASL YEA 9 CUO 7YY) NYAO_O =WkWe ™CC) 9A = — LA eA » Wh) Example 4.14: LA,, Measures 7—8, to IB, Measures 1-4.

A SOLO-PIANO PERFORMANCE BY OSCAR PETERSON 61

In Monk’s theme, linkage technique relates the end of A to the beginning of the Such a reinterpretation occurs when the beginning of the interlude resolves the suspensions bridge. Peterson enhances this effect with multi-level hidden repetitions that—at the same that end the opening statement of the theme. time—offer a subtle demonstration of the relationship of the linking motive to the suspen- Another more subtle eliston—a “structural pun” —occurs at the end of this interlude. sions figure. he parenthetical elaboration in 1B, measure 2, indicated in small noteheads, This interlude repeats the fifth through eighth measures of the introduction. As already embellishes the last note of the B-version of the linking motive, a motive that leaps to noted, the seventh and eighth measures of the introduction are the same as the first two Bp (Example 4.14). This elaboration is a transposition of the cadential suspensions that measures of the bridge. Peterson exploits this similarity—or rather, reveals this similarelaborated the immediately preceding authentic cadence (IA,, measure 8). he octave dis- ity—by playing two measures that must be heard as both the end of 2x and the beginning placement of this elaboration mirrors the leap to Bb of the linking motive. Thus, the sus- of 2B (see Example 4.15). pensions figure also participates in linkage technique. Furthermore, the use of the suspen-

sions figure in 1B, measure 2, as an elaboration of the linking motive suggests that they are Ix 5 ax Z 7 Ix 8

related. Here the suspensions figure occupies the phrase slot (the long note of the linking OB 1 2B? 2B3 , etc. motive) that “should have contained an embellishment of the inking motive.” That this phrase slot “should have contained an embellishment of the linking motive” is confirmed Example 4.15: A structural pun; 2x, measures 7-8 = 2B, measures 1-2. by measures 3—4 of 1B. These measures again present the linking motive. And the phrase

slot that follows is now filled with a hidden repetition of the linking motive (see the circled Another structural pun occurs in 2A. Peterson’s manipulation of tempo and texture and bracketed pitches at two levels in Example 4.14, IB, measures 3-4). Example 4.14 also allows the authentic cadence that ends 2A to continue the building momentum. In one shows that a portion of the linking motive 1s transposed (C-Bb-A-F ) in the first measure sense, the last two measures of 2 sound less like the end of 2 and more like the beginof 1B (the C happens in the trill on B»). Placing the suspensions figure in the phrase slot nine of 3B: these measures return to the slower, regular tempo of 2B and to the same that “should have contained an embellishment of the linking motive,” suggests that the texture as 2B—a stride-piano left-hand texture with forceful, subdivided right-hand texture suspensions figure and the linking motive are related. Because these phrase slots are parallel containing many octaves (compare 3B, measures 3-4). This creates yet another structural (.e., they occur at the ends of the second and fourth measures of a 2+2+4 sentence), the pun: 2A initially sounds like 2A,, but ends sounding like 3A, (see Example 4.16). By shiftsuspensions figure and the linking motive are made to rhyme. Similarity of diminution adds ing gears before the cadence iHerencior after, Peterson ties OA #6 the following bridge. ‘The to this rhyme, guiding the listener to relate the linking motive to the suspensions figure; both parenthetical comment that follows this cadence places a concealed repetition of the linkare elaborated with chromatic double neighbors and mixture from the parallel major mode. ing motive in the phrase slot that previously contained the suspensions figure (see bracketed While these hidden repetitions and cadential suspensions reduce the degree to which notes with upward stems in Example 4.17). the first authentic cadence halts musical momentum, Peterson allows a substantial articula-

tion here. Later in the performance, Peterson uses elisions and structural puns to reduce the 2x 2B we

divistveness of subsequent authentic cadences to a much greater deeree. 3A> 3B 3A3

Elisions and structural puns oe Example 4.16: A structural pun; 2A, = 3.\,.

The next authentic cadence occurs at the end of the 32-bar form of the theme. In The lead-ins in the improvised variations

this cadence, as in the first authentic cadence, a ae suspension delays the complete ar- See ; ;

rival on tonic. However, the performance does not stop here. ‘he music that resolves this A simnilar manipulation of si a and poten makes a A Ol eens Ee suspension is not an end, but a beginning; this cadence 1s elided with a restatement of the smoothest. The right-hand line continues uninterrupted into the downbeat of 2A. Peterson

introduction. ‘The effect recalls an observation of Schenker (1935/1979, 126): usually plays the A sections rubato, but a return to rubato coinciding with the return to the

devices of the masters. ee ; ' a ,

A section at 2A, measure 1, would have broken up the momentum of the performance. Music is the only art in which oo ending a also bea beginning . a This manner of tnrpel- Instead, he keeps the pulse constant (only changing the tempo so that the eighth note tn 2B is ling content forward through reinterpretation 1s one of the most important compositional equal to the quarter note in 2A). His resumption of rubato in 2A, measure 3, sounds fresh and propels the performance forward. While previous lead-ins have retained dissonant pitches across sectional boundaries, this lead-in retains the pulse across a sectional boundary.

62 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

A aET A —ee Aa OD OND YAS

f) SO ———— Ae PD be OS~~ 8 OTTO SO or?

: eye OF

Example 4.17: A Parenthetical Elaboration in 2A, Measure 8.

The last lead-in grows out of the cadenza preceding 3A. This incredible passage ends chromatic motion underline notes of both transpositions of the linking motive that are with a confirmation that reminds the listener of the melody (the “closing motive” Cb—Bb) simultaneously embedded in this measure (Example 4.21).

being embellished. The growth of this run (one octave in 1B, measure 4; two octaves in As already noted, Peterson changes the harmony of measures 1—2 of the A sections 1B, measure 8; and three octaves in 3B, measure 8) reflects the dramatic intensification of (Examples 4.8 and 4.9). Peterson’s change allows a hidden repetition of the linking motive

Peterson's performance. in 2A, measure 2 (Example 4.22). The fill in this measure refers both to the original melody of this measure and to the linking motive.

Fills and cadenzas Additional concealed repetitions of the linking motive appear in 3B. In Example 4.23, Hidden repetitions in the improvised variations telate sections motivically. Example the melodic material in parentheses (level a) repeats the motive twice, first in sixths and then 4.18 shows several concealed repetitions of the linking motive in 2B, measures 3-4. The top (through an exchange of voices In this compound melody) in thirds. An essential aspect system shows how the original melody of these measures, Gb-F-Eb-D-B), is repeated in a of the B-version of the linking motive—the change of octave of its last pitch upon repetifill that makes a kind of musical parenthesis (shown in parentheses in Example 4.18a) over Hon—s thus preserved here (G5-F5—F)5—D5—Bo5, then G5-F5—D5—BM, see Example a prolongation of the dominant. This repetition is so cleatly audible, in part, because the 4.24b). Again, a confirmation signals an important event: the arrival of D on the downbeat two statements have similar rhythms (see Example 4.19, which shows the durations of mo- of measute 2 is approached by F—Eb on two different levels of structure (cf. Example 4.24a tives shown in Example 4.18). A more rapid statement of a portion of the linking motive and b). (the first shown on Example 4.19b) arrives at the downbeat of 2B, measure 4, at the same The motive also appears transposed (D-C-Bb-A-F) in the first measure of 3B. Again, time as the slower version that contains it (Example 4.19a, the original melody of this part the rhythm is similar (see Example 4.24c), and the use of both D and Db reflects the use of “ ‘Round Midnight’). This confirmation helps listeners hear the various versions of the of both G and G) in many of the concealed repetitions of the linking motive at its original linking motive and keep their rhythmic/harmonic beatings straight. This confirmation is pitch. Again, the smallest details of leaps and changes of direction reflect the underlying also an x-version (with an escape tone) of the linking motive in a B-version phrase-slot. motives in 3B, measure 4 (see Example 4.24b). The linking motive also appears transposed, as (Db)-C-Bb-A-F, in the third measure of

2B. Again, the rhythm is similar (see the durational reduction, Example 4.19c). The ending Peterson actually changes the harmony of 2B, measure 6, (from Co7—P7 to Co7-Pi— Cadenttal suspensions, elisions, structural puns, fills, cadenzas, withholding, substituBb7), allowing the motive to appear again in both its embellished and transposed versions tion, and confirmations all appear within the final measures of the piece. These not only (see Example 4.20b). Even the smallest details seem to reflect the linking motve. In the postpone the final complete arrival of tonic, but also tie up the threads of what has gone long melisma of 2B, measure 6, leaps, changes of direction, and a shift from diatonic to before (Example 4.25). In 3A, the build-up to the authentic cadence of measure 8 is climac-

A SOLO-PIANO PERFORMANCE BY OSCAR PETERSON 63

2— oo #:3=Pe a SP — TT ~ a Ke te ed hw “ ba—— wae -t a —ae );

Vl — — __ II ——_ VV

2 4

ceebal ———— 3 dl bd : A Hi , . o —13it3 | F f| | 4 A SSS = b 4 4p

Pp De ey lie A ESS OTTO pishere e tiie mie be bebe tp tes —— Oo ree

Example 4.18: Voice-Leading Analysis of 2B, Measures 3-4.

64 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

d3 1a 3a es | a a ~$————$— :

_ acs! | | ———————————————

ie 0 2 ee Sagan 6 a b 4 AP

iP > ‘ D : 4 ; pi L L 4 , Example 4.19: Partial Durational Reduction of 2B, Measures 3-4.

A SOLO-PIANO PERFORMANCE BY OSCAR PETERSON 65

tic; in measure 7, each note of the linking motive is greatly embellished—the linking motive to serve two functions simultaneously; (5) fills (metric diminutions on the long notes now spans over a hundred notes. The pick-ups to these runs reintroduce the register of the in a melody) and cadenzas (diminutions that suspend the meter) add content within

most dramatic sections of the performance. phrases and at cadences. All of these devices work in a progressive way—successively The final cadence is withheld. Instead of the final tonic, Peterson plays the second reducing the divisive effects of sectional boundaries so that each succeeding phrase is half of the introduction once more. The result 1s an elision that replaces the tonic with a set more firmly linked to its neighbors.

of now motivically-significant suspensions. The final measures alter the last two measures Melodically, each of these devices presents progressively more elaborate conof the introduction so that it ends with an authentic cadence rather than a half cadence. cealed repetitions. All of the lead-ins and cadential suspensions contain concealed This alteration not only represents the changed function of this formal unit, but places an repetitions of the same “suspensions figure.” ‘The “linking motive” appears at various A, ,-version of the linking motive in an x-version phrase slot. This final appearance of the hierarchical levels of pitch, rhythm, and phrase structure, at different transposition linking motive is a confirmation (it completes the linking motive in the foreground with the levels, in different strategically linked registers, in different harmonic environments, final pitch of the expanded version). Since the last two measures of x have been altered to re- embedded within simultaneous unfoldings of the same motive at different rates, and semble the last two measures of A, a final structural pun results (Example 4.26). The final pair ultimately spanning over a hundred notes.

of measures presents the cadential suspensions and answers the register of the introduction. Five rhetorical devices point to relationships between various versions of the linking motive, relationships between various versions of the suspensions figure, and

Summary relationships between the linking motive and the suspensions figure: (1) “proximity” relates different gestures by placing them closer and closer until they overlap one an-

The following devices work—both thythmically and melodically—to integrate the other; (2) “similarity” of diminution (such as mixture from the parallel major mode sections of Peterson’ s performance. Rhythmically, they reduce the divisive effects of phrase and embellishment wi th chromaticized double neighbors) relates different gestures by boundaries: (1) lead-ins connect half cadences to the downbeats of the following sections; making their concealed repetitions more and mote alike; (3) “substitution” relates dif(2) cadential suspensions postpone or eliminate the complete arrival of tonic at authentic ferent gestures by placing them in each other’s “phrase slots”; (4) “withholding” the cadences; (3) elisions bind formal sections, reducing or even eliminating the closure of aus final pitch of a gesture allows listener expectation to relate different gestures; and (5) thentic cadences; (4) structural puns overlap formal sections, allowing one passage of music “confirmations” allow the simultaneous completion of a single idea on two different levels to vivify the experience of structure and embellishment.

66 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

):

2 3 preg. ,TT°I PI . eeaN Oe- ae 2 ee Ad ee ~eewo he Te hy . = a re Y tv ——— vik —— sd EE ARN. St MS __ J]: MV

>)

C Be

b . , ‘ Lf hy 54 E Example 4.20: Voice-Leading Analysis of 2B, Measures 5—6.

A SOLO-PIANO PERFORMANCE BY OSCAR PETERSON 67

rrCO) 10>= .3oF ——— ,© SE, 12 oe 4 b

transposed linking motive: (C)— Br C-By —— C C — Be AF 11

a LE) ee a _ A ES DS HS SP CY SO

Gb—F Go F ———— Gb F ————— Gb F ——— GbF ————— F—Eb—D—Bb Example 4.21: The Linking Motive in 2B, Measure 6.

LAY ky IG aI TTT a )— _ Py) ~< fg me $f

II V I 4 prg.

A|a | @ be |

hd CMY

ee eee

original melody — ——_ linking motive

, @ ae1 \ reg. trans. melody 6) Le by | original ee gh Nd

PF by gy

Tey SN ST AN eeYY ee eeYh = hsULL ns $n)UvDMU y -———_a 4VO —_tI3» 118NI 08 Pm 5S a NN ET TT (fi uk TY gh hChUdTLULULULULLCUCMLMC—dSC LllDem®llLUmMLU LUD OMe Pe Ne

Example 4.22: Voice-Leading Analysis of 2A,, Measures 1-3.

68 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

, , fe hee pay !7 VI rd ne I V - = seid itd ad 4

C

rel | $09 DC CO -

b Wecec rrr n nee

! vI Ul Vv

ye | i __

iy ,, © ss 5 5s (0 ie onoteitete’tit ein... 2 = ==

a 8a 9 eg ee" ——__--_—_-_—— aia

C

Example 4.23: Voice-Leading Analysis of 3B, Measures 1-2.

A SOLO-PIANO PERFORMANCE BY OSCAR PETERSON 69

9g] | i, —— + = :

[KE So ______ 1, a fta ady a ——_ |

SS a ee ee eee J . j —+ | , ; —

, @ k es > > ys @ k rete te’ *e! te beb A a = =

d

6336—

Example 4.24: Partial Durational Reduction of 3B, Measures 1-2.

70 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

"A OD aAPope a ee TARY Ph PONS NN pgNg tty PN YA SS pe A) PE hy et 6ee ee = ee Oi @ @ _&

3A] @ 3 3 mot. int. ve. BX!

: NC a QO WS QO OS ee 4

Example 4.25: Voice-Leading Analysis of the Ending.

3A 5 3A 6 3A3x75(3A 3x 6 >7) ae3A | 3x 88 Example 4.26: A structural pun; 3. 1s completed by 3x.

A SOLO-PIANO PERFORMANCE BY OSCAR PETERSON tA

CHAPTER 5

ENSEMBLE PERFORMANCES BY BILL EVANS In the art of music, as in life, motion toward the goal encounters obstacles, reverses, disappointments, and involves great distances, detours, expansions, interpolations, and, in short, retardations of all kinds. Therein lies the source of all artistic delaying, from which the creattve mind can derive content that is ever new. Thus we hear in the middleground and foreground an almost dramatic course of events. Heinrich Schenker (1979, 5)

The problem of integrating formal sections too. For example, Peterson delays the resolution of the notes Ab and F at the half cadence The previous chapter views Peterson’s performance of “ “Round Midnight” as a solution to at the end of [Aa lead-tn—untl the entrance of the melody at the beginning of 1A. a problem. That problem—to integrate the separate sections of a theme and variations—is However, this technique of integration assumes greater significance in—and may be called solved elegantly in two representative ensemble performances by Bill Evans transcribed a premise of —Evans’ performance.) for this book. The first is a live performance with Chuck Israels (bass) and Larry Bunker (drums), and appears on the album Live at Shedlys Manne-Hok (30 or 31 May 1963, Riverside The closing motive

R 9487 and ABC 3013) and was subsequently re-released on Time Remembered (Milestone

M-47068, 1983) and Bil] Evans: The Complete Riverside Recordings (Fantasy, Riverside R-018, As in Chapter 3, I will restrict the term “closing motive” toa descending stepwise mo1984). The second is a studio recording made with three pianos—all played by Evans (via tion to Bb—usually to Bb4 (the cover tone, 5). Where this motive appears at different pitch overdubbing)—and appears on the Grammy award-winning album, Conversations With Myself levels, I will refer to the “transposed closing motive.”

(Verve V6-8526). In this chapter, I will refer to the first as “the live recording” and to the By avoiding a structural descent to 1, the closing motive may reduce the closure of

second as the “studio recording.” cadences. Furthermore, the arrival of the cover tone at either a half or authentic cadence Peterson’s solution to this problem (discussed in the previous chapter) has a kind of can be delayed until the beginning of the following formal section (1.e., may function as artistic economy of means: he takes an aspect of “ ‘Round Midnight” (multi-level repetition a lead-in). This delay further reduces sectionalization. Evans exploits both the “floating” and linkage technique with the linking motive) and makes it a premise of his performance. character of the cover tone and the joining effect of delayed resolution to integrate the Evans’ performances have a similar economy of means (in fact, they are also rich with hid- separate sections of his theme and variations.

den repetitions; motives appear at various hierarchical levels of pitch, rhythm, and phrase Example 5.1 shows the structure of this motive over dominant harmony (at i) and structure, at different transposition levels, in different strategically linked registers, and in over a tonic-dominant resolution (at ii). Example 5.1a shows the cover tone without elabodifferent harmonic contexts)—but he exploits a different aspect of “ “Round Midnight”: ration. Example 5.1b shows this cover tone emphasized with a prefix upper neighbor. The he makes the delay of resolution of the closing motive a premise of his performances. resultant ninth may be resolved above the dominant (Example 5.1b, at 1) or with the change (Of course, the delay of dissonance resolution is significant in Peterson’s performance,

72 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

aoy eee

i) ii) ee a 8or 5 8— SS 5 i) li) oo 1 eos yo 1-H boyorSO i) il) ot Se o_o OS C or

Pe nd Oe)

ad CME

b9 —8-— 5 b9 ____5

:~«@”C TA [iYyd po [a eC OTT JF Tey ” IF |

Fe Pt

bl O—b9— 8-5 bl O—+b9 —_5 Example 5.1: Different Versions of the Closing Motive.

ENSEMBLE PERFORMANCES BY BILL EVANS 73

f

(yD Ss a5"SSSi aeer y OO OE FE OE eee————aaSoomSoToOINOyoOoOVWV"Moy"Td>qvO-,7WJW>7r7T7T7!]]$]|}|1}+._"..-~8

Example 5.2: The Pattern of the Closing Motive Extended.

Xx LA, 1A> 1B LA3 | VY | 2A) 2A? 2B 2A3 | 3A) 3A> 3B 3A3 1\4A 4B Z Example 5.3: The form of Evans’ live recording.

1 / yy / | 2 2

:" aie. nae. :6 ne. a5) 4 9. ¢ . . . : x | TA; 1A. 1B 1A3 |y |2A; 2A. 2B 2A3 | 3A 3B |Z Example 5.4: The form of Evans’ studio recording.

: ' : , , a consistent profile for an instrumental part.

of harmony (Example 5.1b, at tt). Example 5.1c shows that the ninth may be intensified by P P its own upper neighbor. Again, the resolution to the cover tone may occur over the dom1-

nant (Example 5.1c, at 1) or with the change of harmony (Example 5.1c, at 11). The form of Evans performances

: ) os i eS ; Ase . : ; we ? : 5 . . . Lo, . . .

The resultant >10-b9 above the dominant is a common pattern in modern jazz (this Example 5.3 shows the form of the live recording and Example 5.4 shows the form pattern was called the uppert-neighbor-of-upper-neighbor pattern in Chapter 2, see also of the studio recording. In both performances, the first chorus is a statement of the theme, Example 2.3). This pattern is sometimes extended by placing whole-step upper neighbors and the second chorus consists of improvised variations. In the live recording, the third above all the notes of the leading-tone diminished-seventh chord (1.c., above all the notes chorus is a bass solo. Both performances feature an abbreviated return to the theme.

; . : .: : itFseems e scribe sections s sets variations ivans’ versi fonk’s

of the harmonic minor scale not contained in the tonic triad). Jazz musicians call the resul-

tant octatonic collection the “diminished scale” or the “V13(b9#11) chord-scale” (Example The A re 5.2). This extended pattern appears in the live recording, 1B, measure 4.

: nina? . 5 sys :,7. anes 2 Bacar ee.:.:.5car ; . .ae . . :: .

