Mr. Ellington's music will be programmed all day Monday, April 29, 2013 on WKCR.
The broadcast will be available via the internet at
http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/wkcr/
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Friday, April 26, 2013
The Proof Is In The Jam Part 2 - Jazz Singers, An Obsession
Because of Jerrold Levinson's "Jazz Vocal Interpretation: A Philosophical Analysis" (cited in a previous blog-post), I've become obsessed with jazz singers, jazz singing, The Great American Song Book; with the Boswell Sisters, Leo Watson, Kay Starr, Jo Stafford, Doris Day; with the writings of Whitney Balliett, Alec Wilder, André Hodeir, Gunther Schuller, and especially Will Friedwald - his remarkable Jazz Singing: America's Great Voices from Bessie Smith to Bebop and Beyond.
My musical life before Levinson was quite simple. Except for Pops, Louis Armstrong, Lady Day, Billie Holiday, Mr. B, Billy Eckstine, and The Divine One, Sarah Vaughan, I needed no other singers (except perhaps Elisabeth Schwarzkopf and Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau). Jazz singers were an afterthought with me. Reading Alec Wilder's American Popular Song: The Great Innovators, 1900-1950 and Will Friedwald's Jazz Singing has convinced me that Jazz (THIS music) and The American Popular Song are each unique events in the history of Western Music. Popular songs in many instances have the blues and/or jazz incorporated in their melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic material. So-called 'American Exceptionalism' resides in little else except in its spirituals, blues, jazz and popular songs.
I shall not criticize what Levinson has said in his very dense, thoughtful, carefully drawn paper - he has covered nearly every base. He has atomized the (a) notion of vocal interpretation in ways that give effect to the popular song as placed on the page (sheet music), as placed off the page (performance), and as heard (by an audience). He has invoked Paul Grice's meaning pragmatics in treating what a singer conveys in performance, in contrast with what the words of a song mean. One could atomize Levinson's atomization, the result of which could be reckoned to be a philosophical analysis of a philosophical analysis. All of this is what philosophy is made of. But there are more things....
Instead I'll improvise on Levinson's changes - with the help of many side-women/men, I'll blow my own solo (tune?).
To be continued.
My musical life before Levinson was quite simple. Except for Pops, Louis Armstrong, Lady Day, Billie Holiday, Mr. B, Billy Eckstine, and The Divine One, Sarah Vaughan, I needed no other singers (except perhaps Elisabeth Schwarzkopf and Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau). Jazz singers were an afterthought with me. Reading Alec Wilder's American Popular Song: The Great Innovators, 1900-1950 and Will Friedwald's Jazz Singing has convinced me that Jazz (THIS music) and The American Popular Song are each unique events in the history of Western Music. Popular songs in many instances have the blues and/or jazz incorporated in their melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic material. So-called 'American Exceptionalism' resides in little else except in its spirituals, blues, jazz and popular songs.
"Angel Eyes" Is it possible for a singer to sing Matt Dennis's song straight?
What do you mean by straight?
I mean by straight, non-jazzy, non-novelty - non-Frank-Sinatra, non-Spike-Jones.
Isn't Sinatra a pops singer?
Anyone who begins "Angel Eyes" in the middle, at the bridge, is a jazz singer.
Quite an interesting interpretation then of "Angel Eyes".
If that's what you want to call it. I reckon that Old Blue Eyes was doing a bit more than interpreting this tune. He was improvising too. He changed the structure of the tune. He began with the B section. Recall the structure of "Angel Eyes" is AABA. One doesn't begin a performance of "Angel Eyes" with "Drink up all you people...". One starts with "Try to think ...". Hardly a straight performance of the tune - too jazzy.
But improvising is something done in the moment. It's not something arranged, not something on paper. We were treating interpretation, straight verses jazzy, remember?
It can be something on paper that's composed to sound like something in the moment. Improvising is an act that transforms the good bits of a tune (sometimes the ugly bits are sorted out) - transforms melody, harmony, rhythm of a standard into something else. When I talk about interpretation it's in a thin sense of interpretation (interpretation*) not your thick sense. When I talk of improvisation it's in the fat sense
If you say so.I do say so. In addition to saying so - runnin' it down, instead of 'banging my drum'; I've been tip-toeing around Jerrold Levinson's Jazz Vocal Interpretation. . . .
