i

The Living Framework: Miles Davis

and the Evolution of the American Popular Song

by
Alexander H. Graham

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the
Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Musical Arts - Jazz and Contemporary Media

Supervised by
Professor Dariusz Terefenko

Department of Jazz and Contemporary Media - University of Rochester

Eastman School of Music
Rochester, New York
 ii

Curriculum Vitae

Alexander H. Graham was born in Memphis, Tennessee on March 20, 1972.

He attended the New School for Social Research from 1990 to 1994, and
graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1994. In 2005, he was awarded a
Masters of Music degree from Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan.
He came to the Eastman School of Music in the Fall of 2005 and began gradu-
ate studies in Jazz and Contemporary Media. He received a “George Marge
Fund Scholarship” for woodwind doubling in 2005 and 2006. Mr. Graham
pursued his research in jazz interaction under the direction of Professor
Dariusz Terefenko and received the Doctor of Arts degree from the Eastman
School of Music in 2009.
 iii

Acknowledgements

A project like this would not have been possible without the support of
several key individuals. From Eastman School of Music, I would like to
thank Professors Harold Danko, Bill Dobbins, Clay Jenkins, Jeff Campbell and
Dave Rivello for profoundly shaping my analytical and philosophical approach
to music during these past several years. Special appreciation is due to: Profes-
sor David Headlam, whose MIDI conversion program played a key role in de-
veloping several of the figures that appear in Chapter Three; Professor Robert
Wason, for his analytical insights and excellent suggestions for
source materials; Professor Dariusz Terefenko, who expertly guided the
completion of this project; and Professor Ramon Ricker, who has been a
trusted advisor and mentor since coming to Rochester in 2005.

While at Eastman, I also had the opportunity to work with several excellent
students, many of whom have helped to shape my conception. Two of these
students, Chris Ziemba and Dave Tedeschi, were able to assist me with
several excellent transcriptions of Herbie Hancock’s and Tony Williams’
accompaniment for many of the examples presented here. Jeremy Manasia, a
wonderful pianist, educator and long-time professional colleague similarly
allowed me to use his transcription of Herbie Hancock’s solo on “All of You”
from My Funny Valentine. I am most grateful to all of these musicians for
donating their time and expertise to the betterment of my work.

On a personal level, I am deeply indebted to my family for their support,

encouragement, and sacrifice while I pushed this project to its completion.
In particular, I give thanks to Kathy Lewand whose considerable editing skills
proved indispensable. However, the biggest and most heartfelt thank you is
reserved for my wife, Kristi. Besides exercising an extraordinary amount of
patience as I developed this research, she was also able to bring her consider-
able skills as a graphic designer to bear on the over 100 figures that appear in
this study. More than anyone else, this work and everything else I do would
not be possible without her. Thank you!
 iv

Table of Contents

Curriculum Vitae ii
Acknowledgements iii
Table of Contents iv

Chapter One: Introduction 1

Chapter Two: The “Living Framework” 5

Analysis of Cole Porter’s All of You 8
Formal Design 8
Melodic Design 12
Accented Passing Tones 12
Melodic Profile 13
Harmonic Design 15
Modal Mixture 15
Rhythmic Design 17
Interaction of Formal, Harmonic and Rhythmic Design 18
Initial Jazz Interpretations 18
Formal Treatment 19
Melodic Treatment 20
Harmonic Treatment 26
Harmonic Support During Primary Melodic Statements 26
Harmonic Support During Solos 27
Evolution of Versions by the Miles Davis Quintet 30
Formal Treatment 30
Tag Motive 31
Transition Motive 33
Melodic Treatment 35
Harmonic Treatment 38
Measures 1-6 38
Measure 10 39
Measures 13-16 40
Measure 26 41
The Tag Section 42
Rhythmic Treatment 43
Summary 45