One could describe Evans’ performances as sets of variations on Monk’s theme. But

The problem of integrating instrumental parts it seems better to describe them as sets of variations on Ex an ver ion of Monk theme

(recall Evans’ remark about “the structure as he wants to indicate it”). The harmonies of As ensemble performances, both of Evans’ performances solve an additional prob- Evans’ version of the A section are similar to Monk’s. The most striking differences are lem: how can each instrument seem a necessary part of an integrated whole? Part of the melodic and reflect a premise of his performances: the closing motive places emphasis on solution to this problem ts for each part to have a well-defined role. In the course of these delayed resolution to Bb, reducing the closure of cadences or sectional divisions.

performances, various parts assumecommon the following roles: A, primary melodic voice, bass line, ,:, : a , Example 5.5 shows features to Evans’ sections (those A sections having inner voices, countermelody, melodic fills, rhythmic punctuation, echo or A, foreshadowing, :(those ’ / half cadences). Example 5.6 shows features common to Evans’ and A, sections pedal A singlehaving part may assumecadences). more thanInone of these3.4 roles, roles are ;analyses aa . o3point. . A\ sections authentic Examples andand 3.5other (voice-leading of possible. However, for a given part to be recognized as such, it must have a consistent pro- : , a dy ee ¥ oo, Monk’s A sections), an asterisk (*) indicates the appearance of Bb in measure 1 (as a cover file: the .treatment rhythm, texture, 2 and/or voice-leading must distinguish that part a —resolves ; ne Sean of . tone), measure (an implied suspension of this cover toneasthat to Ab), and mea-

separate: ae entity—this is crucial in the overdub recording eachby part played on the Cp). i” , +, a! sure 6 (the superposition of an inner voice, because emphasized its is upper neighbor As a resame instrument. Schenkerian analysis shows the contribution of voice leading in creating ; = Bh an at

d : : sult of Evans’ changes, this Bp also occurs in two other places (see the asterisks in measures

74 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

QE ITS V Ot — AN A A 3 N 3 2 ra ° v 16

8 eS ——————————————————————————— —e——E———— a

pz — Sn

a Hs Ph —7 oF eo? oo or Ne a a, ~ — — ees ns ny > ne P__qy es _— b9| =fpPN F—__ p P r "—=s = _ ee } eo sph ae ey ro 2 _ * ___ o_o rr ee te =)7—— EO ee rr He| r tie [—-?= 7s c SY Jide de J ~~ ee

I gp vm iv ——— |] ————————_ V

eee ae cr ee a OF lO pr eC eM LR) lO GS———S—S—COCP H—_eeeeee—/J™

}-@-¥— | — __@ _qj"_4 ee eT _— ee —=e : 7

-———— a = = esofei?Nf .O0 r fe) =fafras be_/) iprof

Bbm C27 F7 Abm7 D7 Bbm Cbm7F>7 Bbm7E>7 A?m7 D7 GhM7 D7 C27 FT Bb7 O - 4@ ge ES ~o** =Aee || 9A—y 5 $reg ____,-_________}_}____ _|__.-________ |_|}, a a VY; PS — SY-* CE@ | 2Le RS® 5SfeetO* ES OS SNET®@ ES OPSV

PN nn Aor=e ad ntig er Aeld P i?= F

aye ET eet ft a St (iid dl ye OM # foo Dl eC|t (‘Ci , 2 ________"\_#*—__ o—_ #4, pe > Hh 2 8

OSTIS5 39+ 3-5 9— — 510°97 a—— 10 T—-10 1007 0 5-777 T= 10-89 THO" 7 — 1059 + ——_—_ 9 —5 § ————————_ i — 9 6— 926—_—9 — ~. 6 — 5° > 9

7 —10 B-- 7 © >>. 1087 —1007—10-— 7 ———_ 10 +7 —10°° ° 777

I hvVI 6IV vO ll vi WV Iv VII m1 = (1V4) VI 14 Vv of IV

Example 5.5: Voice-Leading Analysis of Evans’ A, Sections.

ENSEMBLE PERFORMANCES BY BILL EVANS 75

a

Oe § i aI}Vv ° LdI a

rN rN N rN 3 N 3 2 ] ra e 4 4

RO ririyqoNoooosso™moéosyayy—soedxv 2 >ou2q.f|[._ pT

pr mo in nn bIprrr-iii |ae: a a 5 aes ne, ee if 7 aD SoONnr-----—-—-—---nw—-0 a ES Dee | —

PCY CULV Le——CC(CNNNN’ «Ss aNNtt(‘(RNCCC(NNCOQGQW i mOCi‘(‘“(‘(‘(‘(‘(SCOCOCOCOCOCSCSCSCSCSCSCSCSCSCSCSCSCSCSCSCSCSCSCSCSSSSSC RN "GH Oe St—S J rd UN ei(‘(‘OOOOOOt#C#C#C#C(G®ULULULULCUCLC CC ll

yFF44400NIV—_S_TJ27,YSTHT TS[T7)4(752—~N4~——o4q4. uo qNo4F.q4,]}]]NoJo})}f },}4]74)4Y4 JSS aS TTS TT dd sf +>

I tS 9 ——— VII———_II—-+VI ————_ II ———_-V — I

2iyo— py eee oo eo Eo Eh a a

I —° 86 1 SS SS OOO OOO The o — ae ee ) _ —bbesco f? Cc yfp \ |€e Lb bbe a.oa—~ oe oN oH L as:o~° tt ————? be _FP _f _ f rheP_ i yeh “pfreeT—ON aa———TOOED

aye as le gd LE ye fcn a >A=oc| >a bo ‘ =et>Ts eo ae P

@ *-Pp @ 4-%+@ ~©re On; ®_,Eo Hops foa i@a O-* i eSszSS EE E?m C27 F7 Abm7 Db7 Ebm C>m7 F>7Bbm7 EP7 Abm7 Db7 Gbm7 Ab7 C27F7 £27 Bb7 EMT

BEANS A eee yp —_\t _g> 1} 4 Pg ——__| —_ gg —________g | te te gs YT = “"@oe | Itt fe

OATS 5 90 3B10707 IS RI 5 107 7 10707 77-10 7 7 710 10ST 5-07 T1087 > —— 9 —5 § ——_—_ 9. 6 —9 6 —_9 -——-™™.. 6 —[5

7—10 8--7777 777" =510A7—1087 —10 @ > 7 ———10 — > 7—10°7-10—7 — 10

I WWI 1 OCOUIV Ova I VI Wm Vv Iv VII I (tvs) ‘VI mh Ob SCV it of IV

Example 5.6: Voice-Leading of Evans’ A, 3 Sections.

76 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

5 and 8 of Examples 5.5d and 5.6d). Examples 5.5c and 5.6c show a fourth progression Evans softens this characteristic minor seventh; he states the fifth progression F5— in the top voice of measures 3—4. This fourth progression also appears in the bass. But Bb4 (registrally intact) with a smoothness that underscores a difference between Evans’ and because the top voice delays each tone of this fourth progression, it creates a ninth over Monk’s styles. This effect of smoothness comes from more than the elimination of a leap, the bass, (and a thirteenth over the following bass note—the conceptually paired alto has however. The voice leading that supports this fifth progression (described in figured bass a delayed third progression which produces fifths and ninths where the soprano produces below Example 5.7d) is entirely conjunct, and it produces ninths and thirteenths in the top ninths and thirteenths). As a result of this delay, the final Bb of the top-voice fourth pro- two voices. These ninths and thirteenths (Example 5.7d) result from the delay of the fifths gression (conceptually supported by I=V/TV in measure 4) actually first appears as a ninth and octaves (Example 5.7c) of the fifth progression in measures 6—8. Where such estabover Ab in measure 5 (where its appearance is marked with an asterisk in Examples 5.5d and lished linear progressions are delayed, the resultant dissonances possess a strong forward5.6d). Thus, Evans’ added delayed right-hand fourth-progression introduces a prominent directed energy. In fact, the goal tone of this fifth progression is delayed until the downbeat

additional appearance of the closing motive. of the following A section. Thus (as in measures 2—5 of the A section) Evans adds or alters Evans makes subtle changes in Monk’s theme in measures 5-8. These changes also a top voice that connects sections (or halves of sections) by delaying the resolution of tones emphasize the closing motive. In the A sections ending with half cadences, Evans not only of a linear progression. In both cases, the delay results in a chain of ninths and thirteenths leaps up to Bb in measure 8 (Monk leaps down to the inner voice here), but also emphasizes supported by a circle of fifths. And in both cases, the linear progression ends on the cover that leap with the upper neighbor Cb (Evans’ version of the linking motive consistently tone Bp (at the beginning of the following A section), recalling the closing motive. contains this Cb).

Evans also leaps up to the cover tone in many of the A sections ending with authentic X, Vs and z cadences. Example 5.6 shows how Evans avoids ending on 1 at the end of A sections that A comparison of Evans’ versions of the introduction (x), interlude (y), and ending (z) conclude 1A,, 2. and 2A, of the live recording, (a 1A, of the live recording, the final 1 with Monk’s reveals details that relate these sections to each other and further emphasize s delayed until the begt nning, of the following bridge; and tn 4A, Evans also descends to the Bb cover tone. In the live recording, Evans introduces an ascending chromatic inner voice in both x and y. In both performances, the soprano A of the strange chord that ends scent (to an inner voice) through the fifth progression F-B (with the Bb transferred up an x emphasizes the cover tone when tt resolves to it in the first measure of 1A, (listen also to octave) This fifth progression occurs both in the A sections ending with half cadences and the version on Miles’ Davis’ Greatest Hits, Columbia, CS 9808). While Monk’s version of z in those ending with authentic cadences (see the alto of both Example 5.5c and Example approaches the final tonic through hidden repetitions of the linking motive, both of Evans’

an inner voice—this time to 3.) This motion to the cover tone that avoids 1 involves a de- _ : :

9.6¢). versions of z approach the final tonic through hidden repetitions of the closing motive.

Finally, the form of the closing motive most important in Evans’ improvised varia- In fact, as the brackets in Example 5.8 show, the closing motive makes several appearances tions is D>—Ch—B>. And in his statement of the theme in the A sections, measures 5-6, in the final measures of the studio recording. (In this example, some reduction has been

Evans consistently changes Monk’s ChBh to Dp—Cb—Bb. done. The closing motive appears on different levels of structure. The brackets enclosed in curly braces show the repetition of the motive at different pitch levels. The final gesture in

The bridges Center seems to recall the compound line of Right in z, measures 7—8. This compound line Example 5.7 shows features common to Evans’ statements of the bridge. Again, the

is analyzed by the sketch in parentheses in the bass clef.)

differences between Evans’ version and Monk’s emphasize the closing motive. The leap to . kt . . Bb in measures 2 and 4 is emphasized with the upper neighbor Cb. The brackets in Example Closure and motive in the live recording

5.7¢ show the appearances of Cr—Bp. Schenkerian analysis of the improvised variations on the live recording reveals the sigThe final Bb shown in Example 5.7c is the goal tone of a fifth progression. In Monk’s nificant role played by the closing motive and a related motive: the double-neighbor figure. version of the bridge, this fifth progression is stated with an ascending register transfer This analysis also reveals the strategic functions served by the delay of resolution in Evans’ that creates the melodic minor seventh F4—E}5. This leap reflects Monk’s angular style. Or deployment of these motives. perhaps it would be better to suggest that the inner logic of Monk’s style creates a strong, Evans’ use of delay not only binds formal sections, but holds the listener’s interest. simple shape—the linear progression to an inner voice—from gestures that include an an- As Schenker’s remark (quoted at the beginning of this chapter) indicates, delay can generate

gular foreground melodic minor seventh. content; once a goal is established, our attention may be held until it is achieved. But con-

ENSEMBLE PERFORMANCES BY BILL EVANS TT

a A

2

Hh ps Pp 48 SOOO OOOO

A A A 3 p | 2 | a ane oad fr PRP b

o> — A” @c*? F7 @ B?7 @c*7 F7 @ B>7 @F*7 Bb7 @c*7 FT G@BP>m7 £7 Abm7 D?7@ Gbm7 cb7 F27 B>7

i CO) A SL (SS A LA P iP o iP o iP PF ri ype of 3 8 B88 hh 88808 II———>727}0>~+~- Oo __ #2NwN Hho 8 Hs 2 FE 2 8 ~579 579 579 579 57 >~9>6 96 9-6 9-6

8~~>10 — — 7 —— 10 10 - ~ 7 —— 10 7 — 10 10 ~~ 7 —1077—1077 — 1077-1077

5 7 —10~-"° >> 7 7 —10-" ">: 7 10~—~ 7 7 —10-~ ~-7—10°*>7—10~~ >> 7—10° *7—10 1—hvI —— 11h ——— V kvI——-_ 114 ———_ V Ii — V RY 1 AAV Example 5.7: Voice-Leading Analysis of Evans’ Bridge.

78 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

|

aIooo SF oo 7 - 71 = a Ae ee © QO @ LTAy DP

by gy BT LIF bf [ep lUPrgl bh lg eS SS eee yD 4 i ee pp cf. Right, z @) -— [1 eS ooa /) \ Po 5 SS TTT TTT

| Pty Pf a} _ "ay ee] ——prmmemrmemmmrmmemmmy —f

DD i =

| 4 A 0 Dig Tf} Ty lg he pot th Oy fp pt

a 6 . ba 2 a)

. Aprg. Right ree le IT 5 prg.

Nee eee eee eee eee eee eee ee ee es ee eee ee eee f Example 5.8: Voice-Leading Analysis of the Ending (z) of Evans’ Studio Recording.

stant delaying can become tiresome. Evans rewards listener participation by establishing a 5.9c. While measures 1—4 emphasize the double-neighbor figure, measures 5-6 emphasize motive, and then delaying its completion more and more, until ultimately it arrives at a point the transposed closing motive (see the curly brace in Example 5.9c). ‘The double-neighbor that is satisfying—a point at which, although it may be perceived as having been delayed, it ficure and the closing motive have similar patterns of dissonance resolution (two related

also “comes out right” by coinciding with the original melody. unstable notes resolving to a more-stable note) and similar rhythmic profiles (strong, weak, strong). In measures 4-6, the transposed closing motive is introduced by an ascending

: : : : : figure ! heand arrows in motive Example 5.9c). ThisPassing anacrusis emphasizes the The double-neighbor the closing in the live — 22SU< motion (see t pe . recordi ng 8 Bu 8 motive and will play an important role in the perception of its delay in later appearances. ee _ Another anacrusis appears in measure 8, perhaps implying that the closing motive In the live recording, Evans begins his improvised variations with a double-neighbor will end this section—as it does in Evans’ version of the original melody. It could have figure. In each appearance, the double-neighbor figure consists of an upper neighbor and (compare Example 5.10 to the transcription of 2A,, measures 7 and 8). The first note of a lower neighbor, usually a minor third apart, which resolve to a following chord tone. the closing motive, D), does appear, but it doesn’t resolve down (since it continues upward (This common figure also appears in Evans’ improvisation on “The Touch of Your Lips,” to D, ve spelled it as C# in the transcription). see Chapter 2.) Brackets show where the motive appears in the right hand of Example

ENSEMBLE PERFORMANCES BY BILL EVANS 79

Withholding, substitution, and a lead-in in the live recording Eb. This gesture, Gb-D_F not only has the same “shape” as the double-neighbor figure Instead, Evans withholds the closing motive, replacing it with a lead-in based on the F-D-E, but is thus based on it (see the brackets at the end of Example 9b). double-neighbor figure. By placing the double-neighbor figure in the phrase slot that might The brackets in Example 5.11 show that gestures of the same shape continue into the

have contained the closing motive, Evans relates these motives. following section, 2A,. (The final bracketed figure in 2A,, measure 1, C-Db_Bb, does not

, , - , ; ; itvariations, is easilyEvans heard as athevariation on thatversion motive.) improvised replaces first untransposed of the closing motive . a .

An analogy with Peterson’s performance is interesting, In the first A section of his have the double-neighbor-figure configuration of non-harmonic tones, but, in this context,

(the source of his premise) with a lead-in (based on the double-neighbor figure) that con- ! have referred to “withholding” and “phrase-slot substitution” as thetorical devices. nects this half cadence to the next section. In the first A section of his statement of the By this analogy, I suggest that Evans’ playing, like a story or a speech, has a specific kind original melody, Peterson replaces the first A,-version of the linking motive (the source of of logic to it. In Free Composition, Schenker speaks of music as a tonal language (1935/1979, his premise) with a lead-in (based on the suspensions figure) that connects this half cadence 5):

to the next section. As the image of our life-motion, music can approach a state of objectivity, never, of This lead-in to 2A, that Evans plays in the live recording joins sections texturally, course, to the extent that it need abandon its own specific nature as an art. Thus, it may

rhythmically, and motivically. almost evoke pictures or seem to be endowed with speech; it may pursue its course by

, to, means of associations, references, and connectives; it may use repetitions of the same

Texturally, 2A, begins with a single-lne right-hand melody supported by simple left- tonal succession to express different meanings; it may stimulate expectation, preparation, hand VOICIngs. The texture of 2A, may be described as locked hands —a melody in the sutptise, disappointment, patience, impatience, and humor. Because these comparisons left hand is doubled an octave higher in the right, the right hand filling in that octave with ate of a biological nature, and are generated organically, music is never comparable to two or three inner voices (like the reed section of a big band). ‘The lead-in to 2A, occurs mathematics or to architecture, but only to language, a kind of tonal language.

5 5 , , , lan i ;

within 2A,, but has the texture of the following section. (Measure 6 smooths this transition . . . with a parenthetical alternation of double-stops whose textural density lies between that of It is not necessary to specify the “meaning” of the closing motive or the doublethese two sections.) neighbor figure to argue that they are central to the “meaning” of Evans’ discourse. Two Rhythmically, the lead-in to 2A, connects sections by joining the half cadence of 2A points about the role of Schenkerian analysis in such an explanation should be stressed. to the downbeat of the following section. This connection derives its strength from the de- First, because these motives are defined by their harmonic context and votce leading func

— , tion, Schenkerian analysis supports and is supported by the kind of hearing that identifies

lay of resolution of its dissonances. Example 5.9 shows how this delay may be understood th Fives, ds what the “ He” sionif € thes fives. their “

in voice-leading terms. Evans’ 2A, like the first eight measures (A,) of the original melody : “tic Pr ned econ be 1 edt sttuchares 4 sign ib © hi kind ma Ves, err Syne upon which it is based, ends with a half cadence. The underlying voice leading is that of an acura me on may - Feareg 108 “ ures Muminare y tnis Sino cans interrupted progression (see Example 5.9a). In this interrupted progression, 2 is prolonged Evans improvisation not only relies upon such hearing, but encourages It. The next by third progression to its inner voice, 7 (see the “3 prg” in Example 5.9b, measures 7-8, section of Evans’ improvisation, 2A,, has a connected quality even though Its range 1s wide cf. Example 5.5b). Evans’ lead-in to 2A, is based on a reaching over. Here, 2 appears over and it features some leaps. This is due in part to the tegistral continuity that it possesses; the inner voice 7 (Example 5.9b, measure 8), and resolves to 1 at the beginning of the fol- pitches leaped from are later picked up, rewarding the kind of hearing suggested by Schen-

; ; erian analyses. example, gestureFthat begins 2 starts2onhe theBthat lowing section,For2A... kerithelyses. ple, themeasure g hat begi thende ded Mottvically, this reaching over creates another figure based on the double-neighbor the previous gesture, descends through the arpeggio Bb-Gh-Eb (with the passing tone F

° ; brackets I i between Gb and 5.9c ED),show and leaps awayGp—D—F. from Eb. The (measure 2, Bb third re-' pattern. The in Example the figure (Thisnext is a gesture pattern that Ev- , ‘es Nibeat) bw , cc ans seemed fond of; the same pattern plays a prominent role in “Someday My Prince Will sumes eS ,. Bp, carries By down toa en oe over the A with a C that “re Come” and “Blue in Green.”) However, two of its tones may be understood as suspensions resolve to B?, and leaps away from this C? (the Cp 1s decorated with upper neighbor Dp).

whose delayed resolutions more firmly bind 2A, to 2A,. The first pitch, Gb, is a “thirteenth” Listeners who remember the pitches leaped from will be satisfied by measure 3: it above the dominant (whose dissonance is emphasized by the seventh of V) that stands for begins on the pitch (ED) that the first gesture leaped from, and moves up to the pitch (BY) its resolution, FE. The second pitch, the inner-voice D, is unaltered (albeit suspended into that resolves the pitch the second gesture leaped from. the tonic harmony that begins the following section). The final pitch, K is a “ninth” over the tonic (whose dissonance is emphasized by the third of I) that stands for its resolution,

80 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

Ce es eae el ,3 A

a Pr

3 3 prg. — CO Nb pC \ yO ee SS pe i a a5 :> 2: Sy. Dp ~a 3owpre. FP “PF | owe |

Cc CN SNaN bg z id OO pty 2 __________________._.___4 DNS GN P—=m SS -

o ———yy @— ® EN ch. 3 preg. I mug oot hy[ @——

oy ee 8, ee Yt! aA 7 P| ~h tf 8 ——7 I VI

107 ~ ~7 7~™~ 8a 10> «7 10—— ~ 107 7—10 107 —5 5 7 105———— ' 7 —10—— 8 Il IV VI II Vv I ' IV VII I of 6—5

Example 5.9: Voice-Leading Analysis of 2A P Evans’ Live Recording.

ENSEMBLE PERFORMANCES BY BILL EVANS 81

y r r r |NNVa ee| ON 4A 5 IA4

| . a,—*- A=SoA r> A

b | Po SL h f ~ Lee Ne id

ao ep Done _———_——___ igTa eT —h—E 0 TTT gs 3. ——— 8 p © ey, Oe oN © @) 3 2 (8) 3 pre. __—_____—_________”

LO iu 0 -— 7: — 10°77 > 10 TS. .0)q Dao — 10

Tv —_————__ VIII AS _ TTI AVI —— 14 —— 1b ————. W- COS Example 5.9: (cont.)

82 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

| 6>

| aA——— ec LS C= DC (a| a/) 9Def YR esSL YS__: i™ (a (ey? —? Sor Se ee See 6

Example 5.10: An Alternative Ending for 2A, Evans’ Live Recording.

dS A i rr ooo ica Y

a

oS earn

: eT ee: a

154 =p eh a e—e NS a A $$ 08 Oh = v bL_@wee ay OS a tJ ——— i oe TF oa iaTSainrn PhO ee r =eLR,rch , < OSS O 6)over @ ' ad heb Od 5 [echrch overs”! over

Trchover |! “ach over | "rch over |

LA OS J?COCO oF? —? I rr? O_o LiemPp " YY hy OO TZ mC ( eS Oe eMC CON18 Oeee OOoor ®t

yp A _ aH LF bp TP I EE“ SsrorUso woos. a SS r r UF ra

ft Oe 9 oo eh be oo eee EoD DoT OOO ee TEE ee eS Pp NAY EE EO OO eee OE em C(‘(‘_tLCO UU Ug OG po Oe Lfi bh Top TeaNe yY “~ J 4rNe aeMLh hUle Vr ge | ag hh hLLClUMUmmGCO.hULULULUCUCC OO ™ ILlll "enGOO Shh dd Uhre DOD Liem 7 ly Ne OES O—eCONCU™COE@ SSC “$M P=. | “el “lgFOCCUG OY~*~ OCUhBT

Cc

Example 5.11: Voice-Leading Analysis of 2A, Evans’ Live Recording.