I shall not criticize what Levinson has said in his very dense, thoughtful, carefully drawn paper - he has covered nearly every base. He has atomized the (a) notion of vocal interpretation in ways that give effect to the popular song as placed on the page (sheet music), as placed off the page (performance), and as heard (by an audience). He has invoked Paul Grice's meaning pragmatics in treating what a singer conveys in performance, in contrast with what the words of a song mean. One could atomize Levinson's atomization, the result of which could be reckoned to be a philosophical analysis of a philosophical analysis. All of this is what philosophy is made of. But there are more things....
Instead I'll improvise on Levinson's changes - with the help of many side-women/men, I'll blow my own solo (tune?).
To be continued.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Charles McPherson Honored in Detroit
Last Saturday (13 April) Detroit's native son, the alto saxophonist, Charles McPherson was honored at the Detroit Institute of Arts. His appearance included a conversation with Mark Stryker, music critic for the Detroit Free Press. Mr. McPherson spoke about his early years in Detroit as a young student musician and emerging jazz saxophonist. He spoke of the influence of the Detroit pianist and educator Barry Harris. See the link below for details about Mr. McPherson's exciting performance with his quartet that evening.
http://idigjazz.blogspot.com/2013/04/charles-mcpherson-played-some-bop.html
http://idigjazz.blogspot.com/2013/04/charles-mcpherson-played-some-bop.html
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
The Proof Is In The Jam - Part 1
Touchin' on stuff
In addition to the NCAA basketball tournament, I've been thinking about Jerrold Levinson's exciting paper, "Jazz Vocal Interpretation: A Philosophical Analysis" that appears in the current issue of The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, pages 35 - 43. Before the basketball excitement, I expressed my hope in these pages that I'd have my own thoughts on matters Levinsonian published herein in a couple of days. Well it didn't happen. In the mean time I've written quite a bit, compiled notes, sources and listened and re-listened to quite a lot of jazz vocal and instrumental music. The listening has been exciting and rewarding. I've also done quite a lot of reading and re-reading in and of books, articles and interviews treating songs, song writing, singers, and vocal and instrumental jazz performance.
I've always considered jazz vocalists to be instrumentalists without horns, Young Woman Without A Horn. I still hold this view. Also I don't believe that jazz vocalists or instrumentalists (for that matter) interpret songs, in spite of the fact that we sometimes speak of the 'jazz interpretations' contrasted with 'straight interpretations' of songs, tunes, scores, &c. We may speak of a singer's interpretation of a song or of Charles Rosen's interpretation of Schumann's Carnaval (Op. 9). What we are comparing are performances with performances - not performances with a score. Let's take new music. Can one actually and meaningfully say that the first performance of Pierre Boulez's Le Marteau sans maître was an interpretation of his score? If we are talking about performances of music we say "The DSO will be performing Mahler's 3rd Symphony at 8PM" - not "There will be an interpretation at 8PM". In terms of sheet music 'jazz interpretations' are the same as a performance at a certain time. And one should be aware that jazz musicians learn songs and tunes, they don't learn sheet music; they use lead-sheets and fake-books; they learn what they need to learn in order to make music and improvise with other musicians. They are not interpreting sheet music from Tin Pan Alley. The good singers own the songs - Sarah Vaughan owned If You Could See Me Now and Misty (the same song actually); Billy Eckstine owned I Want To Talk About You and I Apologize. In fact there are published suggestions for singers who on rare occasions are permitted to participate in jam sessions - e.g., don't sing Misty and don't sing anything owned by Lady Day, Billie Holiday. http://www.phillyjazz.org/
Obviously, if one is attempting to impute meaning or a semantics to a page of music (a score), then talk of interpretation seems appropriate. But I don't think that one interpretes a page of music, one performs it. Remember: Composers of songs, melodies, symphonies most often don't have a 'straight interpretation' in mind until performances occur. Here's a page of music (a score); there is a composer of the page of music; there is (are) a performer(s) of the page of music (musicians); now we have music. When musicians perform music from a score there are always choices to be made about how to perform the notes, accents, and other suggestions set down by the composer. The composer, having heard a performance of her composition may say, "That's not my music!" or "We'll do better next time, I thought that I had it all there on the page, but alas...." Our composer can say, "I don't care for your interpretation", but she won't mean it!
I discovered Ethel Waters recorded vocal performances and was astounded - I had read of her, but never attended to her music. I've read most of Whitney Balliett's impressive book of portraits and interviews, American Singers, which was what I needed to go along with my re-reading in Gunther Schuller's Swing Era and André Hodeir's Toward Jazz. I think it was Balliett (or was it Andrew Porter?) who wrote somewhere that to criticize something one has to describe it. Whitney Balliett was a master when it came to describing music and musicians - his portrait of Coleman Hawkins in American Musicians is one of Balliett's masterpieces. His piece in American Singers, "The President of the Derrière-Garde (Alec Wilder)" is another of his masterpieces.