Chapter Three: The “Collective Aesthetic” 46

The Jazz Aesthetic 46
Building Performances Through the Intensification
of Various Elements 48
Overview 48
Davis’ Solo 50
Coleman’s Solo 54
Hancock’s Solo 56
Partitioning Solos Through Use of Contrasting Styles 59
Davis’ Solo 60
Coleman’s Solo 63
Hancock’s Solo 67
 v

Table of Contents, continued

Chapter Three: (continued)

Rhythm Section Styles 71
Delineating Aspects of the Form 71
Creating New Formal Units 73
Summary 74

Chapter Four: Ensemble Interactions 75

Soloists 77
Davis 77
Measures 126-34 77
Measures 133-50 79
Measures 150-57 81
Measures 156-62 82
Measures 162-9 83
Measures 169-74 84
Coleman 85
Measures 233-42 86
Measures 242-8 87
Measures 248-65 88
Measures 266-70 92
Measures 271-80 92
Measures 282-5 93
Measures 286- 91 94
Hancock 95
Measures 383-90 96
Measures 391-405 97
Measures 405-9 98
Measures 410-414 99
Measures 418-21 100
Measures 422-6 101
Rhythm Section 102
Stylistic Modulation 102
Ostinato 103
Straight Eighth-Note Styles 105
Summary 106

Chapter Five: Future Research Directions 107

The Evolution of the Living Framework 107
Contemporary Styles 107
Jazz Research in the Digital Age 108
The Role of Expectation in Interaction 108
Summary 109

Selected Bibliography 110

 1

Chapter One

Introduction

From 1955 until he “went electric” in the late 1960s, the Miles Davis quintet redefined the
American popular song. During this time, the group evolved through three different and dis-
tinct rhythm sections, each of which influenced the next.1 Although new compositions were
gradually added to the repertory, Davis continued to favor performing and recording many of
the same popular songs through all three incarnations of the quintet, giving us a window into
how these pieces and Davis’ groups’ interpretations of them evolved over the years.

Starting in 1955, Davis’ various working groups, mostly quintets, were comprised of what
were arguably considered the best jazz musicians of the day. That talent, when combined with
Davis’ “hands-off ” approach, and his infrequent use of formal written arrangements, led to an
environment where improvised communication within the ensemble became necessary to the
musical continuity of a given performance. This research deconstructs many types of ensem-
ble interactions mastered by the last of these quintets, and achieves a deeper understanding of
how these methods evolve over time.

The data used for this research includes original transcriptions of various Miles Davis
Quintet recordings, a variety of transcriptions derived from published and unpublished sourc-
es, and numerous related research articles and texts.2 From these transcriptions, a detailed
analysis is presented using musical examples and several unique charts and graphs. Elements
of this analysis are then considered with specific respect as to how they relate to improvised
communication within the ensemble and how a shared understanding of these concepts facili-
tates their success as a group

1 In most jazz texts, Davis’ quintets are identified as the “first great quintet” (Davis, John Coltrane, Red Garland,
Paul Chambers and “Philly” Joe Jones) or the “second great quintet” (Davis, George Coleman/Wayne Shorter, Herbie Han-
cock, Ron Carter and Tony Williams). This unfortunate designation fails to consider the large body of recordings made by
the real “second quintet” (Davis, Sonny Stitt/Hank Mobley, Wynton Kelly, Paul Chambers and Jimmy Cobb) from 1959-61.
Therefore, this study uses the term “first quintet” for 1955-58, “second quintet” for 1959-61 and “third quintet” for 1963-68.
2 These transcriptions are occasionally limited by several factors. Human error, poor sound quality and lack of
multi-track separation on the recordings occasionally leads to mistakes or indiscernible moments.
 2

The song “All of You” is the primary focus of this study.3 With a total of 25 versions, there are
more recordings of “All of You” in Davis’ discography than any other popular song.4 This al-
lows for a broad comparison of versions, demonstrating consistencies in the performances that
change and evolve with new personnel. As well, these recordings cover almost a full decade of
perfor-mances, revealing a complete transformation in Davis’ interpretation.5

Although Chapter Two presents a cursory examination of several recordings of “All of

You” from 1956 to 1963, the analysis in Chapters Three and Four is primarily focused on
Davis’ live recording My Funny Valentine. These points of analysis are organized into three
chapters.