ENSEMBLE PERFORMANCES BY BILL EVANS 83

| TT] re Pel ee PP —

))

b

,, Oa,SS © :@: Bb— —+ Ab? *k—

C

[TNT

p Se ) — —_— if rp CO Example 5.11: (cont.)

84 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

:

a——

ee pe oo

Pp je

kvl ————— Il ———— V iE ———__——__ II ———————_ V

= ie pevieere b ee ee a ee ae ~s, ao Bet ao TTT 8) lb == 6 a

C

a es a an a a a a, a i

3

Example 5.12: Voice-leading Analysis of 2B, Evans’ Live Recording.

ENSEMBLE PERFORMANCES BY BILL EVANS 85

!

\ IN N ae = te =

Il ——————— V Vv ———: : 5.14b PP pic shows >: (subdivisions theThe beat upper in the right harmonic rhythm in thelower left) or

notes of the melodic-seventh leaps with stems down and connected by a slur underneath. ' , hirds and hs in the left hand ; on th has; , , 4 -_ both in the fourth \ Db_chBh P d with 4 3 the right). Different instruments come to the fore at different times: the interlude includes a

The Cb in measute 2 is also a lower note of a melodic-seventh leap—this note bears a fla unction (thirds and sevenths in the left hand, stepwise motion that emphasizes tensions in

an participates both in the fourth progression E>—D>—Co—B» (beame wit stems own drum break, and the third chorus features the bass as primary melodic voice. And all instru-

in Example 5.14b, cf. the alto of Example 5.14a and Example 5.13b) and in the neighbor : ; , ments assume the role of articulating formal sections by changing texture or rhythm.

pattern Bb—Cb—Bb (cf. the alto of Example 5.13a). In the first measure, these notes are the . oo.

same as the first three chord tones in the motto of the original melody (see Example 5.15). The traditional roles for piano, bass, and drums create a whole in which the individual Each leap up implies that the melody will descend from the top note of the leap (to fill the parts are completed by one another. However, the Bill Evans Trios have been noted for the gap created and to resolve the dissonances). Since each seventh in measures 1-2 appears interaction of instrumental parts. While this interaction marked all his trios, Evans believed successively higher, this implication is intensified with each leap. (Even the major or minor interaction to have been best when his trios included either Scott La Faro or Marc Johnson quality of the melodic sevenths contributes to the building intensity. Major sevenths are on bass (O'Reilly 1985). A thorough treatment of this subject is beyond the scope of thts more dissonant than minor sevenths. In measures 1—2, all the sevenths are minor sevenths book, but itus important to note that Evans’ use of displacement creates a greater oppor: until the climax of this subphrase, Bb, is introduced by a major seventh. The climax of the tunity for such interaction. entire section, in measure 5, occurs where an F 1s introduced by a major seventh.) ‘The last Interaction between the parts may be rhythmic, textural, dynamic, melodic, or a comof the leaps in measures 1—2 finally does resolve down in the second half of measure 2. bination of these. Melodic interaction may be based upon the use of complementary mateHere, the Bb—Ab resolution coincides with the original melody. This resolution not only an- rial; the parts may do different things at the same time. Or—aided by displacement—the swers the built-up tension of the foregoing leaps with a quote of the theme, but also serves parts may do the same thing at different times. In 1B of the live recording, measures 3-8, asa “confirmation’—the foreground completion of a motion that is completed simultane- the piano and bass both play parts that contain or refer to the original melody of the bridge. ously on a deeper level of structure. Of course, this locally-stable Ab is (at a deeper level) a Evans leads into measure 3 by playing double time. This lead-in seems to announce that

passing tone that will move on to Gh in measure 3. a departure from the melody will result. As if in response, the bass takes up the melody It is this Gb that begins the melodic sevenths of measures 3-4. In measure 3, the me- (while still supplying the bass line—see Example 5.17) in durations that correspond to the lodic sevenths appear successively lower. Collectively, they form a complete eleventh chord disposition of the original theme. In the final two measures of the bridge, both piano and on C (see Example 5.16). The climax of this section measute 5 returns to this “eleventh” E bass play the melody, but with different displacements. As a further example of interaction

.°,,— ' between Evans and Chuck Israels bassist on the live notemotive the bass3part Evans ends this improvised chorus with two(the final statements ofrecording), the closing P

B di f a 4 sation helps th ¢ 8 in 2A,. The second chorus features piano as primary melodic voice, and the third chorus

y avoiding a perfect authentic cadence, Evans’ improvisation helps the performance to features bass. While the piano 1s still the primary voice in 2A,, its sparse gestures allow the

90 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

|3

.[= I NS Aooo a GN 3 3 3 ee ee es yf ae Se

Bas EAE’? ot.— ee 9> A), 4, © . © a = row. © — 3. ll 2S a a a ee a ce —— SV 27 A 7 Pela: | ———= = fe b = eC Pe ee es Ly [OeOF by DB I e—= ———— —3 3 —-——— = —Se ~ KNON \ rr] uyNN FF] 8, PTNe | J .C™ NN N ND, Eee ee

l

TP. ol a A IS NO elEN iY pr@eVve A aTOA—eme id IPOad 97 a> Wh i ee a a a2.8a-. .a| =0a ————————] 8 ne ee ee Wr) ee

a> dey TT «= «= | at CRT PAR 5 OO (| |a —I3— — -———. a ee | oeTE j—~ -a FP SS—3— ———— p= Pb, fT ° — 3 a [i EE

T. eee EEE SI ee enn ————4 pT tg CC A A aA |

A Se OS SS CS CO EO (SS (aS ns SS | «| I FR a SS OS SS |

-—— vi _———. _—_———. __——_ fh h"=e Se [Agree ty Ne a4agyg yO ————~* _"“=gh = Se

ee ee oe _———_ FF] ae 2 cs a ad ea A 9 = a Se RS |Lt@y" ;Qe -—— 3—_ apO“ep 3 re —_, oe —_L_L_/{[/—esTee ) Oj] |9 Fi Te a I eg TE ew rrelleeOee¥so DPoo (_f wg... Dy ee eee ee ee——. OB a geSs OS GSS Fy DE _ee LO: s_E Oe ee EE ee LLP hhhhphphphpKp oo Eeeeeae=S=Ssosososoaonall_T TT OOOO

|

i” A a 7s > S, 59, _¢t —___9____1__1__1_1W_+—P@ __, a es a }— YP f

j3—I UL 3-1 UL j—YJ U3 Koy i iroULhh re | >?” 9 LI

/-4—-p 2 4 ye ee NN NE SO — — ee brushes on snare stop a

C= Tf ee oe ee | | r 7-0 r | | a _| 7 yp 7

ENSEMBLE PERFORMANCES BY BILL EVANS 91 Example 5.17: The Bass Part in 1B Contains the Original Melody.

bass to emerge somewhat, preparing for the next section—in which the bass is the leading Other pitch relationships distinguish and interrelate the parts. For example, the pitch voice. The emergence of the bass looks forward texturally, but it also refers back to melodic content of each measure of Left is transpositionally equivalent. While measure 1 spans a material from Evans’ solo; as already noted, Israels plays a gesture in 2A,, measure 4, that third and measure 2 a fourth, the introduction of B in measure 1 means that both measures

recalls Evans’ diminutions in the analogous measure of 2A. consist of a set of four pitches. The set of pitches in measure 2 is a transposition—down a tritone—of the set of pitches in measure 1. Since the root motion is down a perfect fourth,

Roles and closure in the studio recor ding this transposition down a tritone is non-trivial. The same relationship holds for measures 3—4 and 5-6 of Left. The piano tracks in the studio recording assume roles similar to those assumed in the Center also features transpositional equivalence. However, the transpositional equivalive recording, I will distinguish the tracks by referring to their placement in stereo: “Lett, lence in Center is different from that in Left. In Left, every measure has a different transpoRight, and “Center”—always with uppercase. Example 5.18 shows the roles assumed by sition of the same set of pitches. In Center, every second measute of a pair has a transposithe different tracks. The first chorus states the theme, the second chorus consists of impro- tion of the set of pitches of the first measure of that pair, but each pair has a different set

vised variations, and the third (half) chorus is an abbreviated return to the theme. of pitches. As in Left, the interval of transposition differs from the root movement, but In making sense of this example, it may help to know that, on “ “Round Midnight,” instead of a tritone, the interval of transposition is a minor third. the pianos were recorded in the order Right, Lett, Center. Right carries the most place- As an example of the ways in which a single instrumental part may be distinguished marking information. Evans consistently played Right with both hands; Left and Center from and related to others by voice leading, consider Center in the first two A sections. were often played with only one hand or with the two hands an octave apart. In both the Example 5.22 compares Center (Example 5.22c) with the first tenor of Examples 5.5d first and second choruses, the roles within that chorus remain relatively constant in the A and 5.6d (Example 5.22d includes the tenor and bass parts of Examples 5.5d and 5.6d; sections (with important exceptions that give the performance a sense of development). the first tenor has upward stems). Example 5.22a and b offers an analysis of Center Furthermore, in both of these choruses, the roles of Right and Left switch for the bridge. along with the bass.

comments onbetween thethem other tracks. oo the similarity obvious. two Further analysis of Center ee reveals more about both

Center consistently adds orchestral depth by providing secondaryThe melodic material that _ simple juxtaposition of Center with the tenor of Examples 5.5d and 5.6d makes

The oles of the individual tracks ate consistently differentiated in x. Right provides its integrity as a part and its relationship to the other parts. Like the tenor of Examples 5.5d a self-sufficient picture of Monk’s introduction, but both of the other Pianos manage to and 5.6d, Center derives its integrity from deeper structural levels. Both are governed by the find niches which, when filled, seem as though they needed to be filled. (This does not third progression Bb—Ab-G. In the first A section, this third progression is interrupted after mean that these niches had to be filled. Evans eliminates the rhythmic activity in the first Ab. The resultant Bb—Ab" Bb—-Ab_G not only provides a backbone for Center, but also prothree beats of measures 1, 3, and 5 of Monk’s theme. One might argue that something was vides a means of complementing yet avoiding the primary melodic liine—this line moves in missing there, but the live recording gets along fine without much happening in that space.) sixths with the structural top voice (see the alto of Examples 5.5a and b and 5.6a and b).

The melody 4, of Bb x introduces the downbeats of the even-numbered measures with , .primary ; , Inupbeat: measure becomes and an ultimately descends through a sixth to D, _over a idivided an tamb whose arsis Bbb contains amphibrach 5.19). , the ; , , dominant (Example 5.22d). ‘To regain the original Bb,(see the Example line reaches overLeft to Cbhas in measure

this same rhythmic profile but, while Right moves to the downbeat of every other mea- , . sure, Left moves to the middle of every measure (see Example 5.20). Center contributes 2 and to Eb in measures 3-4 (cf. the middle voice of Examples 5.5b and 5.6b). In measure 8 4 harp-like part ) Xample 2-20): of 1A,, Center also reaches over Ab with a Cb (cf. Example 5.22b) to connect 1A, to 1A, While the rhythm and texture provide the most obvious ways of distinguishing the The descent from the reaching over of measure tis bracketed in measures +6 of Ex:

/ , , . _ -— ample 5.22c. As the bracket in measure 7 of this example shows, Center recalls this descent

parts, the fact that each has a separate voice-leading function not only gives it greater indt- in a hidden repetition. More hidden repetitions occur at the authentic cadence in measures

viduality butthe alsosecond helps it A to section seem necessary. Insecond x, Left descends by step through a diminP Pmeasures, ; , , 6—8 of (see the page ofinExample 5.22): in these ished seventh in each of the first ,three pairsmotive of measures (Eb-F# measures 1—2, Db—E in levels a ; (Example the linking (bracketed in Example 5.22b) appears at various pitch

measutes 3-4, and Cb-D measures In this stepwisenote descent, Left comes to rest onthird , ; 4in é . ; in , , 5.22c). In each5—6). occurrence, its penultimate is embellished (either with a lower the third of each chord. The resultant middleground linear intervallic progression, 7—10, that : doubl iohbor & th :

is shown in Example 5.21. While Left presents the thirds (and sevenths) of chords, Center a way that creates a double-neighbor figure, ot with an escape tone).

emphasizes ninths, elevenths, and thirteenths. A more complete explanation of what happens in these final measures requires an account of what the other tracks do. Their coordination at this cadence is quite remark-

92 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

a in

voices

voices

ean voices 2A1S-8 [tenths PP 7

voices voices octaves

octaves voices |

portato sixths

1p(2 rrr 4p rrr | ~~, —] | eS Low] Example 5.18: Roles in the studio recording.

fox Pp —I-——__——_ 3 = fps —P—p 5° —t-—$$__—$_3¢- —_ —_

Example 5.19: Prosody of Right, x, Measures 1-2. Example 5.20: Prosody of Left, x, Measures 1—2.

ENSEMBLE PERFORMANCES BY BILL EVANS 3

IWONT Ifo4le tS. oo oO 0S

,, oO e © @ © © SSS ee ee Sanae— oH : ee ee ee eee ee eee 7 10-7" OT 1 10 +4 Y>>RY+_[YSYHS—S]2>Y+H+.X!_!_!Y_WYSYT,-Y]YSYYYy]TS>]}]7TSTYY STW] TSYo°Sg.YSYT-,]YYYHSYT1]|.WYHSSY—+#{_-———$*

Example 5.21: Voice-Leading Analysis of Left, x, Measures 1-6.

able. Instead of arriving on the tonic at the downbeat of measure 8, all three arrive at I on In the A sections of the improvised variations, Right plays as if it were improvising a the third beat. All tracks arrive at the same time, but each arrives on a different note of the chorus with bass (or bass and drums) accompaniment. The right hand presents a primary chord. Furthermore, each track moves from that note to a different chord tone. Thus, a melodic line while the left “comps.” By avoiding the roots and staying away from the bass full triad appears on both the third and fourth beats (chord tones are indicated with careted register, Right not only needs to be completed by a bass part, but also allows that bass part numbers in Example 5.23). A similar coordination of tracks occurs at the authentic cadence the freedom to complete the texture in a number of ways.

that ends this chorus. This description of the function of the hands of Right is fairly straightforward. Such In 1A,, measures 7—8, the tracks are coordinated; they do different things at the same a description depends upon aspects of the voice leading, which gives each hand clarity and time. In the bridge that follows, the tracks are coordinated by doing the same thing at direction through consistency of treatment and euiding structure. The right hand sounds as different times. Right states the melody of the bridge. In measures 1-4, this melody is a ptimary melodic voice because of its register, rhythmic activity, and dynamics. However, a two-fold statement of the linking motive (E>—-F—Gb-F-E—-D—Ch-B). Center and Left these features alone would be insufficient to establish it as the primary melodic voice: Evanswer by stating the linking motive (or portions thereof) during the long notes of Right. ans’ melody is convincing because its consistent deployment and resolution of dissonant In measures 2—3 and in measure 4, Center states the linking motive in sixteenth notes with sevenths, ninths, elevenths, and thirteenths is supported by a clear middleground structure. very little embellishment. (The embellishment of the second of these versions recalls both The register, rhythmic activity, and dynamics of the left hand distinguish it as an accompathe melody of A, measure 5, as pickups, and the double-neighbor figure, as Ch—A-Bb.) In nimental part. However, it provides smooth support to the right hand because its consistent yet another timing, Right refers to the linking motive in measures 3-4 (see Example 5.24). deployment and resolution of chordal thirds and sevenths takes the simple shape of a 7-10 In measures 5—7, Center has the last word on the linking motive: here elegant hidden rep- linear intervallic progression.

etitions of the linking motive appear in a different harmonic context (see Example 5.25). In 2A,, Left supplies the bass and inner voices. Its staccato articulation contrasts It appears complete in the highest register on the second and third beats (see the complete with the legato of Right. In the first half of this section, its right hand plays two- or threebracket in Example 5.25). ‘The first notes of the linking motive appear in different octaves, note chords above left-hand roots. The individual voices of these right-hand chords move in different rhythms, and with different embellishments in the remainder of measure 5 and smoothly by step. In the second half of this section, Left plays a sequence of gestures in measure 6 (see the incomplete brackets in Example 5.25). The seventh leaps of measure (each gesture in the same rhythm) almost entirely in parallel tenths. (The one departure 7 sound strangely beautiful; tf one hears them as a completion of the linking motive—but from tenths occurs in measure 6, on the single chord—Ab7—in these measures that is “in-

with Dp instead of D—the strangeness of the leaps is matched by the distortion of the serted” into the circle-of-fifths motion that connects the other chords to the cadence. The linking motive (see the broken bracket in Example 5.25).

94 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

en Ge ee SS), —_ = a in a ig YE]. AAA eee $$$ —eessSM PF W—__VI_ ———_ III ft vI —— Il —_——__ V

ee

t+

=) fh TD Ok elle lS ee; oN) jp)

| a ro rey at — rE VF a SS SS SS

| _____? @ | fej SF oF ro 2 +e ee FE , ®@ @) @) (4) © ©) @ ee DP fete lhe — |e st te | oe)

d Fa J J [c.f. Ex. 5.5d]

Pooper ie5 T1010 Foe——— FPR OF ote10op P 6-10 P10P >———_ IToe 10 — 5__ 10807 1 RI1057 OT 10107 aS107 7—10

Example 5.22: Voice-Leading Analysis of Center, LA 1 and LA,,.

ENSEMBLE PERFORMANCES BY BILL EVANS 95

a

ue a ee |yeee— Fr eo ’F

| PL | | nd P Cd 1! ne eee eee eee ee er ee ee

,©@@®®@ [c.f. Ex. 5.6d]

Example 5.22: (cont.)

96 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

ee OD TT CS A

rN rN @ _ _— 3——— 1 CSD —_?_ “fj 4 ca, 2 dlddTTT o_o OQ f) Yop - _——_—_——_— —s eT| 7,5 5g«=SS esses Lf ttgo”§ +~ | OW7TNACtTxTY.TwWNwo__8 | »}»+ ites| — s- ~[— ta” vDS5_ sf, st «| tsaerrr! 2 ws -(2 ITYdWO,, CE

_J >» |’-p—_4,-l]v])yjdy)])y)y)])]|)Ny5lu])]Nw}wN]WNWdWdS TT YSYSTYSYTSTST]TSYT ]T]]TYST>}]T])Y7YST]T2?Z]Tq—v—W8+YfT7Y]YYTYY7YYYT[YYYT[Y YY] TY YT TTYTdddd

/) —— | a — CD DS OEE TE

rN rN 3 5 3 0PyS/S — Gc — (SS ES (SS a) SC CS (cc SY SS GT (2 tA? De OO OO DDD>=S ——EO— a TE 8 —DUO OO_cCpNCrRrTroO22--—

tA” Dh _ YOO ee. wWeus sea: :+S seem ews me &_— ooo yb te os]]])|])ld]d)jlyJy}j)N)])N)N]N]NSN>odd2JNS]]STSTSTTSTS SYS [S7YTSSSTSSY YY STdS]}+7>7.7}]}7._]TY]Y1.TWJ]YTJ])WNYYYTY|Y[Y7Y[|]Y]7]Y7Y7[Y7Y7979YY7Y7Yd7Y7Y79Y2YdS~zaT

SB SE oooood doWu]NdJTJS$>)y)l)]]W dS SYY7Y+7YS[YSYY7Y7Y7Y97Y 7 7J7Y79Y9Y9Y9Y9YYwWY>]>4})Y7Y7Y7Y7Y79$4Y]YdY]Y)]tdT TS SJdJddTSYVTJd Yd

N rN

Ds oey) EE oo eyOES 3° 5. ee =a Ee —— tC( ,_THHT_Y]] YT. | #1 © a a Oh oo eo aE

b

ee

VI Ih IIb Vv Example 5.28: A Hidden Repetition of the Linking Motive in 2A P Measures 7—8.

ENSEMBLE PERFORMANCES BY BILL EVANS 101

I0a i=LE|

3 5 a |a N Fy ne ee BS 5 BO A

a a = Uf , « bbw d— [Pt Dy eB ge — na

5 —— i 5 eG 0 7 10 —> 8

eee ene... SE] ——————— b 3 fi oo § 8 ho 8°90 7

Cc Nala Io _ — pas ee ip! Ne is 1° oS

soe. rans reg. trans. *~k— —* [2B] asc.

fy NE PR7 NN Fg SbQQ eee leg ee SES LEON hy ne BBOED Ud Nm LZ he UWL NgoetS

LP Te eB hg Ob eg SCO “=n CCS i—m—U Lr? fC Cl“=p?—— —SOSS “gd | ~~ | fp pte if Toei SX \ . [TT Pp Eb et 8 eeeseFessseeeeeeseeseseshsFesee, ee |? eo, etef, > _—_ €V@| ot _e | _«

aPaaLQ Ne a ee OY QS ec he hy Be ee_aaw5wn mg eT 0 10°10 7 —— 10 TD vil 10 Til ToeKVI _ 10 mou ST 7-10 VI Vv 7I Example 5.29: Voice-Leading Analysis of Right, 2A, Measures 5—8.

102 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

a 9 9 08| = Io cA

A| ED 8 ojJdd dJJj]IITIITIITITIqIIIWNTATJJJJJJJJ 8 OOOO TT J7yz7laadJJ7aMaVJ oo

:

°F FTP aL a)

RQ ee 7. Oe

b Le , ~(33 prg. -.prey pre. 6;pre linking

SP eT 89 Br 8 =e EO or _—SeeE o 6 prg.

YY 5ppoe_Dee oO FTE TT @@_™Yy ©_—_—( 4 5-9? 8 oo 955 A SO ES ey?Pp o_oOOOO teee | teeo ——s 1s—_O—JX—X— ss > _—=0— OO OOOO NT), sr

Example 5.30: Voice-Leading Analysis of Left, 2B, Measures 1-4.