Wilder writes in his book, American Popular Song: The Great Innovators, 1900-1950 (Kindle Locations 5370-5372). Kindle Edition,
So until next time, keep listening; and re-reading Levinson.
In addition to the NCAA basketball tournament, I've been thinking about Jerrold Levinson's exciting paper, "Jazz Vocal Interpretation: A Philosophical Analysis" that appears in the current issue of The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, pages 35 - 43. Before the basketball excitement, I expressed my hope in these pages that I'd have my own thoughts on matters Levinsonian published herein in a couple of days. Well it didn't happen. In the mean time I've written quite a bit, compiled notes, sources and listened and re-listened to quite a lot of jazz vocal and instrumental music. The listening has been exciting and rewarding. I've also done quite a lot of reading and re-reading in and of books, articles and interviews treating songs, song writing, singers, and vocal and instrumental jazz performance.
I've always considered jazz vocalists to be instrumentalists without horns, Young Woman Without A Horn. I still hold this view. Also I don't believe that jazz vocalists or instrumentalists (for that matter) interpret songs, in spite of the fact that we sometimes speak of the 'jazz interpretations' contrasted with 'straight interpretations' of songs, tunes, scores, &c. We may speak of a singer's interpretation of a song or of Charles Rosen's interpretation of Schumann's Carnaval (Op. 9). What we are comparing are performances with performances - not performances with a score. Let's take new music. Can one actually and meaningfully say that the first performance of Pierre Boulez's Le Marteau sans maître was an interpretation of his score? If we are talking about performances of music we say "The DSO will be performing Mahler's 3rd Symphony at 8PM" - not "There will be an interpretation at 8PM". In terms of sheet music 'jazz interpretations' are the same as a performance at a certain time. And one should be aware that jazz musicians learn songs and tunes, they don't learn sheet music; they use lead-sheets and fake-books; they learn what they need to learn in order to make music and improvise with other musicians. They are not interpreting sheet music from Tin Pan Alley. The good singers own the songs - Sarah Vaughan owned If You Could See Me Now and Misty (the same song actually); Billy Eckstine owned I Want To Talk About You and I Apologize. In fact there are published suggestions for singers who on rare occasions are permitted to participate in jam sessions - e.g., don't sing Misty and don't sing anything owned by Lady Day, Billie Holiday. http://www.phillyjazz.org/
Obviously, if one is attempting to impute meaning or a semantics to a page of music (a score), then talk of interpretation seems appropriate. But I don't think that one interpretes a page of music, one performs it. Remember: Composers of songs, melodies, symphonies most often don't have a 'straight interpretation' in mind until performances occur. Here's a page of music (a score); there is a composer of the page of music; there is (are) a performer(s) of the page of music (musicians); now we have music. When musicians perform music from a score there are always choices to be made about how to perform the notes, accents, and other suggestions set down by the composer. The composer, having heard a performance of her composition may say, "That's not my music!" or "We'll do better next time, I thought that I had it all there on the page, but alas...." Our composer can say, "I don't care for your interpretation", but she won't mean it!
I discovered Ethel Waters recorded vocal performances and was astounded - I had read of her, but never attended to her music. I've read most of Whitney Balliett's impressive book of portraits and interviews, American Singers, which was what I needed to go along with my re-reading in Gunther Schuller's Swing Era and André Hodeir's Toward Jazz. I think it was Balliett (or was it Andrew Porter?) who wrote somewhere that to criticize something one has to describe it. Whitney Balliett was a master when it came to describing music and musicians - his portrait of Coleman Hawkins in American Musicians is one of Balliett's masterpieces. His piece in American Singers, "The President of the Derrière-Garde (Alec Wilder)" is another of his masterpieces.
Wilder writes in his book, American Popular Song: The Great Innovators, 1900-1950 (Kindle Locations 5370-5372). Kindle Edition,
Am I Blue?, introduced by Ethel Waters in the motion picture "On With The Show" (1929), with music by Harry Akst, is dangerously interwoven with Ethel Waters' recording of it. And she made it sound like a masterpiece. It isn't that, but it is a good song, using a device somewhat similar to the one in April Showers.
So until next time, keep listening; and re-reading Levinson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)