Chapter Two examines “All of You’s” “living framework” as it evolves through different in-
carnations of the same group. A detailed analysis of Cole Porter’s original version is followed
by a discussion of how Ahmad Jamal’s interpretation of the song influences early versions by
Davis’ quintet. It concludes with an examination of several Davis versions of “All of You” with
a focus on analyzing the version from February 12, 1964 that is the center of this study. In this
chapter, lead sheets are developed from multiple recordings and used to illustrate basic aspects
of the evolution of “All of You.” The changing aspects of form, melody, harmony and rhythm
reveal the living tradition of the song, and also demonstrate Davis’ evolving performance tech-
niques.

The analysis in Chapter Three demonstrates the existence of a “collective aesthetic” in “All
of You.” This aesthetic is characterized by a collective impulse to build performances through
the intensification of numerous musical elements. It is also evident in the quintet’s use of com-
mon jazz styles by which they are able to interact with efficiency and cohesiveness. Aspects of
the “collective aesthetic” are revealed with unique charts and graphics that demonstrate shared
tendencies for building their performances. The charts also show that the performers are able
to partition their solos through the use of a variety of solo and accompaniment styles.

Chapter Four contains an in-depth examination of excerpts from each solo from the 1964
recording. The analysis demonstrates a variety of techniques used by the soloists to facilitate
successful ensemble interactions. As well, it reveals interactive techniques in the rhythm sec-

3 Cole Porter, “All of You,” Silk Stockings, 1955.

4 http://plosin.com/milesAhead/DiscoDetails.aspx
5 Although more obscure recordings of “All of You” will also be examined in Chapter 2, primary consideration will
focus on versions from three landmark recordings: Miles Davis Quintet. ‘Round About Midnight, (Columbia, CL 949, 1956.
LP); Miles Davis Quintet (2 CD set) Miles Davis In Person: Friday and Saturday Night at the Blackhawk. Miles Davis, trum-
pet. Hank Mobley, tenor saxophone, Wynton Kelly, piano. Paul Chambers, bass. Jimmy Cobb, drums. (Columbia, CL 87106,
1961. CD); Miles Davis Quintet (2 CDs) My Funny Valentine, and Four and More. Miles Davis, trumpet. George Coleman,
tenor saxophone. Herbie Hancock, piano. Ron Carter, bass. Tony Williams, drums. (Columbia, CL 2306,1964. CD).
 3

tion that lead to a high level of cohesion in the accompaniment. Full score transcriptions of
many of these excerpts are used to indicate subtle aspects of interaction that may have other-
wise gone unnoticed.

By examining the various elements of this analysis through the context of group com-
munication, this study identifies the various decisions and calculations that go into creating
a cohesive yet highly spontaneous group performance. We find that many of these spontane-
ous choices are successful because of the various group members’ adherence to specific roles
within the ensemble, and also because of an intimate shared knowledge of formatic, melodic,
harmonic and rhythmic vocabulary. It is in this knowledge that we are better equipped to
articulate the deepest and most enduring aspects of this music and the many styles of jazz that
are informed and influenced by it.

Of course, there exists considerable literature that covers the life and times of Miles Davis,
including information that is pertinent to this research.6 These texts reveal the historical
importance of Davis’ quintets, especially during the mid-1960s. They also provide a topical
discussion of “free jazz,” “modal jazz,” and a wide variety of internal and external forces that
drove Davis’ innovations.

Although these historical texts contribute to a deeper understanding of the subject, the
most relevant texts are the various dissertations, theses, articles and analytical works that are
specific to or somehow informative on the topic of ensemble interaction in jazz.7 Indeed,
great advances have been made in recent years because of a burgeoning interest in exploring
the interactive aspects of jazz performance.