In measures 4-5, a reversal takes place. Until this point, the upward directed two- gestures also satisfy the expectation that this section will end with the closing motive (the note motions have been followed, after a pause, by descending arpeggios. Beginning in the first ascending gesture ends with Db, and the second ascending gesture begins with C> and second half of measure 4, descending arpeggios lead into short ascending figures. (This ends with Bb—the closing motive is bracketed in Example 5.31b).

reversal is prepared by measure 3, where the arpeggio turns the line back into its upper The avoidance of strong sectional divisions and the reliance on the closing motive register.) The first two of these ascending figures (Eb—F> and Db—-Eb) are two-note escape- toward this end continues until the end of this performance. The abbreviated return 1s tone figures that embellish the first pitch of each pair with a chromatic upper neighbor. But also a disguised return; the melody of the bridge does not emerge clearly until the third the first pitch of each pair is itself a dissonant eleventh. Because the rhythm of the second and fourth measures. And the final cadence of the last A section avoids 1, returning to half of measure 4 is repeated in the first half of measure 5, the listener may expect these the cover tone—in fact, the texture, register, and rhythm of the ending (z) actually replace dissonances to continue their downward resolution at the established half-note rate. The this cadence, postponing it in much the same way that Peterson postpones the analogous line would then continue to Bb4 in measure 6 (Example 5.32). Instead, the line returns to cadence in his performance. Dh, delaying descent.

At this point, Evans’ improvisation seems to have generated two apparently conflict- Summar

ing expectations: (1) the opening incomplete motto suggests that the line may ascend to y

Bb5, and (2) the delay of resolution of Db—Cb—Bb (see Example 5.32) suggests that the Evans integrates formal sections by using the same devices Peterson uses. However, section will end with the closing motive. The expectation that the line will ascend to Bb5 is Evans uses these devices in different ways—ways that reflect both his style and the premsatisfied by the two ascending gestures whose endpoints connect the initial Eh-F—Gb to a ises of his performances. concluding Ab—A—Bb (the first ascending gesture begins with F—Gb, and the second ascend- Rhythmically, Evans reduces the divisive effects of phrase boundaries with lead-ins, ing gesture ends with Ab—A—B>—see Example 5.31b, upper voice). The endpoints of these cadential suspensions, elisions, and fills and cadenzas. At half cadences, lead-ins join sec-

ENSEMBLE PERFORMANCES BY BILL EVANS 103

a

a

PN —— r >” a PONS BT owe ew PeTY ly a” A eee "— Ne eee SY Se —————— seen

IP ee _— yp | | J J

ee owe fo Yt pano ty eS a cs SS © © O); ) 6) © ® pratoy! HP tel -=

a Ce ee Od a PQ Qegm (A ON CO fe OeYd © oF by0|eFeNN GaN Example 5.31: Voice-Leading Analysis of Right, 2A, Measures 1-8.

104 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

a

tions rhythmically, mottvically, and texturally. At authentic cadences, suspensions delay or joining gestures or registers. Or the incomplete gesture may remain incomplete until a later eliminate the complete arrival of tonic. At both half cadences and authentic cadences, the statement completes it. While withholding plays an important role in both performances, closing motive moves to the cover tone—often not resolving to 5 until the beginning of the one premise of Evans’ performances relates to withholding in a special way: displacement next formal section. This motion thus not only avoids closure, but also often joins sections may be allied with withholding. Displacement creates tension by placing rhythmic patstrongly. In Evans’ studio performance, the disguised return (at the beginning of 3B), the terns in disagreement with underlying structures and often involves the delay of expected

shift to the texture of the ending (z) prior to the cadence that precedes it (at 3A, measure events. 8), and the insertion of a cadenza (at z, measure 8) all knit sections together in ways that Evans’ performances not only integrate formal sections, but also integrate various

resemble Peterson’s elisions and structural puns. instrumental parts. Analysis of underlying structure shows the interdependence of these Melodically, Evans relates sections with concealed repetitions, references to the original parts. Displacement aids interaction, allowing different parts to do different things at the melody, and imitation and canon. Versions of the closing motive and the double-neighbor same time by doing the same thing at different times. Individual voice-leading strands shape fioure appear at various hierarchical levels of pitch, rhythm, and phrase structure, at differ- individual instrumental parts, giving each part both a separate identity and a dependence ent transposition levels, in different strategically-linked registers, and in different harmonic upon the other parts. contexts. Evans refers to the original melody in a variety of ways. The original melody not Evans solves the problems of integrating formal sections and instrumental parts with only supplies the voice-leading strands upon which Evans’ improvisations are constructed, an artistic economy of means; he draws on Monk’s theme to solve these problems. Closer but also provides a point of reference for strategic moves. Some gestures begin or end by analysis reveals a further artistic economy of means; Evans’ strategies—his devices of intereferring to the original melody. Some melodic fragments are delayed more and more until eration—are themselves integrated in his solutions. For example, Evans may establish and they “come out right” by coinciding with the original melody. Imitation appears not only then satisfy apparently contradicting expectations; and the climaxes of his phrases seem all within and between the piano tracks of the studio recording, but also within and between to serve multiple strategic functions.

the instrumental parts of the live recording, While Schenkerian analysis of improvisations can reveal much about the art of those The same rhetorical devices that Peterson uses (to point to relationships between improvisations, it can also reveal much about analysis. One insight that seems of central linking motives and suspensions figures) Evans uses to point to relationships between the sionificance concerns the function of simplicity. Simple patterns abound in music (whether closing motive and the double-neighbor figure: proximity, similarity, phrase-slot substitu- improvised or composed). The fact that the closing motive and the double-neighbor figure tion, withholding, and confirmations. “Withholding” makes a gesture (at least temporar- appear in other jazz improvisations makes them no less important in Evans’ improvisations. ily) incomplete. In both Peterson’s and Evans’ performances, incomplete gestures may be In fact, it is the stmplicity of these and other patterns that allows for their delay to genercompleted, as expected, locally after a brief delay, and usually marked by dissonance. Or the ate musical content. And it is the simplicity of underlying patterns that balances and gives incomplete gesture may be completed by a different gesture or in a different register, thus shape to the complex surface of Evans’ music; its impact on the listener relies on power of simple shapes to guide listener expectation.

,, @ © ©

ia—r,———_____! H+ —_—_$————

:

+ -M#-———I- HJ4Y"NM- TT

Pr P

Example 5.32: Db-Cb-Bb Undelayed.

ENSEMBLE PERFORMANCES BY BILL EVANS 105

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS Variations To be sure, Schenkerian analysis does not offer a set of prescriptive guidelines for Variation has been a theme of this book. Not only is each of the performances I have the composer or improviser as if pues’ wou’ guarantee ca As a opservec analyzed in the form of a theme and variations, but, as my Schenkerian analyses have shown, more than Once, MUCH OF What MAKES MESe PeHorMANCES BOO Nas AOL Deen GUSCUSSE

each of these performances is also a variation on simpler structures. ‘Io take one example, in detadl. For example, some of the CXPFESSIVE features that might be more thoroughly viewing Monk’s original version of “ “Round Midnight” as a variation on simpler structures explored include swing,” rubato, articulation, dynamics, tone, pedaling, and the vole shows not only how it shares features with other tonal compositions, but also what makes ing and rolling of chords. Nevertheless, Schenkerian theory is a powerful tool for showing it distinctive. Schenkerian analysis reveals this distinctive character in the relationships how expectations (generated on a variety of structural levels) contribute to the qualities we between its parts. Iwo of these relationships-between-the-parts are the linking mottve’s admire in these performances.

hidden repetitions and the closing motive’s delay of dissonance resolution. The analyses in this book also suggest that Schenkerian analysis can be productive in While Peterson’s and Evans’ performances ate vatiations on Monk’s theme, they are ways that go beyond its typical use in showing voice-leading connections at deeper levels also variations on their own versions of Monk’s theme; both of these performers change of structure. For example, problems may arise from stringing together variations on the the theme upon which they then improvise. The changes they make reflect what Epstein same harmonic succession (e.g,, excessive sectionalization, premature closure, or a lack of (1979) would call the “premises” of their performances. Put more strongly, Peterson’s and overall direction). Problems may also arise from the roles that facilitate improvisation (e.g,, Evans’ performances ate also variations on the genre of “theme and variations”—that is, instrument-specific lines that do not relate to one another, overly predictable supportive both solve differing problems inherent in improvising variations upon a theme. Their solu- patts, or rigidly formulaic construction). In some cases, these problems may be solved by tions elevate the relationship-between-the-parts of Monk’s theme to the level of a premise: creating connections of the type shown in voice-leading graphs. However, such problems the linking motive’s hidden repetitions become a premise of Petetson’s performance, and are frequently solved without creating such connections. Kinds of diminutions, types of the closing motive’s delay of dissonance resolution becomes a premise of Evans’ perfor- displacement, or degrees of departure from underlying structure may be ordered according

matices. to a progressive scheme. In such cases, the value of Schenkerian theory lies in its power to

Each artist solves the same problem—that of integrating the separate parts of his illuminate diminutions, displacement, and departure from underlying structure. performance(s)—but in different ways. While this problem is inherent in the genre of a Many studies have indicated the importance of “formulas” in jazz. This book has shown theme and variations, the fact that both artists derive their solutions from the theme itself that the mere identification of such formulas in the musical surface is inadequate for deeper artis-

gives their variations a satisfying artistic economy of means. tic understandino—a deeper understanding requires a theory of levels such as Schenker’s.

Artistic content Rhythm

This “artistic economy of means” is patt of another argument of this book: that The idea of levels is also important in the study of jazz rhythm. Because Peterson’s Schenkerian analysis is useful not only for explaining the technical features of jazz perfor- performance of “ “Round Midnight” subdivides the beat in so many different ways, and at mances (such as harmony, rhythm, and melody), but also for illuminating features related such a slow tempo, many levels of rhythmic activity are clearly audible. A wide range of to their artistic content. For example, considerations of voice-leading and motivic content note values appears in the transcription: combinations of whole notes, half notes, quarclarify the ways in which Evans’ ensemble performances distinguish and relate the parts ter notes, eighth notes, sixteenth notes, thirty-second notes, sixty-fourth notes, and even

played by different instruments. shorter durations were all necessary to capture different levels of rhythmic activity. And

106 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

Peterson’s use of swing enlivens different levels at different times. While the following Style

durations are subdivided into two equal parts in some portions of Peterson’s performance, a a

they are swung in other portions: eighth-note (e.g., swung in 3B, measure 3), sixteenth- A balance ot tension between simplicity and complexity 1s useful tor understanding note (e.g, swung in 3B, measute 1), and thirty-second note (e.g,, swung in 3B, measute 2). differences in pianists’ styles. The perceptual importance of this tension is implicit in the Peterson’s brilliant passagework presents two other levels of rhythmic activity; some of the writings of the Gestalt psychologists. Ina chapter on “Order and Complexity in Landscape rhetorically parenthetical gestures (or “fills”) occur while the pulse of the notated meter Design,” Rudolf Arnheim (1996) extends to architecture and the visual arts the concept of

continues; others, like cadenzas, happen while “time stands still.” balancing simplicity and complexity as an aesthetic principle. Such a concept of balance

. . ae , also requires theory of structural levels. Of course, this, inequality is but oneaaspect of swing. A thorough discussion of swing as _

would be beyond the scope of this book, but it seems clear that any thorough explana- While it has not been the purp Ose of this book to explore varieties of JaZz styles, my tion of swing will require a theory of levels in music. Swing is a quality of movement that analyses suggest that Schenker’s theories may be useful in further research into this quesengages the listener’s desire to predict future events. If such predictions are to be reward- Hon. The question of balance as an element of style 1S just one that emerges from compating, they must have both an immediate rewatd and a continuing attraction—this illustrates ing performances of the same piece by different artists. Because Schenkerian analysis can two levels, but is a simple model; certainly several levels are involved. Obviously, different help draw comparisons more sharply, tt may provide a valuable tool for further research people enjoy having their expectations either fulfilled, prolonged, or sublimated in different into jazz style. proportions. At any rate, prediction requires information. And this kind of information is A deeper understanding of style also requires recognizing the “strategies” by which a necessarily hierarchical. I have discussed swing elsewhere (see Larson 1999b), suggesting work “solves” aesthetic problems (Meyer 1979). In these terms, Bill Evans’ rich harmonic that our physical experience of swinging motions shapes not only our ways of talking about style shows an artistic economy of means. The sevenths, ninths, elevenths, and thirteenths swing in jazz, but also our ways of experiencing jazz swing. Because those physical motions in his harmonic pallet typically result from the delay of dissonance resolution. Evans’ stratate also hierarchical, this further supports the idea that any thorough explanation of musi- egies for integrating formal sections likewise involve a delay of dissonance resolution.

cal swing will require a theory of levels in music. As a further example of the power of Schenket’s theories to explain elements of style, Relationships between events on these different levels may indicate a great deal about consider Peterson’s harmonic choices. In the first chapters of Harmony, Schenker (1954) a performance. Consider the temporal placement of the notes of the original melody of writes that the motive introduces into music the possibility of associating ideas, and that the bridge within Peterson’s improvised variations (2B and 3B). The great extent to which through such association, the tonal system evolved modes with similar chords on their prinotes of the original melody are present in Peterson’s improvised variations has already mary degrees. A similar explanation might account for Peterson’s choices of harmonies; the been noted. (By contrast, in 2B of Evans’ live recording, few of the notes of the original evolution of his harmonizations may mirror the evolution Schenker described. Peterson melody appear.) This apect of Peterson’s performance is clearly audible, partly because the does not play the same chords tn “ “Round Midnight” that Monk and Evans play—some of notes of the original melody are not delayed substantially. They appear approximately on his concealed repetitions would have been impossible without his reharmonizations. the same beats in 2B and 3B as in 1B (the clearer original statement of the melody of the

bridge) or else in a similar rhythm. The temporal placement of notes of the original melody Recommendations for further study within Peterson’s improvisation on that theme does depart from the original; in fact, it does

so in a way that makes his playing interesting. But the departures are still straightforward This book has suggested many directions for further research. Among the most enough so that the original melody is recognizable despite its decoration through many lay- promising, in my view, are the need to understand better how Schenkerian analysis may

ets of tonal and rhythmic activity. illuminate the integration of formal sections, the interaction of instrumental parts, the use

The relatively stmple metric organization of notes of the underlying melody in Peter- of “formulas,” and various aspects of jazz thythm (on rhythmic displacement, see Larson son’s performance provides a context for, and balances, the complexity of its multi-layered 1997—-98b and 2006b; on swing, see Larson 1999b).

diminutions. The performances by Evans, in contrast, balance simplicity and complexity Finally, I hope that this book will help further studies in the areas of Schenkerian in a different way. While the number of layers of decoration in Evans is smaller than the theory and jazz practice to draw more careful distinctions: between art music and popular number found in Peterson, the metric placement of notes of the underlying theme or es- music, between jazz and classical music, between improvisation and composition, between

CONCLUSIONS 107

tablished motive is more complex. technique and art, between intellect and emotion, and between theory and practice.

THE TRANSCRIPTIONS MONK’S LIVE RECORDING Thelonious Monk, “ “Round Midnight,’ Monk’s Greatest Hits (19 November 1968, Columbia CS 9775 and 32355).

THE TRANSCRIPTIONS 109

XX] © ©=74-82 al © i

Py ag "=e @? FOE EER © >

PNY ;___n ft | _gy 6 as a -——_—_———_+¢@ p——__}__ ff

eeepsp pooSrCCC Pt :aHf FI i)CCCC‘( | rr fr a SY ——

IEr fe I

aaae FS EE Pg gf} — £€ i y ee ee O@@ Co ee. oo , —_—_—_=>————|

9} Fr ——— #_F_ O*_E EE _—_ es O_O= pL—FTTT CC“=eTST

ee

a CTS A a a OS CO)

} Hh Ppt TTT — svt _ STAY] ____ S| | ~~ — #0 — 2

p ©9 97 3© i —— i Hep | ————— 2 _ 1 9 |_| — ee 8 —_ oo — 0-5 3

9 = (A A OO A CO Get CON RSS (SS [1A4]

Pg BI Pegs gt gh iy le“y rr

110 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

ee LF ly a

L@we fy © ® iy a { — K a a ae — == — ~ — ee QS — (ns( POF lyCO OT A 97>”a CO SD

\ eSa ——— 6cree 6 ————_ 6— 6TS © se ee as ee cet A ye A ee ee 2 > A YS = LTA OD hy —eg es Ee PONS hhh gg I MI dD Rh ge SS eeA heTW el | aa St|

a CR Ae CO nc a CO 7 2 Lg tyPSle ee La ma mm Lei ly Pe Pe OE Fee Tae |LOG a a ICO eS a a Ce ne OS = ea A NS SY Aad AUT SSem AS AeeOr®ta p20.

Neen neee ea eee nee A

Dp

Ne eens ee ee els ER I a wes SY A 7 wn A OL CO aA SS SS CS SO SS

Og BL. ’ 4 (S(O +, ay CO A ee OS QODCO 3

, et ,. @ © © te ee es Se | —

b Lf L@we fT GT ay CE A ee 2 (S(O LF by TN IT A 9 = Ce A wb ©a _ {Q@ a 0ai seA——_ — >” A eA A® ACULL A eeCUCU ee =| a Levit Pe Oe |~OS DD ‘ , L@pe IIT BIT ay Ce ON A CS OT ( POF ly TT L~ Pp fy gf Es SQ Pp G MONR’S LIVE RECORDING 111 a at= |ee >” Ailyee ee ee ee2|fT ee eS = ee eeleEe =tteer ee| Levi tmee edYh hele mm lll VM COSC ee em [yey YY mem a “a ee ee eeTe ce mm NS SS eS SS Sm I A = 66 [1A9]

ones‘wees

Lfey bh ALe eePN | aa a OO a etA a a cy A”A YY ern A NY eA”ee A ON ONaRR

>

ee a Pa: —_— >. : :

: [1B] 5 5

i ne 4 ie Hh es? —p 5 9 7? Sr a YI IIOSTOoT__-——~ Q--- or rrr rrr rrr rE

EN a a es 6 A SS nce at nS A SS A a yop 5 2 yc OC OCt—“‘(NNCCNQNOC(‘(‘i‘C’”CO@UUUUUC‘éSdT,*i‘ais#ég@g > rti—“(tisws“C;isCtsCsCSC(C:(‘“‘(‘(SC(OC;t*tststs‘(‘zr NG — te ot tO sdya>Sj_

OS —— —>— FF FF 00 0 OOO Oeeeealele

p,, YJ—J 77 i. \ @ °JT7 \ Pg I yO pt $e SE A A EE SO ac i An SL 8 SE SS SS SY SE ————_— se=——————_—_ SS

Hf Pp 8 i pg SS SSS 7

py @ . Q © Ih — © — (Gee ee ee ee a eee ee a ee aa | —_- ——— —=_ — a py TT a a ae @, 3

Fok PR a es ee SS > | (frag o'? © eT p Ff | ¢ 1 — Jt.

Foo U]t—iCsi‘($KNSN edgh—_ 5

5 . , be

PN ds eee eee eee | ———S | LT Ee =——tC =

OI ees ON _HY)Y NY 6—~ WH] TWH ,-2ShVAW abYONNHo TH+

112 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

ee A 9 a ss

MASI ® —_ — OO @ Ooo f)VP:FOST ed a ——— SS SS ee YY Aac OS 5ASS Oo ie oe EO EE ONO K.2-->-.2 9 a (Sc C—O $y

:© I ee Io ii pw FEyvs“_s I Ooo eeeI ooeee DD eeeTdawYg eee (aD -45>|{__—-—€_"-—-—-—2_? ?-—— 0 __erN]}NT]TwTvTTVTT’T—YT_ 7 —__ 8" 1 i 0 eo —>—7OOO OO | — SS eT EEE OT cee,

—

{) ae L tf | a PASS 9 cl vv? SO)” A nc YS \ —————— 3 stn PS ae Ss

ITD Oooo OD oo Ioe” III © oT: — :SS s DTOO i 4 f bro @ — 2 eh ® 4 aHS CRT ( —_ S (SG( 92 DG (GG Yn FEO OOS TTDOE TT Or 3-—-—O04.2.020O0Cv”wauwV"—0v.-.—— 5Aa Ppan >= LDoo OO et OO oo OE eeeyi_CceKcz-rNN’}N} P?°_ ODapr?"VH_~NATAW||"”_ DO i? eeeHh OOO Orpe 2 iF 5B o_o ST] 8 ee

dl DDEE — Db —_ y Qe a TT OT oooo_EE f)oo—erent” 6 ile, eth | J.Os(8naae< e;8 — OO OTF OTe Oe .W SS _meyrerx_ oooSSSS oes OD eee A (GS “GS SS SSD SS SS SSoo SS SScS (( ( A=eee |09SS SS

D/P? rr ee OOOE—eeeeans 0S OO O4u00-7 EE+ tA eT S'S oF?> rer | | TWoOH,!|*XLXHS)SHI3$-Nvnwnw--— CS DN eee eeeOL eo4#}OH.2..nrX-._ — ——E —— rr EeeOeeSseelooOUoooooytyofsf[._—

[2A4]

VF ESSL |ee | SSS ©SS +.SG (te 2 == >. | 2._ NS 9PV a7ee — (SSS eSoe “SS eet —_—“ |"—--wW_ =——|——_ ———— pp ft] aFFA__Sn FF ———— ft SS — OE _-8#4AUA/AaT{$x™”oH“"1."07"0.6000.-Me oh —_ | TO HU LG cAt ——m— ——————————

POD OOD OOOO EEE ee” ooo eux ewes ET OOOO OOOO Te

MONBWB’S LIVE RECORDING 113

ee en Peae ly 7=aa 6 3 © {)@) a en ——— VP a weeny a,

Pw ty EE OT CUE mC if. eb |EE YY byw aeegl aeeeCO De eee eeNh ee ae aa ee ae ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eePe )=6e NS gg i—=m |ed aYsgs NF Ne ee |id|

oF DP i —me Be, A$$ f) _— ~ = © a en —“— — ere EE ae OP O— eS ee OE, PAS Ql P| CO mC CU i n 5 —— a. Ti |_| Ly A a1 alp aSD eSTe OY oF ET 9 CR 7” AFn CO I eS COCS CO (A S be I @| ee —— —OO hyCid |f) wily i ll Ct@ eee@ ||a | lm | { ee ee Se C—O po pet by | me Pd OF ly Dee rs i a i i i a ae © ©° — 6 f)@ nn — — —_—

. oye lh NYT; _—_,/HSsV—,_[,[,.1!:“_."!_WIT7}]V—~7}7}]]Y>}7Y. TY +1 b,

Tw. oly a CC Tm mm | ee LLU ea ae GS ee i+ TARA Y Ph Seem CT ll CCC eC CO UO TC (CSC‘($KTCC(‘*TYZ:C OT CULT TS CC COSC eC CC Cl —*

[2A9]

DP” A PF"SC en asCCN ON RY, (CRS (Om es ee nnOT as -e 1NS Tem ” Yheee | CCU *LLOCOCOCOtOOOOCCCCOEIM/P— | Es sd) CU SEC lll hUlss—C“‘(i‘“‘ CU eS ll+ CC CCU EEAHy“el Pig tg ee es __$ DP LJ ‘eteeeeny

pw 1 oF bp TMly Ne Dpe GS

wy eeee CUPed Osa OO SO ll aOS ma —enes Pr TlSn lO esac ee a YS TS = =|EO rsdl es (TAN Yh Cd aYS ll UL aE etmd, gd I PANY hh ggaa CS a Keg ddSY —=e OO ee

oye kvOa hI NOs rae —— ee 2H" O_O Nee CO CO ee —

114 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

p S| J 4 LT eg ih | hOGA eM ea _—_s S| ||| , ——_—. ——_ 1 3 -: a: 72 2TG || | 1Cw owe TS l—“e—e pe ty AO EF_——t

{) | 4oF NOLT aa SD lp

fw) TD mm es BS Tm am De ee Teg re ae ae ae Be is)NS ES ee ee esme 0 ee 07eee 0 ly SS —1gHQ OP SS SS «NS a ———— —eee )es QUG-- - rr rr cr rrr rrr

———

LLL Le eS ee —S LS

A pe A ae 0 a ee DS SS , A ney a

e A ry ee : Lo" s : A ee a Re —— a a ee aA CE 0 Fe en a SS ee( 9 CS CS CS LS LA 9 = (CS CS

Low tl by ta a a dm ee | ee aa esee SO eA OY Se ee FS ES A ee YS SS A A, Yee = ee — ———__ ;ee {)

PAS ee (‘ti | | CC, C“‘(“‘(NNCOUOU;#COC(N’NNNN’NN’N’NNNNNNNNNNCC nln CS

LT eID hy ee ee ee ee BE“ .ce SS eV eee RS A a -_ s D b . b b ‘

q oa oO D {) —e

PSY LLU lr"“—e eC OOOC—C—eEEs— —§=$eEE"' »§-/-/-_' ''s—s—=$s$+'" pf ff} PF=e tt ef

>

_—_ yf D ) _ __ _ ES _f\ ily [ey eo LUT i | EO cl | mm —— b ————

A XS ae 0CY, a SS2

TAR DP | —_|—_____|_|__ Eee, | eeleLL a EAN A € a asa“ a me r _|eee —P__hepeet i =bk 4h fieT SStag — es =||, Ge nn ee ee

MONBWB’S LIVE RECORDING 115 >

apty eee © a. © N :©

f) © N ©Aes —————— ; pg TyaTN OMB ‘Mm ER EEE

QS ee ss oo ONS

1@pe [oy wm i a ae eee

LP I —"—s a —=g "=m, a pee IlgtyTm C—O tt a a ee «se ee aeeee es es | ee [2Ag]

Poe ty i oh 7 ti. I DBD |a4 7 Fig ES

| fe | TF by Tag hg “| aA A) A 2 a es ee eee ——_-—_ 2 SS ee ee Pe 2S CO ON OS | SS SS I A A ee, OO Mf... Wa) eee a a e Pt ly PN yg NEG a —— es |. ee es —— — oye i! t+ o—, a QO

_

pe py ng lg beFy eoNG ; ritard. — te) @ = ye

4ee —————— Seen eee ee ee ee ee Q--- rrr cr crcl

BN AE ee..." TF TTI | fF by [Vi YY Tm fl gy OT I I "St

116 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

MONK’S STUDIO RECORDING Thelonious Monk, “ “Round Midnight,’ Thelonious Himself (5 April 1957), Riverside 12-253) re-issued on “ “Round Midnight” (Milestone M-47067) also on Milestone M-47004 and M-47064.

MONR’S STUDIO RECORDING 117

a

(ll

he Ba

gunna BR ne prubato 2 FF ... A= be ¢ “=

|_| yo | by a a ee @ J=60-68 @Q ho Lwin pie |e ee l—“=® a : : Lowe | eee t Se . Ly eee ee ea BN A eee $$ ——SS ee +aqthe—— — a _ 343 —H_ ——— ——

[x]

6

f) ®@ Ee... ,.,...— — U4 pO a Mag Lei ip |’_— [2 mmm [| | |% @ | | =) _—OD ov OooS LFOOo bheee TY gry Ne ———————————————————————————————————

118 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

yp © Za 2 =e |e=

a =A Ss =SF be be

RP

2 es (CS SC poNOpe ty gg Hh es Pp 8 e—— 2 8 8 1° ir? i eo i ) oe L | p © 2) * 2 © @ Sve- a

oo id el :|Py ee oe ee ee —— | fo | IF tyEEE rT "=e MtA4] Qo 3 tempo © rubato ©? tempo . @ rubato 1A

Hy pt OY i} ——_—_—_? — 160) r—?t > — —_

[ow | OTTO SO jig dd —___—__*" & ___§eW—_oe———_+, —

MONR’S STUDIO RECORDING 119

.

a G _ ° Oo

Bf. We eee ae eee pot a“R9,_ ||-—-|@_— ft gr TT Rt

ee ee Sa

OO Soy i

:hw OP fe A 72 A= ESER Ph; (NPR OT CSOY OS (ses SD ( | 7EEE fy Pe a II ce Oh;

_——— a P he im eee | ap us : p BO |ae 0 PN (SO Ce 1 oF lp | yh gy p © © 6 6 a_i ft— 7 ar [1B]

Se

@ atempo @ @©@ 3 @

1 —__ P(e a St ts—“‘COC*C*C‘isYSCd p_1I74 —~—— ee yy vee 7 Ee ee eee eee ——— 3 —— |

898 ES ss eee SF Se -—_#—_-§ rr

ZZ 9 _ AA FF _ Faster A ape Pie

| 3 ——_]

120 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

PF oOoby — ie | j ,NC @ @ og | ’ (So, Ry PY 2 PNCT) CS NS LfTAy * Yb ee Dy ,NS [1A3] G atempo — @ 6 rubato Ec en ne SS A eS eS ee ee ee ee ST "aA5A a

_eA eye) ee pg 9 Ot A_A

® 6=_ @ atempo A 9 ees PS SS A RS~», ON+g Oegp SShype SC OY Leip te | SxV1WwWd6a+~7—T]]7wtsz7Y74747¢ 7475 4757575757N7vWa777aWJTTTTTTT]Y]yYY—7H————

® 3 @) —— Pw pet ly Tm owe eT ay CR a= QS PS AfT CYSS A (QS CO Ch A) = i SS a A (SS SS CS

oF bp Te

3 ——— A meee en f) . —_ PEE —— a ee —>—== —ose |ey we 1 by | fee eT |g OD WI A a as Ss es SS ES a a So (Fens YY YP bh i eg lg “a GO ®t WI P’

: ENS a ee ee |} ——__,—_—_—___—_-4 yr tc tC Ci Po gf lg

oT raa_TddTJTJ7474Y474¢74J JJTJTJTJ7J777WYVaT7vjaWm"aal"l"WJSJ4s STS JJ J]]]Y]yy>77™7d~-eJ7J]|[7[H27Y7Y7Y]Y>7>7>7?>7r7«TS7W7TYYTY7 S747 75474574 [74 74 47457754 {77575474545 J 575757777777

Po PPD TTT ve—-—)] NT |" a 7 i ——a ——r [

H H EGG "FF — CG lUCm GF CGF FC

128 ANALYZI NG JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

FN SS ( POF ly a Le 2 CQ ow ee Fy a eee

© [== {)© ° by EeiP Rae. Le eelf pe —“—eh Tg bh tT|g if, YD nen aes i OG TARY Dh UR eg nn ay CE a QO QO» A CO ee a ly a afy CaSS CO Qa "= Qe oF DT —g p17 LY ee(SSPoCO a, —_ esK, (0 QO QO SC

Ce a@ =Qe ;3 ew et ty TT a Ce ————

i} ______@_@ @ ei? P?/ P/F?

f) — > ———— {= ess —T es —— ED” A 9 Fa am re SS C—O ance eens lg TE ae a —e ae a ES tc CT UD Ge 0A, a es es ee Ys es se Ye a YS es a es ee ee 8s Ne ee a rs ee p—___{ _@ |_| __q —_/ __n En nn 8. a ee a Jzi|

POF ly Da rT Toe ee" EES

he p).”nv0nooooo TT jt CO etuteFHOo. ayOOCE) A ad OS QOP.-E (a POF lyeeYYDeg Jy Pg og tg © TT eT $yP= tH LAY —

x ‘ ‘ ~ a 9) eS— a el OC — ee >

——_—__—_

POWELL’S INTRODUCTION 129 >

130 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

PETERSON’S SOLO PERFORMANCE Oscar Peterson, “ “Round Midnight,” Freedom Song (20 February 1982, Pablo-2640-101).

PETERSON’S SOLO PERFORMANCE 131

rx] Rubato L

{) AiN fT iN aTC——_—_—! A) >ig OS SS SS ce es SE ST _Aw\ 1M OD gsSN gg‘OOS FgeeOO a ~~ CR Rg LTP by OM Om eeCCC UlLl Ul CO|WS EE

poy Tm FSS ae gp(SC et80We i, iy >9SS eS T_T A |CO afH YS OD poy pm f= , O @ye _—— Oo —_ pg ed lg —— ll | pe | "IFoo lySSTe a mee A)°ANS - S— (S SES < eee | §e- --|

f) SeA [.A| dl aee—— |A Da©) —" f= DP” ES A LS BO Ay llDC Cll©rslla—= ll—CO l"“=y Se£5 ET

[Aq]

0 ee ee ee a -fPe a —~ J— + 4 9 9 se i

iACO Rs(OS SY SY > SS ( e/a OS Fs ——$——— ONO f ® ae SC) a T | dl g O i © ——— A) ST SS ST eeA SS SO SS A YS DS SS LS Sess ——— FoST=) 7S (et SL Hl > | D-¢ Lf = be! _ ylyfTsy_ y FT

ee ee |

BNA eee ___=—_____|__\_@# 4st} 5 oO A | lg a a ae pe] lg tg OC

132 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

| t " y5=aa_°

boa | ——— AA9@ PP®) SS——— SS A A Ts A A| wl eT)he ee |pe

* " h " a D " * y (TT_9s cHF - cLDDo c (OO c |ES ~ | po 1 7 by fem Ee —_ (eee (SD —— aH——— pt ee ot ,.=s§slCsC |. rirdT a elrlr es U .t—t—(‘COCOCCdYCr SG pF} —_F$e@—_ +4 ; —_#—__,—_##—_,_+—_

IPp?— A eee 9 8 18 ee QD ANS a a ee es ee }—_w—_—_+_ te —I4t_ —I oo oO i —_ rv! = lu wTTTTTLULULUDTTtTTCTC( #$PST¥C’'VJV Ct

Mg 4

[1A5] @ \) a 4@A 4as|PS [| Ae ©SS ee eS a a SO ———— LD” SS ee

" : , s fF 7 Oj

(fea ’ pr, gg | | | FF ge i, { |{ fo || * , | |We@ »» #4¢ pa ed dt Pll eT (if, hy TY PY | ft gs Tf OK Og ll llCU Z| | eNO Tt—‘“‘(i 3 QO aOF eeftly ee ee ee ee Bis Re es0°CC Rs ee—— eeee ESee0°Le E/E >... 6 “P > = SSeS == ,, ©... TS Ss LLL

3 : b abe ee |ee as|. Me Oe A = TF bh | YD fT fy | ff | be b 3 3 @ ob we fe Fie}, % a) ee ee | eT yO Ee PONSA ee lle | | i) | tt a ed nA AT Tg -. : 2Fi a a i i a = ob© tH _@ 3

|ee | 0A Bo| fp > rrr $$} ——} ——} p_ ii4 — Hh » 4 ee

—_— >I >A >«~~ yA I sc aA

>” 0A Pe CO A ee aA = OS aSSaeLS eeSS eeASS - NS | nn aOY =e HE aa Ys 0 SS A OO A OY NSA ay I OS SS SS SS ES SS a, —— ee 6 oe6Re ——_—— SO _—_—— 6 3 3 b 6 oo . eee POF lyLs OE eeeeeeeS| |]TCS OE _ |e [3B]

pe TT A 9Dy = CG SOnee CD eae (SS

P= > ns J OS SS = o : te oh i ,

, , ® rete teiere’ be bel, :

"Pe a 24 MeTp ed OS OSeg OO OO2 CSee CO CO CO| |COS COme OO aeeee YO OP iw, letT kt TOUaer ty |aee |—— Tae fT fT ae a Bf. eee eee eee a ee ee ee 2 ee ee pm oh 1eemr fT Oe en ns ______ ef) ) ———l eee —_a——— 10 ——————————O—————

po TT A a9pe PeI 7ty SY A——————— ce AA >oe 77>| > Lo >

SSC |pe fT A@we aFy 9 y4

p TE SSS c's SS i eo 8 Se aaE 0 Fe PL I RS I I es PS PP” a| a a OS | SY” aA OS CO RY a es ee = SO PA OO SO aed PY A a LS OS SY SSeee CY A SS NN E®@G 1 0ftVe’.§6E EEE Gh g | oeOY

9Py/)a= Sn SS SS hibee (4) ry a) ea A 04 eehe asee> eee>ee

YL IgCOS OO Ee(OS SSS iy (OS SS S—__|_|_|_|___ SS SS CS 0 SSI A CR a@pe PeFR (S(O

"A a Cet i ESAYGAYGne =O Ea ee i A a Be OE OR SR AA QR act OD RDnel OO A — A OR A GD (LH ae OY4

PETERSON’S SOLO PERFORMANCE 139

eop ee i i i id c — Trt, tt 3 fo ——gg 2) Ci) 1@pe tg ewe r Se nc re ea a a

f) Let ©Pe? |7P NmT © Py “=n CT ND Loli gl gg lg ae ar lie : iL@we eel a eee eee ssrnanEs SSE JTit tty [oy Mam pe ty Eg I met Ilm rgI |eg Ct A a Pa ne A O_O =| p Ee ie ee‘fton Pere |@ == Yr PE Oe >| rr PM get Kl Rubato 3

PA a © A CS SS — SS OO O_O OW ne Pn YA OO (eA |. nen

:Pome SC LS SCO AOC | (LL tty TdI CO “Ul teYSGA Aa 0a a9FS a SS IofTS"PL OD =OYweO_O §

7-727 Pos , ©@Qt-. tw) | [i]oJ| J] Pefo]fi.:lt)) PTT Peer

fe pe 0 et Pe ty CU a LF bk |e

x>>

7 he a ee ee —— —— > NS A aSSa CO I I 9NGO A, 7a (Oe weesa _——— I SS SCeeeCS I 140 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

~S5

A > > b b t b 4 b Py OD a Een tote tr =e fem— ” YY bh | ese |, eee CB ; be 5 t : 1 be |__| : = be te it te b SD rete ie tt ON ELL LLpo ULOO UL EEE A Z5GaEee ee=| TT PeSC DeeeeASL eee oe eeESS — 2 SO eC rf §'e- -----, be

NN eeesS=S=@aoununaoumm SSS SSS oor ar eo eo Ne TT ———e ee OOOO——O———EEEE—— C—O as | | | | TT CT CT CT Cd, C'|~SC ; .

3A —————— TP SS SC ST CC TTP DhLS oe”, Se, ET eee eee Met TCC(SP LK ge |ti“‘i CC rahe fete ©

Pb OD =e TET OOOO KE? TTTTCTCOtCO—OOOCOCOCOCUCUCUCC 1” TT Voi fm... f.. 8 ——_ |

SY Ne t—“CSCOC*ST =n ee a sr od | on NN eo OT a TlEY dANXm SOTrt.towT ay CN Ae SY OS YStotOY Se (SY > Tw DS

a A OY SS NY 06 SP

aowe a a ee ee a a 73 2a |..lV @ Dp nn TesdCY eT eee eT ay CN YY SO TF bh pe eo "=e ee Tr f) @yi = ;) 4) a } : s SST

A PBTVD SS—eg OO CC CO CSThhg CO LSC nC TP. eeOC Oe bbe JN SS]ae ae ne PSS "= gt EE SSE =et [oy Ne)

—_— =

p | © APT © =

a a ne A _ ( C eceen eee RS ; 5 b N ee owe | TT =e dO —=pe ee eT as CN 0 NS Te — PS SO CO ae OO aCa Ce — PS A eS = ES SS I — SC OC ON — ne° A SS ES SS LS ES SS SS SS — CS SC > a —_ a —————— Cor TD — TT t—t—CsESN TTPTeDONTE ge =F ee TCTCOrTTTTCSY EEE OOOO Oe |

PETERSON’S SOLO PERFORMANCE 141

AL Yow ff @ § (Pf, by Te TPR DD ts ly "=e TT [SSS — ot VY _____,,_#—__|__}_} __#_

PN lg ie 4pe a a a 2 XC TC ny De tT ajE f pr ) C is b C Yee)» )pper eee rrr ee | | TTC

vos a a a ooo 1Lit —E EE

55490 SY]SosaSSo SS JS])]]]Y]}]}]H}7ANAYrYYSTsS4H}|}7N TT Ts ooo) — — HS

cE a4a ;DD a a ee TAR DP ea rn ee=ea "9 Fe a CO COPS SP CT

aiSaCT SS9IPR I I CD 2

a ea eS ce A a)aSY A ae CS aSS SCSS CSI BD aoe es ey a SY (as y pe | __e =S=S=SSSSSSSSS i — al

c34—a

[3x] “ih J2 P| PI > Pi 4 |Leib © |Tey ) ——_@ . @ : 2z@y jest ri 3 ep sg gg | 29» z+ fr jr; | Of, fy aera

| Lo 7 Le :

>” A > ee es ee ee ee ae ee / ee ee a ee ee ee ees 0 en ee eee ee ee 0

by] L A r s| | Ae Fi , - —— $$

Tope foaOD SVE Na ee ee Oe eeDY A) I AD/O IDED RS PS A 9sA SC >ee + }—_47 dt0 fF,

142 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

EVANS’ LIVE RECORDING Bill Evans, “ “Round Midnight,” Live at Shelleys Manne-Hole (30 or 31 May 1963, Riverside R-9487 and ABC 3013) re-issued on Time Remembered (Milestone M-47068) re-issued on Bill Evans: The Complete Riverside Recordings (Fantasy, Riverside R-018, 1984).

EVANS’ LIVE RECORDING 143

DPD Ee ee

6ANS)= SSASSeT eS a Se aaa [x] By =

120 (swing d) 4

A) Ns SS © SS SS —Td— aS S eee eee

OD Oe eee TdTOTS> TVTOVvVW_T Ss— EB er se DOG SLO Do OOOO ER — i > ).}—_7°OHA,,_WONAR— et ree, -—-—>->$ap—sp——q-222QoN0ONnnoooorrrrrroo-————OoOoOoOoOoODODDoNmEOEO ewe : k$GseséaSee erv_e__-—__————

i ep

fo. uNWDweeje€—smveueuwo oeemQuU

8 7 ir i Ft OO ee WW ©eeOo ee a ae = - eES — asaor Sa OD NSE KE 8 dS _ TAN Ta__—_—!—H ;,*. ___ __]|__—¥_e—ji eH —_##—___¥1__¥1_ W¥1——+*_p.¢——_

iCD yvyqyeslOeN ss YTY]yYyYYY>—"_———._ ¢-—H# BB 1I?_d_o_)yee|))S,S,!THSHfHTHoHTS ToT STS TTT Oa2 wT OST””WN)V.Jq>—q1|T DDoS __00,"_Twweemy)»5»»S c1x® WE eee

P| r

«

qalV|\]SJ[H>}.,.]J [JSS Y[7J]>})}Se,7JHSJ}7427HS]]}}]}]JH7>}TN7[[YS>prTTTSTTTTTTT 0 Tr 3)]™ I sO Tdooya—

fey? —e/ a deaLW gnen gga} Fs? r/oeee er. rnLEEoe? ao.LGoa er? BN A eee ee ee LA |LW en LW Wee We _ae Lee Le L4G LEE 4, = |4"r/o? 4oT__ _, EE

LF ty De i bh ee ee |

— Fr |g aT OA eee Ee aeED ee es = ACOaee dy CO PY eees aAy = iee =DOee = A Pe A Dn OD aaSD AND OOSS OS —es in OD SS=“ OD _f | | ee a eee ee ee ee ee ee ee

"5 OO > >— Le 6.