6 Miles Davis, Miles, the Autobiography/ Miles Davis with Quincy Troupe. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990).
This text includes Davis’ perspective on the “third quintet” from the mid-1960s, the recordings they made, and the high
regard that he holds for that group in comparison to other groups that he has led before and since; Jack Chambers, Mile-
stones: The Music and Times of Miles Davis. (New York: Quill William Morrow, 1983). Chambers’ book details the kinds of
information missing from Davis’ autobiography. Specific recording dates, Davis’ discography and other useful information
is contained here.
7 Paul F. Berliner, Thinking in Jazz: The Infinite Art of Improvisation. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994).
Berliner’s book is a comprehensive text that is filled with the perspectives of many of the twentieth century’s most important
jazz artists. It features nearly 250 pages of transcriptions and analysis making it the most important study of jazz improvisa-
tion and interaction in academia; Robert Hodson, Interaction, Improvisation, and Interplay in Jazz (New York: Routledge,
Taylor and Francis Group, 2007). Hodson uses a select sample of recordings to analyze some of the more common types
of interaction from a historical and theoretical perspective. In attempting to reveal the historical evolution of interaction
in jazz, he makes broad strokes, avoiding the degree of detail found in Berliner’s text; Todd. Coolman, “The Miles Davis
Quintet of the Mid-1960s: Synthesis of Improvisational and Compositional Elements.” Ph.D diss, New York University,1997.
This is the closest in content to the research contained herein. However, Coolman’s analysis sacrifices a degree of detail
in favor of a broader perspective; Paul E. Rinzler “Preliminary Thoughts on Analyzing Musical Interaction Among Jazz
Performers.” Annual Review of Jazz Studies, vol. 4, 1988. organizes the aspects of small-group playing into five different types
of interaction: call and response, fills, accenting the end of formal units, common motive and responding to peaks of the
soloist. Although Rinzler gets to the heart of some of the most common types of interactions, his categories are insufficient
for organizing the wide variety of interactive episodes that occur within the Davis quintet and other groups.
 4

Despite these advances, the need to achieve an in-depth understanding of the Miles Davis
quintets of the 1950s and 60s persists. While a great many of today’s most important and
prominent jazz artists are influenced by these recordings, very little is published on the subject
that clearly articulates what is happening in the music, particularly in regards to the commu-
nication that exists between the performers. As such, this research aims to provide a clearer
window into the nature of ensemble interaction, and to contribute to the growing body of
work that recognizes the central place of interaction in jazz.

Chapter Two

The “Living Framework”

Chapter Two considers the “living framework” for Cole Porter’s “All of You” as it existed
for the Davis quintet on February 12, 1964. For the purposes of this study, a “living frame-
work” can be broadly defined as the elements of a composition that are in one way or another
agreed upon before its performance. This “framework” includes not only the general charac-
teristics of the song such as the form, melody and harmonic structure, but also more specific
details including count-offs, introductions, endings, structural cues, textural changes, solo
order, solo length and a wide variety of interpretive decisions. In order to fully understand
the “framework” for Davis’ performance of “All of You,” a comprehensive analysis is required.
First, we will break down the original score of the song with an eye towards understanding its
basic formal, melodic and harmonic structure. Next, we will examine early jazz versions of the
song as recorded by the Ahmad Jamal Trio and Miles Davis Quintet. This analysis will dem-
onstrate Jamal’s influence on Davis’ conception of the song.1 Having examined these early
versions, we will research later versions of “All of You” by various incarnations of the Davis
quintet to trace its evolution leading up to the 1964 recording. We will conclude with
a detailed discussion of the “framework” used by the Davis quintet at the famous Lincoln
Center concert.

A review of several studies of jazz improvisation and interaction finds a variety of at-
tempts to define the “living framework.” In his landmark text Thinking in Jazz, Paul Berliner
favors the term “arrangement.”