2 8 ___*#&____&__&__&____&—___€&—____—€&__&__&___€&___€&—____€&—€—_€__,_€&____4@____

EVANS’ LIVE RECORDING 145

eg Ng Te _ :9| o@we lla A el| "=m Ce 4 CK OK

1A @ @ f) i“ s”CCCtCi“‘CNNOt#N(‘(CS(U( Pe i FSS

* *SS *A = RC brushes SS SS NSon SSsnare SS NS9SS* NS

|oO @A tf wh] fgO_O Refs LS A

— bh

er

Sk Qe

|_o@we |. ES @SY QeA QO g_—i idOe PE“ ay CE) Fe ie |SS CO QS OS

A|7 AO 0 CY ~ cl O_O37” bese __| D| sdcl=| | nel °»#»;*»' LS CS eS\ \ a 4 a Ca eS A OS CS °°

lowe eee rT sc ue mDa.”M OOD @‘LLL a __ feE949, rt | —Ci‘zS p- EleUY see, _)!/:;C Lb J vi] yy

146 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

ee eee A 9 ae a Pe eC

, oO,De»ofePTT , CO re eT : Ce pe SS QS OS OS OO

ee LP a Oe =© ——AineCO

or = SE _. __©__________9_@ _____@’______#____@______#_______

f’ _————— = | ) e is LJ ° Y) tl

LA, ffSS ff= ef OR ak ee NO a, ig DN et— Oa) Elle sd ee Ce eeaYQ PS A OY EE lamee ryTT alaS ryeee LdOT ||| “pei; owe | |.| eeGg ee ee a© jaar GT fs7fa DE EE eee fF Vy, kh |egf gfg-gn fee ee" mam mm \)

a A ae Pe GS Qa eS eS es 3

2

CW mf_—________-@ ef eK ld Ger cc___e¢e@ c clUmrGeErLr k$mcmLmmLL M$ —@@ _@ _@ __@ __@ se —/@ ee

EVANS’ LIVE RECORDING 147

ee 3 eee CC

[Ao]ny @ (@) S f) 3 St (=O ee A 9 SY AS a] A ee (A CO

Le 9 = a A Ron 3 | OweLf fT7—=m

fps? st EE 8 I EE >}?DL” | —l—"hT 1 —— |— TT 0 —_§— 8— ON Tg— EEE a —eg —g mvcwyg | | po | Uy

| ~ | CT 9 PO A” A = CPC a

\ N N N\ N\ N\ N N\

= rs FS OS OS SS Oe SS Oe A (A (eS Oe A CS a Oe ————————————— —————————————————————— ————————————————————————

Se 3 — 3 i stSYd (S(O St atsh SC or bb —§ Ee |a ~a —— | PP CS————, @)fr3ee = |_| 3 (4) Oy nb a

FA pC y hhie te 4 ye —=Si(éG$‘t'is‘ or 8c... Ui !_ > rti—“‘iCsrwsCsCsCSCSCSCSC‘C(‘(NNNCOC( (‘#(’((NCOC#C(#*dz

3 ee TKK KH =H 3

a ss a CG) ll VG rrlC W@W rlC WG r—C(i‘(‘(‘( __@ _@ _@ _@ _@ __¢ @° __@ _@ _@ es _@ __@*

py Ce iisisi‘iU

——3-——_ i —3—5 _ — —3—, © —— J ro © | {) D —_'vl OO \ eta Ree a Cd ee =< «= ER a a nS (D(a 0 nea GO }|PeoweBO aeet :gg —O I“eee i fe.em me| OT Dy yi eeDPV eeeee

| Ff Wyle yf Te Dy lL eeeerrrrrrrrrrr—(i(‘i‘ WW UhmJGmMmMmLmLhUdL CC UrLULU®lhTTTTTLTLTLULmdDhLmrmLmLmLUDLTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTrrrrrr—CC“(“#RN$§$— 2kw —| Oe 1| Ff peti PY PF a

© Ph |a(YP —T, ° = © |ON @g bh | @ gt ie, | aC (Ci i 1| fra’ f7\ bh ITY YD @ gs SPE“ ee ma lle, a a gg Qe @Q @O. | Ve em Ga lg Gs eeyi] ee A OF I TO ce —— y Ab ee

9a

ae ee f, — \KK ———_— . | \sisi _fSD —_] TT I —™@_— — TW KK —>—KH OD QS OD ” y “ y | yp 4

|ay o@we | ee| |Mm Oe NHeSew Cm me CRhive 0 Fa ee SS ES (SOUNDS (SA ma CS QS CS OS (es | Ff yy |pummmmmmmmmmmmmme ———

|i is. rrtrti‘“ .”:ti‘“‘( @@@#i—(‘C;swstsSSC—itiCSC‘C eLUWG rrr (ie rrrti—‘“OCCOW tem id WG ri iis—‘“‘(‘—m ae lgwes 3

3 ey — > > He —=e eT * L/ i] L/

|| Owe meV me————C—C“‘(‘(;é™OTTTTT Ff hl PY Vm hf “emp— ts—Ci fleeld= | - pei Pk | Lf ee we ti“‘(‘“ ‘ié‘*dLCUUUdTCOULUWGU rr UC QLLrt—“COCOCOOCCCCOCC‘“‘(‘(‘(_}__}___1—_ +} -# fe Pt eee CS yt~——“e—s»p fl“ aaeae Pe ace CO a Aa QS |aDe OG

——— emma eee ae ae TF fb (YP DE Ef a Ff wl DP Pm a Ot @ ——3——— 3 : a, = |: i" sl | —S

a Oe

Fs, eT eee eT ee ey a a SS SS RS RS PS es ae NS) ee a a iam ¢ [oe 9--____@ —______@ —____ +) —__1 44 a Se SS SS yo og | | { @Déd yg @» F [tf ld | yp oI“K#§—————_ ss d4§t#oM--d-d-JW TH >v™NT]{TFTP>P>-0AWADVr’’vT".".r..-Tr--VVVN SS SSS SSO (fra * Ph — | J | 4 - #i_—~f ~*fD... gf Oe TT LULULdLThLLULULmDThLhLlLUmdEhLhLULmdThLhLCLUmdThLhLUmThhhLLUhUdLE UT UU Gl PCL

|(~~ owe |. 3e—e—p ig Teme et Yh | oe Om Oe pa ytPel 3 || AmT 7 a(owe Ce A es| A Aa amgm a a, ry , gm ns a i,gm = ee ae N \ —T_1_ | To] fo ee

3>

| rc rrrt—‘“‘(Ci(‘(‘i‘ WP?*@SSS|sse TC rl el ld llr ld Ur iG lUlU|TlrcaklcrcwlLUmLLmLlLlLULULLLrCULdT ll.rrlclUmUmdC rc (“ OOO IIOMN_".-_CcLwAW0-0.0.W00...-n0-0~0z02~0—248o@&a— —® | (nnN~N0NO,.—-—-..-——_—_ eee

es ee es es >SS_ oeofOP 19Eee ee jo | [7 by | 4| Pp bj ff as ansnnesasanmsammeenmn ———-_Fmey ff —EE 3

(a

6) __ © tp Ge SSS PT LYON OY hy fl Pg oo Bo op .r Sr vYO ot >,—“(‘C(;ésrCClC ma mT |i|py pe iPhkh | |B i mC‘ mem ft Ff ple DP fe eee gh gy ) \ \ \ es ee \

py ce pa ydPT || ONY EE EE EEE rtrt—‘“(isST:Ct‘(‘7077INI M]—"-—"-——"-—-"Y."—T"",] [| xVTwhl+VOAMRON—-—T-onon—?9DWmDoOOOOeleOTT ooo —0_OO OTF*>P bt-—*—@—"-"I0--VO.*wWwWN Ooo ooo OO Oooo

T_T a T_T ee «|ee= =SOFl| =n 5 es ey «= Ss | SS esee| «=| 162 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

a

|a

BA2@a @ " aES, O_O LA PS OD OD oO v ans es oo OOOO TT OOO @ @ i, OD a 0 OOOO OT OO A A PZ ( ( 3 = ee a A 9 SS 6 7, EY (i

aig ee oo OD

OO OOOO OOO OOOO Oe i LL 3 ——J

b§

oOo ddddddYY]>TTTTTTTTTTTTTY TT sY]>o}4]4,.J4SsdSySY S$] oD OE OOOO OOOO OOOO DDTJ=TT OOOO OOOO OOOO OOO

ot '— rrIROOOSToToToToS——— OES eee—_ — io aA>) CY OY AS(SS CY,Cc —LY POY GLY SS SL CS —_—~ 9A) a CS BS ———_ a AS LY SS

a a es es es ee ee ee 3

(brush on snare stops)

> +-—__ 4d] T]WYSHTHT1_—#1—.NY7NY es rr —]H,T7a2a7}WNWWH,._.——, Lo

___@ __»__@ _» ES @ 1, a aaA-—e—f CT) A_______iti._._,__pbe TS CS SS = | __ae —— —__SY E AA SCCS (=__»_@ SSS ———

3on3 =) (cone) S | mae | EVANS’ LIVE RECORDING 163 gyr?NTNIN!9,lHHfHHf,_, | ST STTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT¥_SSTTTs ss

a

se rl 3peg ee ooo 3 3 ane QO @ 3 WNP] Sa, i ee ee

—3— ©) —— 3—, 9a6)tya-toi i |PONS a lg gg aE — 7 cE Ue GE a’ aFi |,

oF3bh(sharp) TD mmma EE —em —3

ay CR PF eS A "A QO OO Ne ee re

———~ | | FU] 7 | ———-. |_ +} FF fh |

4 y——__Y-#__@# _© ©# @: __@ @: _—=s@ ss Ss—“‘SNCt‘~S@®’C“‘# sd @CC“‘iaRCCSSC CTC

Ly ee eeee—ey RES IPyeP—=y gh gt} 4 p—_} ___}__g@j

Te a = _——_@____@ @ eis @ _@ _ ws _TFHOHOFTOOHjNoo4&oMNwtmWNne———? OOOO DOO Oe EE 9 Oo

3 3 ee —=

a a a a a a a, ae

SS= Aff — a aS ee AA , § es §= ey = , = = ee

164 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

a

eS ae se Ss

a3a3> eee 3>33

[3Ag] 2: Iss . EAN 4A eee a > CO a Ee fp) G) X mee | ; eo @) ; : i" | : aa yi.

| gf | |P bh] ND ll m® OG Oi eae WG tri‘ i‘ lll W@ lft LLLLLLULULULULULULULULULULULUmUEeeeW@ et rti(i‘sts—‘“‘ Do

|@pe ty ama Ce > ere; EE OO BE 3 lusmpeeeee r | | | CU Py af | ef | FJ F | —f |

yp $—_________@ _@ > _@ _@ ee@ @° ____@e¢ @° __|_ee@ @-° _____ee@ __@ __@ @ _@* _¢&e@ _@-°_

EVANS’ LIVE RECORDING 165

are0

© © LA ly Tg : Te ee, 5 0papee— ee 3 3 = sf | | a a _————_ fF

ee ae =) an N 3

,

yp ——____* 2 @ __________*_@ ______@ _@ aC CCC

| p@pe TMB gy ea SS _ _— 3 ee b —_—_e,

Ls 9 A CO (SS MS SA (S(O BS Ge ——— —— (

py So @ _@ @ @ __@ _ee@ __@ to ee

166 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

ie|e| ck ee ee ( ee e 72 E ce A [3B] @ @ SS _—— 3 _

————— B OS °GS [SS(OS A a aDh Ce© (QS GY” a() a9OO 0Aa 9” SO OYGS YS CS Sa rtm’ OO "=e! CCC

Pg gf

iy CRT 9 AS = A (S(O YS OS

owe TT=eOO arr OO OOOOOOOOTeTTTT.QNam™ Fb LDILL eee Od OOOOOCOCOCOCSCSCSC“C“‘iLCCNNNNS “NSO

SY «YY |(C= a eee VlAYY es ©, I. | Qo pe ee A YP SS CSaSS TrSSCS ee f 9a)A nce ES SS SS Ca ES QS SSS —— 13:8 a NS aCN — | sd ee. | ee. | ll LL ——J 3

eee PF

Ol TT _] 7 v=TY

A FS*,»~(SS CS. ~“@ (SS CS SC IT ...»+ jg gu jg(GSC .}. ——@g[ogo Sf » go ”~Qg¢@ gs woCS ,.go brushes on snare resume

() —9—a"Eee NS (SG hc) Zz an TOF EEEDFE oT CRT? = FE aheTT OC A2OP CG CS

Fc pS YY (2 OS™ TE TOOS OY rtm’ Vb LLCOTETESCMUMTSTSCS.LLUW —/JoSS Cd Se (CS Ee TOF —?—

APY0a ame rn 3— 3 |3| | ee

Mi ed SS SSA es— eS ES ALJ OA o CS A dy SS OT) YS a aOS a8C—O A Sy (SO —~

3

5,

Z _ ——?3 Sa SL) _ 15) _£&__|___£©&___#£__£__©&__@&____ee| pei Yh @ fT) Oe ae ae a KE ae ea‘ —(i‘“‘“‘“‘i A ° bpee a ee ee po et bty. fC ee °eee es ee ee a | _7). . 1 ft. FT] | o@pe | |. — | fo ft a aS a aT eld ke$§$mrPe Ll Ge Pti‘C‘Csi‘C(C(‘(‘(‘(‘(‘(‘(‘(‘(aish)!.”SCia CC. UCP LULd|TChUmUmUmUCUCUC LUD lg |

6

168 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

2

en

Ia ICe9 , [ 3] @ @

eo} > 3 rr i ED eee et PR Meee eee 3A

——4—_ 2 4-_ 4H OH

| fF yp iTV | __i¢_ {| _fTtet{t,g.. | {ft ft. | {tt {tft . {ft ft. {ft tft _ftt,.y {tt 0 i ir? ——_ —__—_\_ gg — 9 —_—_—_\. r—SY

eect othe bed>. YY ys SOON se&aPree eT A 2

ce ees ee ce Fl Fill

4y———-224—_-#_a2—_2 _____ + —__# ££ © £2 OCS ULL eC aU ee N,N NS ———————————————————————————————————————————SSSSeaea

EVANS’ LIVE RECORDING 169

a

eC @ 3 2

© 3 © 3 |TF ~~ | peby 1 U71D ty gf a fe 9 CN A (CO Ta! DS eCNuaim eo xc« xxxXxXxkKKx«c«s[(_ oS oT oer TAS T——oO———— ST OO TieeMJ_ oD Dn LT

3

beae bbe’ bbe bd bbe’ im 1°a = 4A Oe abal’ aeSbeespace ny =aescS |=i aseS|= «= eees ay a CR YeA es esbp ee es es i ns es OSee eeAee aSS eeCS eeeS Ss es esbw eS a|, cs aeei

3 3 3 3 3 3 —3—PT a a PS rs | | a ce ee ee eee 3

_ —________@+_______# _@ __@ @ _—@: _ .. _ i . —@ _—=@ @ é@ é@ © é@ é © é@ @ @ £éJ«@ @ @ @ @

Ley I ty Pg a | ee ad Ce ee | > >. oe (a ( ( b P a aa gm ee ee ft |(owe) ~V | Aen po 1 7 iy |e UT SS SS Ca Qa » aee a) Pf i gm ee ee nn Mi et ne (——_— 3 ——_ >es>ee>ee+ — brushes snareaa>=— > -| 1 | FO on resume

ee ee © ( ( A PY

MF OYrr A eS ___@ _@ _ @ —s—“‘s@ CC SCCM SCC CC‘ CCC CC‘/ OS @ fe

170 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

|as

MB] @ . © oT _f\ Wl YP Om Cm ee OPG “GE |CS WG— am tC Ue a ee ee ce Pe vce CR ne PN ym eee ees EEE Lee =~ 24 YO fr i 9) _§_ ay CE ee ee ee QC ee | fFf Wh ly DD — 3— r—— 3 —,

—fe py 4 7 + J/7—EEEEEE . 7 - ee ee \ ee ee —— 3——_ 3

Po SOU OUD EEE EE TE ESSE TS ee lhhhbeea_éey€é¥€e&{@@qwO Oo woe

8 2 (~~ wel Yh |

|(~~ ee ee ee| ee eee ef Vyh QO msgg i me TF Wf pei TD Oe —e—=s ——eeee—e—s Tf pyoe —3

renAeeSS ee Ss ee ee pes eeSY ee 3s =A i, ee a L/ i] L/ % _/ 3

iyY—_¥_—__________*_-@ ________@#@-@@ a

7 7 b a © 2° N | |Ey wi yh, _ gq pf ye ee nn eG tg TT a a Pb 0 ce A Os es

—| | ~_e= on a 7 aHa7eey> rn ne, ee ee ee a cs

Pa hy ee ees Ne | ce Ne

, )§=< «| es YS TS es SS eS es a a =| 7° 7 ¢ ———

fj —___________________@ _@ @ @ @ @ eef@ @ i ##@ i#é€4-@ =4|@ eff | @ # #@ # @ # #i# «*@- — (ee@ £™| ~i+@© @ ____|

EVANS’ LIVE RECORDING 175

DD — i nsNS A cl S| OE EE | 3_fC TTa ee a © ~~ © eS

:eS we ad ttre i Sa a acc CT)9aA 7 A SS DS > XG 29

fob tt r J HH ) OOOO oe i SOOT eee rit. .. 2.2... eee

ec PPV OE ."1213#4UY5N>H-INCINN™N™"'—-'.Ut’pm]jm™N."1+VWV.WT1..WwNnwwwaooDoDweeroaooooommme a n=F.-’zpnpnrpvR r#™T-_-"._"0.~—000—0—0—.0zqQqo

a —————

@ > A 9 SS

OI A) KSaaa ST SY Tg SSS SSSd. SS SSfol. SS SS rit. 2...

ee ee ee ee ee ee ee OOOO ee een x«ywvnrweeoer~».essweeasree>rxsescv vrrRe» Oa...” reraecvaese6vesrerOewwweesesr reo erereweewreeeewm=x«l_ _ esos oT TdJ_TSsTsSSS,[]vVYVsST/_[+S—SyT”v TTT 7I7]Y]Y]yy7tt4oqq04q.4,q4q,qo]oJ.J,o}]o4§}]]]o]o8oq.)UJ0,aqT]1._TSYYT7YY74YSY47Y79Y7Y7Y7YW7z7WVJS J

9 SC a -TO—-c

f) es ee ee — -N A (g) p) Cea? Dh eee a EE ooo OOOO _m™NWGW®W omg PSP ee ee" —=— OO —= — EY 8 Guan

ey —— Se 8 arco ~ CP Dh ELE P38 FFF EOE TTT TTT TTT §o2$2ATNnN]7}1[}NTrTT[(?#*’*9 Ee

SS eS ee nn|

FP op__®——_ ee FPS Ot oOte —— “7-5 NL OO OSC 8 See et ih Oa —_ 18 ——_ SS SESOOJo_WJTTTSda S:?S—OhmTmTO'4.'tennnlmMm!]—]*_ """[V"|[_[HoHoHoHoRrva S ——[]—H_T——] DE 8888898 OT TTT TT TT SS TTT TTT ——TTTTTTssymM—— DiI IG I aeedDDYDw Q SSS_ere_ooweeeeweoreeeeeoerv 0 Se ere7

py | = |) N Z

fn

176 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

Evans’ studio recording Bill Evans, “Round Midnight,” Conversations with Myself (Verve V6-8526).

EVANS’ STUDIO RECORDING 177

}Dh tet ag b —~ fp he le 1 eet Ete, tite ett [x]

GQ) )=124-128 @)

® ee eS aeeeS

center he fe PE

ge ee Sa : te ibOE —~

| en— : an ce

Se 178 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

Iwy iio —— rer aaNC Yc Ca OD a7 OO Ye CF aSN A A) SYhg SS =< py PT

3 — aa — a ea 9 aJ eee 9

NS 9 a a A QO (On, (DO

Se a CH Ly nm |Ee Fk Te a LP ty en aLF CO 0 FN Te a by 4 4 ) 4 4 LP ty aE =e NT NC aD ( ee Fy A 2 9 a” 9A ty = a(( LP a Aen

LTAN ty ga a OC 7S ee ee ee ee om a = f) ST he |SSS | |> |ale ee|P= TT A SS = a:ASe A) > lb as a Aas a >” A 9A Se ee RS I OO ee a, OS POR (SO Pl |0aACa CO eC 2ayoOAe 3

A ae PO CO CO CS A A YAS YS OY C—O ance ace OD AD OS OC sn A A

f) 1__N —_—— — | === —

J eg TEC TCS SM —Mm ..||_ ——... THe _—_ 2) 3 _ a ——. a_i 1 >AEE ee OO TTT EE Ss |EO SS(YS YS SS Rear EN SW ~~ A. EE ES CS SE YY GS cP OY OO __ "eg ieee Oe

:DDa OO a TT OO OOOO OOO OO OO 2A eeaee eeA ee (© ee Ss ae a as7 SeEY See a(fm Se ie _* 9. EF a op Fp a eae | AS () — —_— a | eee ———_ | OD» TT ee ES ET ee Ee cA hs Cg SS nS CY On EE EE a A A YS

==

f) a 3'7SF? |cee _| Ly _— — —— 9yc L(G he PD "A PA] A| YS C—O A YY A tea? DO iO _YL 1rr” rr? ero—o’iwN_—— of 1 9A) ____A 89oS o_o? PS iot “gs = Oe ER eS OO oo ——_ =——S_|

ED TO SS a eS ewe ese oD oD i OO OOD GB " pe: D b ae ©©@ [1A9]

3

aLP CN SS nc, YR 2 LODA OY "——— ie "De {) _— | | es | |Ah a.: cs__|——_ es LS LS — SDs LS te eo Or? ee re SO eee lea” D> Te ‘SN >? o_O TZES oC DE OTT — S72 oS F721? - i f h a = » 4 DD =@

A 0 i Es es 1?)

Ope Db owe OWa a CTee 0 Se

7 ‘ iA = A 9 CY A LS SL DD (So 4

e

a ee {) °ee _— —_——— =< | — eT —C PY OS A P(e cS SS (es Sy A a n= YS | A GO ce PsaS99 a YS SP _ , SS SO A iP i f S™ Se = > .” ————sSr—_ | rr? Cr eo mem CE OO UH oo —

[) . r ° i — — —_— ee SS SL 2 ee Se ST 2 S po — —SEeS 7s 7 d G bo 1? Mt ee Ly CK a > Eo = A cl _* ee Db eee SF oO TE ooo Tt EE A A 0 (7 SS (SE — - p_t i rreTCFC ttt.——_¢@_.__e_A _ HiGt ei 2.Dd ££-@. eoA” 2 oe+sa—__ eS @@ _Te_? —+ei2. _1.» te @»EY @. ee@ +S @.-2@ te 523. EE ace A7TCTTTCTCr © A2 ¢he TY =| oe0°&x,‘s--2 02 aa Aasa; Sd|

EVANS’ STUDIO RECORDING 181 >

I

fe 2A a ( P 2 OO 8Oo oe SS oe

A a aS 0 a = 2fta I~ — —— ae > te 0 LW }OO eeOO ee ee “a OOOO [1B] [)

ey oe"ADB OB ds AEO nS”I e—FDo SS A SY 2Ee | PO SY A GYTF SEEES —~

PS ee NS sO eee () 3 oe 3 TS A TY a LS SS sre SW LA pen en a —_ EE EB ime — LD | 4 a, p : fo’ 1 @D . 7 Pe j i ae a! =a a d ———— i be : Los es 0aACE) DN — nc A SM ci _° XP EY °C ES LS EUROS AY SS —|1 0 9 I. = SL CS Sc | cl TS v _ a a SS ; Po — / _ DE a = SS ( aOD > SYEF SY SO YK Wa GY EF "gs ee b —_— 3 3 ~3—_—~1 \ =SSjoni >ee— 3 a(SS 3 A A =P OA Dn Pc YN OSNL Ol SG a ASN YS==AA

fo OE dYt€"——— 8 oe 2 LT ee oO ODOT Oe rr ee

aA8a(

EE A)Oe=eg OP A DE nr iOr OSre OP SOEE —EEE S SY LXVaee | “eg a ¢ 2SP _ OO OO

A= A

A 9 2 SC < O c La————————~ L S ., _ AY [)

A A) SS —— PS 6” SY NY AO Y cA OY YOY OY EE pot fF fb fF Fb F

= ee YS OE EE ELIaA XY A8 A AY A EPTF? ES eeeaa— '?.nD OYCO De FtOY FY

AN ~~ Ld 2 4 N) I 8FS SS — P _S LP _ CS CY 1 EP AL) ZX) A | O™ O af) akOS SY BR SP A SO PS LS i nl 7 A iii ASS a a a 9 A O_O a, ae Dia . ; r ° e-t - _ . J ° PI . a) . e by I,

ON er rr? OL _) '?(YO iACN YY ST ©” YNSE ACS VOY -A) OY PO cA AO "EY OE = SS - -A 9OY OlEO SY SS SP, AS SOR

Te eee A9 eT A92 nn Gl 1aC ee tte aa) A 9 CC /) - sae, |Gl ioe _s + =>33mT 33 a ae @ @) @) ms (4)

f —_— — —— —— =e SO OSS EO OOOO o> oe oa DG Lf PD ee a en sr i I rr Ht 8NTFees” Oe Heat oe TTF? ee Oe —>on-——— 2? 9 8 8 og ee — NN COO Ck a?OeLJ 72 I~ooelby aooaOO eee OOo OSS ES EN 8LO SFCOO EET oT oo S| Vv a [1A3]

e>

Pea WIsaJ]}JJ,]}f],],f.[.],.]),.d.]q]+Y.|]Sof.JoyyTTTS],H-—a->z7TTSTTJTTTTTYJ7va7W7WNamN9 JTTJTJJTJTJTJTJTJTT TTT TT TTT

eg eo aCM — ,1 O_o A ae (YZ ceeso Aoe»se— CO A——~ en(se Pe DS an, 9SSS a*LUtCOC———CCCC S-SS P™ >™ ™ _—=eEeh SayG Nf NY le”9 FT’ © sl — — 3 Hl 3| tT ——.

—s ee — ¥ee — \ eee | |ee Py | ft "A YS cece SS A— GS Ds DY A NO SS Ok aa Ci et Po ee Fe ee ete _ af)PA a=yPp aaeyeses a ee ee ee y ane a és 13 = |5 owe ee Oe eee ee TD SC(i‘“‘“(“OéCOCOCOC™ TLCS dard lJ9 []>J]y[WV]TTTTTT eee oe OO eee OO cA SPS WS| i eoSS SS (A

—. Th So D . AP. ~~ => .—f—_ asCiie: C

Haas p TT —_ —_ _-__ |_-__."——_ oy @-_2 2 yaa 222s o?27 0 a __ 2 >? 2 oT

Ne I TT Le Db ee eee af) A 9 a S(O a — =~ OQ — a= OT I eee —_———— N _—_—————_| \ DD CP PD Fe —e ET oO OO OB. /E0WwWwq@w._ OO eemy=x_ ees 5 ST LL 3 —_—

a” Se@SO CC I Genres OD Ree88Ce= AUL A> PoA EE on. 8SS e:-CZK§]onon FRON7>?VR.C.-€WvwWwWNN2(_0$—— 7? __nn [fen *oerYh Fl | | a| ve FT ftA ft ftee ft pS PO gle CUP™ TCT SS aOP ST AtT mm, 2-22 =OsUl0aeet0eli

OD ix _ e™D®™DEeaaM _ eT OOo o_HYS.

Se ESS SS SS Ee i ee OD I eM eeea=eeerwwweeyq]® ® x 0°03 eee A RS SS , i, en eeeo_O ee. 7d a?a 0DS TEA arlhee ale "ir= rr _| _7s. Py —_

Cy tT ort tr | I 8 ee et ee... OoOoeweseelszqIN UN NAOoOoONooO2O$]NSD{$BshT[T€_—WVWTVWVC_Tr«r".'-Xewrx*T*"00T[_98 =p ts

——, 5 _ r] 3 a | == P f ° re — r OQ @h 4 A) (A A — ——— —— A) 7 2 GS PR (cl (S| Se a eo _ . — y “° EVANS’ STUDIO RECORDING 183 em

f) AyCA :—— — ~ LS —— _2ee —al anOe-_———— — a) Pn, A ‘SS ————— ce es [fA YP =Ae=, 2—= Fe rene Te Ee i a Fr tap OBS LeeeEr O_O Ce *_.| eee 2eee T—TTE—E—E PN OO eee en FBO apS en ee =e|ee ee 1 ee 0 O eee e eeeeeeeee a} -o : 5 Ti " D, nl eh ee= coy | see”™:!eo 8 ee oo ———— ——— ———CVCWN®W” wiAOO ty9ro TO Oe:es |I(CC DS oo 4oso8OnWnWo en Se pw ee Dy OT /) — Ph| |heme | |eeetbo (TARY eis a| ET PONS Te| |tC|mT ()

a CT A a SY 2 SY A YS SY A A es es Yee ,

Ne eae ee May A vac ND OOO ce mn, DS CS CS OO ee 6

a 92

>

| FO Be Ua —eeee VE "=DhhtCCCCSCSC SN ON [fi ohDy TYa Ye TTUML eld Wh ge ETUC e—=ee aN he

| @wpe eT e—=g ne OF by[oyTN meme) \) S 3 6 G LP Dy "—“e TT e—=e ee es NS Ll OCLC wd LCC eT pow pe | Dob tm "=e

:eA u—3 —_ 6 6 = Nees, SS A oe #) DD ° ma 92 A CO

eee

De FTesOe NS —em® a A A eee ee

FO—E—g_g oe @ FY | ae Tf TULUM | | hh UC Uhl |Dy PygeEY TT ‘a

= 3A ee es ee |cLOF @pe | Fg iH lyGL Te e— 9A f) = 4 ees es ee — = ——

aPr eee ee——/ =A ncee eePS AeeeA|) _Le A| - = Ye —f ie Poh SY g | 7 of A ¢ yl CS COG ES | | [| gs jf [Tf ff >

3 —_——_———— |awe | byeA fame EOE eg Tm —eeA(” @we pe pe Dy RE eee seeft eT 0 OC [)A°PP— 2 (a

@) ©) = he Ot G) aLe” es 0AaoeOP — 7Se re Sw ee|:SS -—_~ 0aOE ee)_= Ye eee [fry “ Ph | |" ae @l |ee | |i— |ee |SS @f UU EelYee let ft

: pS “=e Oe ee ——— eee

eaA “CG aYSaU me ‘SLUMP a|ASBy eS YY YSESYS ae— A OO OY YL YA Ae a a aAS NY RR 6CY OR CY ce A — SD ASYS eeK)=—| =Oa —— —YS —_—_~— |A ee Le Sesty OGG po pe CT a EE aOYaELLUCsC‘Ci‘C‘*S a ma a RY CUS A aeP= 9 DP PY an Aese AS AS Y= YA

f) I\ —— a ee p -ee rs _—— ee a FS — :

ce . net | =——s |[—_"_I? ope | | TOS Oe Ee OO yt = te Fe “=| fe Ef ff Pf ff) ft r/min =T PT y y Pls " —_ -— — ; ST | — @ _—_ [PN wT bh Tm eee ee "=m —m ®t ee eeeB Tee eeOR ——— =| ——————_ — ——— —ee 6

ZZ |TAR” 1D bh |ga sd[ULL Td "=, UE S|ofCC OSE Dh (BE§E#E@]|— ge a SG gdoeOe LO ee| | Lf.ww ikDPTY YPCCC Ve OD EE OT SS Ge SehlCe“ |S Oe eeUOC SC a le"e"=eT bh mee SS OO Ee hl emeT CtC ——— i 97 — Do TTT

EVANS’ STUDIO RECORDING 191

aia. aee — ee ee OO EE _— a a @

op | Oe SSS SS eee ESS SS SSS

f\ © @ N | \ © — @ , i"

ee L oa ==.— [3A3]

p. b x ; ; IN —_Y V V -—————++g

er ee ee ee oe 1. Adin

a ro po ee J Jasie Fl yd) od te

192 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

pT a9|(

f) wm S C 3 3 G|8)bh |NC QONe SS ee Da 3 a ||pw oOwe Be by 7awe bh YD” bS

|Z. bh ITY DPD ff d|ew i. | | UTC ee EEE SST |: SS fA YY Yh ee SS; ZI A SS Te || ~pe @&eTie #7 ./»al &»#23 EE SS EEE EE EE EE——————————— EEE EE EE EE EE eS EEE EE EET £7 Yh! bh iN TVD eee +» luUe T_e—~s_=er NN

3=3 3 = j tid J|... a— ——| co —_— ee ° [) —_ ~~ 2. ~~ L Zi ~~ LM a __|_ @ee i A 9 A Se ee I a ihn eS eS es cc )§=— ee ee a ee ee ee ae A I nce — ——_ ; —— ‘CS he of Ls | fi bh YD -_ ( ee FN A” eoOe “eeeeeieeei es ee ee eseee” A ~~ es and [frRA YY Dh ~~ " &# * * #Be I eg a & a |. »+;+xY i @Q@m / tn L™- LE se LULULULULULULULULULULULULULULULULULULULDGCD™lLUCCUWGDLULULUCUCMWG@C

Se a a a a a | _ Po Jf p—________ | ee _ le“ | gLULULULULULULULULULTCOC™t—OOOOC—COC‘(‘(CQQUUUUUC‘(’* mC‘NCO*dS

EVANS’ STUDIO RECORDING 193 >

a

CD a Sl

——— ———— a —— Coe a OF A SY SSa SY SSpg YY SS SY A a Poo - ’ ~eee" — ’ee == [Ah eee f) —

DoS aYY oR OOOO exes —oeawL Co Pe BN OE OR TTEY —.-—000wW — —— Oeq_Oe DOSY Oe A —O aCSAY A TB OY ES OY— YE SESeeeos,mweew_’x — cS NY OY EE am&@——_——_ EY CO aE TN eae Tn errr OEE. OTHI..2>-NF]}]D>N>N>”N”"w”NwN40W0...V09 ot"On 7?O_O De

C.D eeeee—eo |ee—peeee eee SS ———>?— ea a— CS Pp ee i O_o a __ |!M@][V[Xx,._!_— o_o —_[ 8 —Sse oo Ooses ———7?—

—= ed 4 | ee = pw a | a ee —_— —— — —_ CD bb OT bb eee —

ee —ES —_——— ——— yo —, A EES O80 -OT Sr eo 8 eee Aa? aD 9 eee 8D Oee—> OE ™—— 00 ODEevee eee TET CR ees eeoO8”WOWOcTNON., —ED eee2 OOeee eee ee |

am — oooOoOoOoOoOoNooOD.eQueowercxauWWKn snes e€«™ em aaenneseeeenenees

SS a Sf SS * — A FY

Lf Pp OE SSeee OSeee oe eS OB o> 9) a OS FOU? Clay? pe Eh eeeOe eeei oS eeeeseeeeesesesesesSses Cyt O_o — —eo————ca ESH————— OT _ 5 — 8 OT or A =FCF 0 A—O ————————~ a CY eS OT OO FO Epu-—-_{[~™N™*™})NT=xuo00-0#"#+¢.W..N.NWDD — OP?” = ST OB ee TOE Aoi ——_

se _— — —— \

A) —————~ S (9™ fay PD eS eee Eee sees ir Sr Clea De n° oF? or (ZN 728OOF a [——_ O_o oi |: C€aaDBV“vvv-Y0.-VWTW— Cee >? DOD TeOF TT FtHoOOTOTOorlrzxehT ORTF ee SE Eo RE eaF?— -cuU“TWw“CVT’v-——_*”7 ED eo ToksgbT TOO OOOO OO ooee EE Te—RE — SB OTTof

V eee, 3 3 —— jie a DO OO TT eee A 0 O_O YAYi C—O ~~ Cf Pop Te => eeUaeh DD

Ll

yD ee Oo 95 DF?eT OO9NONO>D00Vxw.S=q ———_—“_ =r} — ™_«_"-"->)|»"_OEE OOD oo—————— a8 Lf Pop OONuHR SB SS OHSS eee0nn”’vrx1/.0Ww..—0L_ gNotavrSO wcwowwowoNMo.—— 8-9 laa pT IBS=D D>=5D TTT tT—=0O OooaN“N ™]Apjpo222>Fpp>pD)>->>.$}.6@P@B 080 Ck 9955 =OL _9—="0— _ 8 —=FO 22S oT STN2S(az})]7o]JdJdTST]SpT7ySdyTST SS _J]'"Y-V] TT To WwWMao_—T — —— es EI or

ewe OT IBISdi #)idgee TF i egg yY5a]S)| YYfYY7Y7YYJYYJTYTJ77WNN77NN7aNaNaVtaY>7J7NaW777WWWahalaoaVa4as]JJTJ7TJ757 577 7’WNaaNaWaWaWa7TWaJ7?W—Z777Waa"a"anhNMh9DDhMWlWVW@W@MMDBMRLCC_l€l"@a_—]|——

OS OD OO —— OOD a_avw_ eT oT TTT SSS Terre laa? 2 YO TFROREOWVWVWT oo /Vv—@q SS as=?—OO6wWwcTrTxTcm OOOO Een Z: em OCS - - VV’ _—_ 0 — ——_

194 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH ™~

pT OO O_o ee NN a ee ee — ce 9 DS Y a ree Sa | |pw eT pe ty LF ly DY a|a 9 1 f) ee ee a eT ee Bee

®@ what f) —— nce “= PE we |Lm owe ly Ne Tee Te Ne i oe ee ee I | ee SS he | a CO 0ee A a aeee Lf, &DS °°.» 8§=—Cl eSa eee eenTd —= ee eee | (TAR Dh eR O_O =" »§E§E NE nn NSbh a a1TY) PS OS OS SS ee ee es a yo D ba P he € 2 H Db ———— YY pti“‘“Ci WV Pgh [) —————— _e————— . _————— ee i SS TO RS GS OT CO a ce; MA CS PD rubato

\) i) ~ b i £ _ —. 4 LTP DP hy Eee 2|A rn a ee | Frer, bh lin mn 9 YD =el |RO Lf. | CU eGSLfe ew eC Ne oeoli es a ee a a I BT et Ssee a es PNY eran ee eS SS SS [Be Dy o_o fo oF lp PG Ie" a Le bh TTT eee i| (Cid CzC [fi TD hl’ PY fg tiem Jot lw tl

LeDD a) bffA)peieemmmmees b . rubato [fi bh TY uma) mmm |

nT | ee ——.. > le oo Oe eT -_es.,..———ss.TOOF TY oF

a” A pF ee a a — _ I TT tO —- S S S KR cerrs 0 ————$— Ee

f) oe ——$—— ON Be ae He Ra as Ses a a aeee a aE_____ a a ee es ee a ee ee

aSS a ae aA a aA RPas cPol pe Dh PO «Cc ae a———— Fe es PtaCt_QO Ll (SOa i9 | eee fa eee — ot ———. . O——Ot e—ee—n oe FS —6s/{$FT-""|].0>0942#.DDDDOW]TT0DDODODDOoD™DOo?WZ

Wey, ——

EVANS’ STUDIO RECORDING 195

NOTES ON THE TRANSCRIPTIONS

Monk’s live recording Monk’s studio recording I have seen a film of Monk playing this piece. He did cross his hands occasionally. Tom Darter transcribed the first part of this recording of “ ‘Round Midnight.” His

Section Measure Notes

transcription was published in Jim Aikin, “Iwo Views of “Round Midnight: A Classic Tune Then and Now,” Keyboard (1985, 37-39). This article also features a partial transcription of a performance by Richie Beitach.

softly or does sound. —— ° x Darter indicates C2 as the not lowest note of the first chord. While

x 4 On the second and fourth beats in the left hand, G3 is played

Section Measute Notes

also sound an octave higher.

1A, 2 On the third and fourth beats, the left-hand line Gb3-F3 may

it is difficult to tell, the lowest note may be F;

x 6 Monk may have intended AbS (instead of A5) as the penulti-

does not sound. does not sound. ; a ; ; ;

1A, 4 On the third beat, the left-hand chord may also contain F3.

1A, 8 On the second beat, in the left hand, Bb3 is played softly or

mate note of the run in this measure. (Cf. x 8, 1A, 8, etc.)

x 7 On the second beat, the left-hand chord may contain D3. 1A, 1-2 Gb4, struck on the third beat of measure 1, rings through the second beat of measure 2.

2A, 2 On the second beat, in the left hand, A4 is played softly or

1A, 4 Stem direction in this measure shows the voice-leading. The left hand probably plays some of the notes written on the

2A, 5 The pedal blurs together the left-hand chords of the first upper staff. and second beats.

softly or does not sound.

2A, 8 On the second and fourth beats in the left hand, Bb3 is played

1A, 4 On the fourth beat, Eb5 is played softly or does not sound.

° 1A, 6 On the third beat, the left-hand chord may contain D3. 2B 7 On the second beat, the second part of the right-hand triplet is oo played softly or does not sound. 1A, 4 Stem direction in this measute shows the voice-leading,

The right hand probably plays some of the notes written on the lower staff.

2A, 2 On the second eighth note of the third beat and on the fourth beat, Eb5 may also sound.

1A, 4 There may only be two grace notes to the left-hand fourthbeat Bbb2 (G2 and Ab2).

196 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

1A, 5 On the fourth beat, Ab3 in the left-hand chord is played softly 2A, 6 On the third beat, the left-hand chord may contain D3. ot does not sound.

Z 1 Rather than adjust the durations of the second beat, Monk simply

1A, 6 On the first beat, F4 (in the right hand) may have been adds an extra sixteenth note to this measure. played instead of F3 (in the left-hand).

1A, 8 On the first beat, Bb2 (left hand) may be tied over rather Powell’s Introduction

thAticulated. eA’ The double-bass part sounds as written. (Ihe bass sounds an octave lower than

ftl d t d. ;

1A, 1-2 G)4, struck on the third beat of measure 1, rings through

written in Evans’ live recording.)

the second beat of measure 2.Section ., Measure Remarks

1A he fi D ral in the left hand. ,

3 : On the first beat, D3 may also sound in the left han X 3 F3 (eft hand) sounds on the third beat, but not on the first beat.

1A, 5 On the fourth beat, Ab3 in the left-hand chord is played

Srey OF OES HOE SOND X 5 Eb3 (left hand) sounds on the third beat, but not on the first beat.

1A, 6 On the third beat, the left-hand chord may contain D3.

x 5 On the third beat, Ab3 (right hand) may also

1A, 4 Rather than adjust the durations of the fourth beat, Monk sound. simply adds an extra sixteenth note to this measure.

x 6 It sounds as though the drummer changes hands 2A, 6 On the third beat, the left-hand chord may contain D3. to give shape to the sixteenths that have asterisks

° has a “swishy” quality.

in this measure. The subdivision of the beat

2A, 6 On the third beat, the left-hand chord may contain D3. is neither duple nor triple, but les between and

2B 4 At the end of the measure, after thex trill, Ab4 sounds. — 6—7 The transcription may not accurately represent what Powell played on the last attack of measure

2B 6 On the third beat, F5 and A4 are played softly or do not 6 and the first attack of measure 7. It is also

sound. likely that he did not intend to play the notes he played.

2B 6 In the run, the final bracketed notes are played softly or

do not sound. xX 7-8 The grace notes in the bass part precede the beat. It is difficult to hear their exact pitch.

2A, 1-2 Gb4, struck on the fourth beat of measute 1, rings through The first beat of measure 2.

NOTES ON THE TRANSCRIPTIONS 197

Peterson's solo piano performance 2x 2 On the first eighth notenotofsound. the measure, Bb3 does Where a right-hand melody has a compound structure, Peterson tends to emphasize its highest component line. The highest notes of runs tend to be accented. 2x 2 On the second beat D4 1s played softly or does not sound.

Sect; M casure R kk 2Beman’ss 4 On the (left second eighthdoes notenot of the first beat, G4 ection hand) sound. Ix a B)3 (sight hand, ast beat) 1s played very softly 2B 4 On the second eighth note of the third beat, the

or does not sound. left hand chord may contain F3.

LA, 2 On the third beat, the second highest right 2B 5 On the second eighth note of the fourth beat, hand line, Gb4-Fb4-Gb4, is louder than the F}3 (left hand) does not sound

highest right hand line (a third above). , . 2BnoteInofthe rightbeat, hand Cb4 t have b 1A, 7 On the second eighth the fourth 6 - arun, ane may HOw Nave OE

; ; ; 1 he fi B fth ,

C4 also sounds (right hand). prayee

, ixth D 7 h

1A, 2 On the third beat, Ab3 (tight hand) is played 2A On the first beat, Bp? (left hand) does not sound softly or does not sound. 2A 2 In the run on the fourth beat, the fifth and 1A, 2 The pedal catches Eb4 (right hand) at the end of hee “I, tes (D4 and Dp4) may not have

&. een played.

the second beat so that it rings through the beginning of the third beat.