Performers’ attention to the artful regulation of their interaction expresses itself most
formally in the creation of musical arrangements, details of presentation worked out for each
piece in advance of music events. Arrangements represent varied degrees of planning and
impose different compositional constraints upon improvisers. They introduce stable precom-
posed elements to group interplay, providing overall shape to performances and reducing
some of the risks associated with collective improvisation.2

1 For more information on Jamal’s influence on Davis, see Miles Davis, Miles, the Autobiography: Miles Davis with
Quincy Troupe (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990), 178.
2 Paul Berliner, Thinking in Jazz: The Infinite Art of Improvisation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 289.
 6

Although Berliner’s discussion of “arrangements” is thorough and compelling, the use of

the term is somewhat misleading. Take, for instance, Gunther Schuller’s definition of “ar-
rangement” from the New Grove Dictionary of Jazz.3 Although Schuller admits that “all jazz
performance, insofar as it is improvised and constantly renewed, constitutes a form of arrang-
ing,” he concludes that “in a narrower sense the term arrangement in jazz has come to mean a
written-down, fixed, often printed and published version of a composition, usually arranged
for one of the various standard jazz ensembles.” As we will see later in this study, numerous
aspects of Davis’ “All of You” are indeed “worked out…in advance of musical events,” but are
certainly not “written-down” or “fixed,” and are far too flexible in nature to satisfy this second
and more concise definition of “arrangement.”

Robert Hodson’s book Interaction, Improvisation, and Interplay in Jazz approaches

the question from a more traditional analytical perspective. In describing the “long-range
performance plan” of a performance of the Charlie Parker blues “Now’s the Time,” Hodson
divides the overall performance into sections (introduction-head-saxophone solo-trumpet
solo-rhythm section-head) and uses the term “form” to describe the total structure of the per-
formance.4 As Hodson states, the term “form” is commonly used to describe the “large-scale
organization of a piece of music,” such as in the analysis of a sonata or other similar large-scale
form. He also points out that jazz musicians instead use the term “form” to “describe the
structure of one chorus of the tune being played.” As such, and as with the term “arrange-
ment,” the word “form” fails to accurately convey the correct meaning. As a possible alterna-
tive, Hodson suggests the term “roadmap,” an informal term used by jazz musicians to
convey to each other basic pre-performance decisions such as introductions, instrumentation,
solo lengths, solo orders and endings. However, as this study will show, the “framework” of
“All of You” goes far deeper than these kinds of decisions and is characterized by subtle agree-
ments between the ensemble members and shared understandings of a wide variety of perfor-
mance factors.

Todd Coolman’s dissertation “The Miles Davis Quintet of the Mid-1960s: Synthesis of
Improvisational and Compositional Elements” analyses three recordings by the Miles Davis
quintet. For each analysis, Coolman uses a similar model as Hodson to describe the “frame-

3 Gunther Schuller, “Arrangement,” in The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz, ed. Barry Kernfeld (New York:
St. Martin’s Press, 1994), 32-33.
4 Robert Hodson, Interaction, Improvisation, and Interplay in Jazz (New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis
Group, 2007), 75-77.
 7

work,” but with more detail. He labels the statements of the melody and solos by letter (A,
B, C, etc…) and provides a description of the instrumentation/texture for each section as it
changes over the course of the performance.5 Coolman stays away from explicitly defining
one term, instead using multiple terms like “overall form,” “structural outline” and “overview”
to describe the same concept. From the perspective of analysis, these terms are all equally
adequate. However, they fail to address the decision making process that leads to this final
“structural outline,” a process that is informed by all of the elements contained in the “living
framework” of a given tune.

The term “living framework” recognizes that, although certain “details of the presenta-
tion” are agreed upon before a given performance, they display a degree of flexibility not typi-
cal of an “arrangement.” It also indicates that this “framework” is an organic thing, growing
and evolving through multiple renditions by one or more groups, each performance retaining
elements of the previous versions while constantly incorporating new concepts and vocabu-
laries. The evolution of this “framework” is a primary example of what makes a musician’s
knowledge of the jazz tradition so critical. Igor Stravinsky speaks eloquently to this point:

A real tradition . . . is a living force that animates and informs the present. . . . Tradition
thus assures the continuity of creation. 6

Although he speaks from the perspective of the Western classical music tradition, it rings just
as true for jazz and for the “living force” that runs through multiple renditions of the same
tune over decades and into the present day.