2A 4 On the second eighth note of the fourth beat, Ch4

1B 3 The rhythm in this measure strongly suggests i. (left hand) 1s played softly or does not sound.

2A h k th d eighth note;of theThe firstrigh beatleft together.

, fth ,

1B 5-7 The alternative counting marked in blue pencil on / ne right and left hands do not attack the secon the transcription prepares the quarter-note triplets of measure 7. See also the comment above on

the implicit 3 in 1B 3. 3B 7 On the fourth sixteenth of the second beat, Db5 sounds along with Eb5 (right hand).

1A, 2 On the second sixteenth of the thitd beat, Ab3

(left hand) is played softly or does not sound. 3A 5 On the first sixteenth of the third beat, Peterson may have intended to play F3 instead of G3

2x 1 On the last eighth note of the measure, Bb3 (left hand) (right hand) does not sound.

198 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

3A 7 In the cadenza on the B}7 chord, the fourteenth x 4 On the first beat, E3 (left hand) is soft or does not

note, Cb6 is played softly or does not sound. sound.

3A 7 In the pick-up to the next measure, Cb5 1A, 8 On the second eighth note of the third beat, Bb3 (right hand) is played softly or does not sound. (left hand) is soft or does not sound.

3x 1 On the third beat, Bb3 (right hand) does not 1A, 7 On the second beat, D4 (right hand) is released

sound. earlier than E}4, creating the impression of a long grace note.

3x 4 On the second eighth note of the second beat, F5

(right hand) does not sound. 1A, 8 On the first beat, G3 may have been played with the left hand.

Evans’ live recording In the piano part, it was often difficult to tell whether or not chords that contain F4 also contain F5.

1A, 8 On the first beat, F4 may be just a harmonic of F3.

Drum parts played with the hands have been notated with upward stems; drum parts 1A, 4 a the fast sixteenth of the measure, Cr does played with the feet have been notated with downward stems. A subtle double-time pulse

is often projected by the brushes on the snare drum; this is notated more completely in

1A,, measure 2, than in subsequent measures—thereafter, only the most audible attacks are 1A, 5 On the third beat, F5 (right hand) is soft or does

notated. In some places (e.g,, 1A,, measure 8), a stick is drawn down the cymbal; in these not sound. places, I’ve written “drawn” on the transcription. In other places (e.g., in 3A,, measures

7-8, and 3A,, measure 3), ’ve notated cymbal strokes with the hands on the hihat; these 2 A, 1 On the second sixteenth-triplet of the first beat,

may have been played on the cone of a ride cymbal. At any rate, their timbres differ from Gh4 (left hand) is soft or does not sound. that of the strokes notated on the space for ride cymbal. While the ratio between down-

beat and upbeat sixteenth notes tends to be about 2:1, there are places where the ratio lies 2 A, 1 In the first two attacks of the second eighth-note between 2:1 and 1:1 (eg., in the drum parts of LA,, measures 2, and 1A,, measures 3-4). In triplet of the third beat, the second C5 (tight

3A,, measures 1—2, the drums play double double time. In many measures, I have placed a hand) is not rearticulated. snare drum attack point in parentheses; here (usually on the second eighth note of the first or

third beat) the left hand gives the stirring brush an extra impetus—a push rather than a stroke—in

other places, the parentheses indicate a drum attack that is softer than surrounding attacks. 2A, ! In the first two attacks of the second eighth-note

Section Measute Notes

triplet of the third beat, Evans plays D4 instead of the notated Eb4 (left hand).

. 2A, 1 On the third and fourth beats, the execution of this

x 2 On the first beat, F5 (right hand) may be a difficult passage 1s a little sloppy. I’ve written what

harmonic of F4. I believe he intended to play.

x 2 On the first beat, F#3 (left hand) is soft or does 2A, 5-8 Some of the second notes in the pairs of repeated

not sound. notes may not sound again.

NOTES ON THE TRANSCRIPTIONS 199

2A, 1 On the second eighth note of the second beat, Section Measute Notes A5 sounds along with A.

Xx 2 [Right] B4 sounds softly at the end of the

2A, 6 On the firstnotbeat, F4 (left hand) is soft or does measure (after A4). sound. 3A, 3 On the first beat, C6 or F5 may also sound.

x 3 [Right] Other notes may sound on the downbeat X 5 [Right] On the third and fourth beats, the notes

4B 1 The bass begins as if starting an A*section. written for the left hand may have been played with the right hand.

AB 7-8 It is difficult to tell which chords contain F, and

in which octave it appeats. 1A, 2 [Right] On the fourth beat, Eb4 (right hand) is soft or does not sound.

4A 5 On the third beat, F5 (right hand) is soft or does

not sound. 1A, 2 [Left] Evans plays themore motto in a rhythm complex than the one I have notated.

4A 6 On the first beat, F4 (left hand) is soft or does

not sound. 1A, 8 [Right] On the sixteenthbeat,note tied to the fourth G4 (nght hand) 1s soft or does not sound.

4A 7 On second sixteenth of the first beat, C3 (left

hand) is soft or does not sound. 1A, 8 [Right] On the second eighth of the fourth beat, E54 (right hand) is soft or does not sound.

4A 7 On the fourth beat, D3 (left hand) is soft or

does not sound. 1A, 7 [Right] Other notes may sound on the downbeat.

Z 5 On the third beat, Cb5 is soft or does not sound. 1A, 2 [Right] Other notes may sound on the and of two. 1A, 7 [Right] On the thirty-second note just before the

Evans’ studio recording second eighth of the third beat, Bb3 (right hand) is soft or does not sound. In the first six measures, Center plays a harp-like part. Some of the left-hand

notes (often the first notated left-hand pitch in a group) in these arpeggios do not

sound. y 3—4 Evans’ rhythm here is more complex than the notation.

2A, 7 [Center] It is difficult to be certain which notes sound in this measure.

200 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

;;h,

2A, 4 [Right] The fourth note in the right hand is Fb5 (as 3B 4 [Center] Evans fits one more repetition of the written). F5 also sounds at the same time. trill (two more notes) in this measure than notated. 2A, 4 [Right] The last note in the right hand is F4 (as 3B 5 [Left] Evans may have played the three attacks in written). G4 also sounds at the same time. this measure with the right, left, and right hands, respectively (1.e., the Bb2 played by crossing the

2A, 6 [Right] On the downbeat, in the left hand, F3 does and over) not sound.

3B 6 [Left] In the left hand, A3 is soft or does not

2B 4 [Right] On the second sixteenth of the third beat, sound. in the left hand, Cb3 is soft or does not sound.

3A 5 [Right] On the second triplet of the second beat,

2B 5 [Right] On the fourth sixteenth of the fourth beat, in the upper staff (probably played with the lett in the left hand, Eb3 is soft or does not sound. cane) , Evans plays Ab5 instead of the notated

2B 6 [Right] On the second sixteenth of the fourth , beat. in the left hand. Eb3 is soft or does not Z 1-2 [Right] On the second sixteenth of the fourth beat

5 oun d. , of measure 1 and on the second sixteenth of the first beat of measure 2, the lower notes last longer

2A, 2 [Right] On the second eighth note of the fourth

than the higher ones.

beat, in the left hand, seventh Db-C} occurs slightly earlier than notated. Z 2 [Right] On the second eighth note of the fourth beat, Eb4 (left hand) is soft or does not sound.

2A thefirst thirdthree beat,notes Eb may sound. ° Z38[Left] [Left]OnThe in also the left hand are

. sustained with the hand (hand pedal) while the

2A, 6 [Left] Ab may also sound in the right hand. sustain pedal connects and then releases other eroups of notes.

2A, 8 [Right] On the fourth sixteenth note of the fourth beat, G3 1s soft or does not sound.

NOTES ON THE TRANSCRIPTIONS 201

Aikin, Jim (1985). Two Views of “ ‘Round Midnight”: A Classic Tune Then and Now. Clifton, Thomas (1965). An Application of Goethe’s Concept of Steigerung to the

Keyboard, 36-42. Morphology of Diminution. Journal of Music Theory 14, 165-189.

Aldwell, Edward & Schachter, Carl (1979). Harmony and Voice Leading. New York: Harcourt Cuscuna, Michael (nd) The Blue Note Recordings. Liner notes to The Complete Blue Note

Brace Johanovich, Inc. Recordings of Thelonious Monk (Mosaic Records MR4-101).

Arnheim, Rudolf (1966). Toward a Psychology of Art; Collected Essays. Berkeley: University of Dapoeny, James (1982). Ferdinand “Jelly Roll” Morton: The Collected Piano Music. New York: G.

California Press. Schirmer and the Smithsonian Institute Press.

California Press. MIT Press.

. (1971). Entropy and_Art: An Essay on Order and Disorder. Berkeley: University of Epstein, David (1979). Beyond Orpheus: Studies in Musical Structure. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

. (1974). Art and Visual Perception; A Psychology of the Creative Eye. Berkeley: Evans/McPartland (1978). Marian McPartlands Piano Jazz with guest Bill Evans, recorded

University of California Press. November 6, 1978, The Jazz Alliance TJA-12004.

Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel (1949). Improvisation: The Free Fantasia. In Essay on the True Folio, Cynthia (1995). An Analysis of Polyrhythm in Selected Improvised Jazz Solos. Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments, translated and edited by William Mitchell. New Concert Music, Rock, and Jaxx Since 1945, edited by Elizabeth West Marvin and Richard

York: W. W. Norton, 430-445. Hermann (Rochester, NY: Univesity of Rochester Press), 103-134.

Beardsley, Monroe C. (1958). Aesthetics; Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism. New York: Forte, Allen & Gilbert, Steven E. (1982). Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis. New York: W.

Harcoutt, Brace, and World, Inc. W. Norton.

Blancq, Charles Clement III (1977). Melodic Improvisation in American Jazz: The Style of Purtwangler, Wilhelm (1947). Heinrich Schenker: Ein Zeitgemaesses Problem. In Ton und

Theodore ‘Sonny’ Rollins, 1951-1962. PhD dissertation, Tulane University. Wort: Aufsaetze und Vortraege 1918 bis 1954 (Wiesbaden: F. A. Brockhaus, 1955), 198— Block, Steven (1990). Pitch-Class Transformations in Free Jazz. Music Theory Spectrum 12/2, 204. Translated by Jan Emerson as “Heinrich Schenker: A Contemporary Problem,”

181—202. Sonus 6/1 (1985), 1—5.

_ (1997). “Bemsha Swing”: the Transformation of a Bebop Classic to Free Jazz. Gilbert, Steven E. (1984). Gershwin’s Art of Counterpoint. The Musical Quarterly 70/4,

Music Theory Spectrum 19/2, 206-231. 423456.

145-175. Jazzforschung/ Jaxx Research 3/4, 194-205.

Burkhart, Charles (1978). Schenker’s ‘Motivic Parallelisms.’ Journal of Music Theory 22/2, Gonda, Janos (1971-72). Problems of Tonality and Function in Modern Jazz Improvisation. Cadwallader, Allen (1983). Motivic Unity and Integration of Structural Levels in Brahms’s Gushee, Lawrence (1977/1981). Lester Young’s “Shoeshine Boy.” In Report of the Twelfth

B minor Intermezzo, Op. 119, No. 1. Theory and Practice 8/2, 5-24. Congress, (Berkeley, 1977) of the International Musicological Society, edited by Daniel Heartz Caplin, Willam Earl (1998). Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental and Bonnie Wade (Kassel: Barenreiter, 1981) ‘ IST-169. Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. New York: Oxford University Press. Heinichen, Johann David (1728). Der General-Bass in der Composition. Dresden. Chang, Jen-Kuang (2005). Charlie Parker: the Analytical Study of Twenty-two Performance Hilse, Walter (1973). The Treatises of Christoph Bernhard. Music Forum 3, 1-196. Versions of Now’s the Time. M.M. Thesis, Emporia State University. Hodeir, André (1956). Jazz: Its Evolution and E:ssence, translated by David Noakes. New York: Check, John (2003). Hearing Voices: Compound Melody in Jazz Improvisations. Studies in Grove Press.

Music from the University of Western Ontario 21. Hofstadter, Douglas R. (1985). Variations on a Theme as the Crux of Creativity. Metamagical Chomsky, Noam (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern; an Interlocked Collection of Literary, _ (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Anisity and Scientific Studies (New York: Basic Books), 323-259.

Press. Hyman, Dick (1986). Dick Hyman’ Professional Chord Changes and Substitutions for 100 Tunes

; ; Every Musician Should Know. kay Music.

. (1968). Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch.

202 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH

ry y y

onas, Oswald (1982). Introduction to the Theory of Heinrich Schenker, translated and edited b . (1998). Schenkerian Analysis of Modern Jazz: Questions About Method. Music

John Rothgeb. New York: Longman. Theory Spectrum 20/2, 209-241.

Jungbluth, A. (1983). Harmonische Analyse (Bill Evans: Very Early: Chromatik als . (1999a). Reviews (of Allen Forte, The American Popular Ballad of the Golden Era,

Uebergeordnetes Regulativ). Musik und Bildung 15, 29-32. 1924-1950; Steven Gilbert, The Music of Gershwin; and Henry Martin, Charhe Parker and Kalib, Sylvan (1973). Thirteen Essays from Das Mezsterwerk in der Musik by Heinrich Schenker: Thematic Improvisation). Music Theory Spectrum 21/1, 110-121.

An Annotated Translation. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University. . (1999b). Swing and Motive in Three Performances by Oscar Peterson. [In

Criticism 24, 337-349. 313.

Keil, Charles M. (1966). Motion and Feeling Through Music. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Analysis Forum on Cole Porter’s “Night and Day.” Journal of Muse Theory 43/2, 283— Kernfeld, Barry Dean (1981). Adderley, Coltrane, and Davis at the Twilight of Bebop: The —_______: (2001). What Makes a Good Bridge? Tijdschrift voor Musiektheorie/ Dutch Journal

Search for Melodic Coherence (1958—59). Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. of Music Theory 8/1, 1-15. Koch, Heinrich Christoph (1983). Introductory Essay on Composition: The Mechanical Rules _____ - (2002). Musical Forces, Melodic Expectation, and Jazz Melody. Music Perception

of Melody, Sections 3 and 4. ‘Translated by Nancy Kovaleff Baker. New Haven: Yale 19/3, 351-385.

University Press. . (2006a). Musical Gesture and Musical Forces: Evidence from Music-Theoretical Koehler, Wolfgang (1947). Gestalt Psychology. New York: Liveright. Misunderstandings. In Music and Gesture, edited by Anthony Gritten and Elaine King Krebs, Harald (1981). Alternatives to Monotonality in Early Nineteenth-Century Music. (Ashgate Publications), 61-74.

Journal of Music Theory 25/1, 1-16. (2006b). Rhythmic Displacement in the Music of Bill Evans. In Structure and Kurzdorfer, James (1996). Outrageous Clusters: Dissonant Semitonal Cells in the Music of sa 3 tonal Te mnka a car ale edited by David Gagne and

Thelonious Monk. Annual Review of Jazz Studies 8, 181-201. ounate Surstemn (Penc agen tess), a 5

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ‘

Langer, Suzanne K. (1942). Philosophy in a New Key: A Symbolism of Reason, Rite, and Art. 975 - (2005). Composition versus Improvisation? Journal of Music Theory 49/2, 241—

x - Massachusetts and London: Press. of Oregon. Ensemble “Oregon.” Masters thesis,MIT University

Larson, Steve (1981). Some Aspects of the Album Out of the Woods by the Chamber Lerdahl, Fred & Jackendoff, Ray (1983). A Generative Theory of Tonal Music. Cambridge, . (1983). On Analysis and Performance: the Contribution of Durational Lindsay, Julie Anne (1995) Analytical Approaches to Jazz Polyp hony, With S pectal Reference Reduction to the Performance of J.S. Bach’s Two-Part Invention in C Major. In Theory to the Use of Pitch-Class Theory in the Works of Toshiko Akiyoshi and Phil Woods.

Only 7/1, 31-45 . Masters thesis, La Trobe University.

ay 4 , : ° Press.

| “499 3) Dave McKenna’s Performance of “Have You Met Miss Jones”, Martin, Henry (1975). Exempli Gratia: As You Like It (Chord Substitution in Ellington’s

Amerivan Music 11 /3, 283-315. Satin Doll). In Theory Only 1, 37.

(1996). ‘Strict Use? of Analytic Notation. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy 10 . (1996). Charlie Parker and Thematic Improvisation. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow

31-71.

. (1997). The Problem of Prolongation 1n Tona/ Music: Terminology, Perception, oo (2006), Early Dissonance into Jazz Consonance: the Added Sixth Chord.

and Expressive Meaning, Journal of Music Theory 41/1, 101-136. Presentation to the national meeting of the Society for Music Theory.

55 Ty ° Jazz. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester.

. (1997-98a). Musical Forces and Melodic Patterns, Theory and Practice 22-23 McGowan, James J. (2005). Dynamic Consonance in Selected Piano Performances of Tonal

_ (1997-98b). ‘tiple Play: Bill Evans’ Three-Piano Performance of Victor Meyer, Leonard B. (1973). Explaining Music: Essays and Explorations. Chicago: University of

Young’s “Stella by Starlight.” In “An Analysis Symposium: Alternate Takes — Stella Chicago Press.

105107. University of Pennsylvania Press, 3-44.

by Starlight.” Annual Review of Jazz Studies 9, 45-56. Response to Forte’s Questions, ____- (1979). Toward a Theory of Style. In The Concept of Style, edited by Berel Lang.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 203

Inc. University of Chicago Press.

Monk, Thelonious. “ ‘Round Midnight,” in Great Jaxx Classics, Warner Bros. Publications, . (1954). Harmony. Translated by Elisabeth Mann Borgese. Chicago and London: O'Reilly, Ted (1985). The Bill Evans Interview. Coda 200, 18-22. (The interview took place Schuller, Gunther (1979). Sonny Rollins and Thematic Improvising. Jaxx Panorama. Edited

on July 9,1980.) by Martin Williams. New York: Da Capo Press, 239-252.

UCLA. Masters Thesis, University of Michigan.

Owens, Thomas (1974). Charlie Parker: Techniques of Improvisation. Ph.D dissertation, Simon, Tom (1978). An Analytical Inquiry into Thelonious Monk’s “Ruby, My Dear’

9, 25-35. University.

Potter, Gary (1992). Analyzing Improvised Jazz. College Music Symposium 32, 143-1060. Smith, Gregory Eugene (1983). Homer, Gregory, and Bill Evans?: The Theory of Formulaic Pressing, Jeff (1978). Towards an Understanding of Scales in Jazz. Jazzforschung/ Jaxx Research Composition in the Context of Jazz Piano Improvisation. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard

Research 14, 133-172. Clarendon Press.

. (1982). Pitch Class Set Structures In Contemporary Jazz. Jazzforsehung/ Jaxx Sloboda, John A. (1985). The Musical Mind: The Cognitive Psychology of Music. Oxford: The

Rink, John. 1993. Schenker and Improvisation. Journal of Music Theory 37, 1-54. Stewart, Milton Lee (1973). Structural Development in the J AZZ Improvisational Technique

Rothgeb, John (1983). Thematic Content: A Schenkerian View. In Aspects of Schenkerian ore ek me aon 175) 1 noo of Michigan. Reprinted in Theory, edited by David Beach. New Haven: Yale University Press, 39-60. Jasxporschung/ Jaxx Researel ( )s a

le ~ 3, 97-120.

Yale University. HUES» ,

Rothstein, Wiliam (1981). Rhythm and the Theory of Structural Levels. Ph.D. dissertation, Strunls, Steven ve The Harmony of Early Bop: A Layered Approach,” Journal of Jaxx

(1990). Phrase Rhythm in Tonal Music, New York: Schirmer Books . (1985). Bebop Melodic Lines: Tonal Characteristics. Annual Review of Jaxx Studies

se se Il beaumont Noy York Concent Publis hive Con nn or Improvisation, . (1998). Melodic Structure in Bill Evans’ 1959 “Autumn Leaves.” John Donald

. Robb Composers’ Symposium. Albuquerque.

- i American Institute of Musicology.

Savzer, F nit $52), Repeinged, New arg None Coherent ( 560). New York: Charles Tinctoris, Johannes (1961). The Art of Counterpoint. Translated and edited by Albert Seay. aa ae, ") Univesity Press. im Schenkerian Theory and Anajisis. New York and Warner Bros. (1979). The Legal Fake Book, Warner Bros. Publications, Inc.

a | i. ; a Waters, Keith (1996). Blurring the Barline: Metric Displacement in the Piano Solos of

sa . (1976). Rhythm and Linear Analysis: A Preliminary Study. Music Forum 4, 281- Herbie Hancock. Annual Review of Jaze Studies 8, 1937. (1980). Rhythm and Linear Analysis: Durational Reduction. Music Forum 5 Westergaard, Peter (1975). An Introduction to Tonal Theory. New York: W. W. Norton.

197—239. : Williams, James Kent (1982). Themes Composed by Jazz Musicians of the Bebop Era: A Schenker, Heintich (1921-1924). Der Tonwille, Published privately. Study of Harmony, Rhythm, and Melody. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University. Meisterverk in der Musik. Munich: Drei Masken Verlag Williams, James Kent (1985). A Method for the Computer-Aided Analysis of Jazz Melody —_ ° °(1925, oO1926,- 1930). a inDarthe Small Dimensions. Annual Review of Jazz Studies 3, 41-70.

matory oat ce Oo itt Ne Theories and Fantasies. Williams, Martin (nd). Homage to Bill Evans. In the booklet accompanying Bé// Evans: The

y Bo oman Complete Riverside Recordings, (Fantasy, Riverside R-108).

Winter, Keith (1979). Communication Analysis in Jazz. Jazzforschung/ Jazz Research 11, 93133.

204 ANALYZING JAZZ—A SCHENKERIAN APPROACH