In essence, a “living framework” provides one part of a larger dichotomy. The other part
of this dichotomy is the impulse towards freedom of expression. Within this dichotomy exists
a negotiation between spontaneous impulse and the limits provided by a framework, and this
negotiation is at the core of what makes any jazz ensemble unique. In Stravinsky’s view “the
more art is controlled, limited, worked over, the more it is free.”7 Indeed, the Davis quintet’s
masterful grasp of the various aspects of the “living framework” of “All of You” leads to more
freedom and enhanced opportunities for cohesive improvisations and ensemble interactions.
Most importantly, this “framework” gives the improvisers a field of expectation/possibility

5 Todd Coolman, “The Miles Davis Quintet of the Mid-1960s: Synthesis of Improvisational and Compositional
Elements” (Ph. D diss., New York University,1997), 49-50.
6 Igor Stravinsky, The Poetics of Music (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1942), 57.
7 Ibid., 63.
 8

by which they may be able to anticipate various choices by their counterparts, especially in
regards to phrasing and arrival points.

By conclusively establishing which aspects of “All of You” are predetermined in Chap-

ter Two, the reader will gain a clearer picture as to which aspects of the performance are not
predetermined. For later chapters, this focuses the analysis on the spontaneous aspects of the
performance and the interaction that accompanies it.

Analysis of Cole Porter’s “All of You”

“All of You” was composed by Cole Porter in 1954 as part of his Broadway musical Silk
Stockings. Because of its popularity, numerous versions by vocalists and jazz instrumentalists
soon found their way into the public arena.8 Arrangements for vocalists like Ella Fitzgerald
were more or less loyal to the original melody, but contained numerous harmonic alterations.
Instrumental jazz versions, unencumbered by the lyric, usually contained harmonic and me-
lodic alterations, as will be seen in the versions to be discussed later.

In order to better appreciate these alterations and their implications, this discussion
begins with an analysis of the original version of “All of You.” To that end, I have converted the
piano-vocal score of the song into a simplified lead sheet that honors the composer’s intent.
From this lead sheet, I will identify key aspects of its formal, melodic, harmonic and rhyth-
mic design. This will provide a better perspective for later analyses of versions by the Ahmad
Jamal Trio and Miles Davis Quintet.

Formal Design

Although the majority of American popular songs utilize rounded binary designs
(AABA), other forms are not uncommon.9 As with “All of You,” many songs are constructed
using a simple binary formula (ABAC).10 Regardless of formal design, the vast majority of

8 Ella Fitzgerald, “All of You,” Ella Fitzgerald Sings the Cole Porter Song Book (New York: Verve, 1956). CD; Fred
Astaire, “All of You,” Silk Stockings: Original M-G-M Picture Soundtrack Recording (Los Angeles: Turner Entertainment/Rhi-
no Movie Music, 1956-57, p. 2002). CD; Ahmad Jamal Trio, “All of You,” Chamber Music of the New Jazz (New York: Verve,
1955). CD; Miles Davis Quintet, “All of You,” ‘Round About Midnight (Columbia, CL 949, 1956). LP.
9 Allen Forte, The American Popular Ballad of the Golden Era, 1924-1950 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press, 1995), 41. Forte refers to the typical AABA form of popular songs as being “ternary” in construction. I have chosen
to interpret them as “binary” models because of the interruption in m. 24 and the return of the opening thematic material
only at the very end of the refrain. This statement refers primarily to the refrains of the songs in question. The verses to
songs like “All of You” are often left out of recordings and performances.
10 Other common songs that exhibit a simple binary construction include “It Could Happen to You,” “There Will
Never Be Another You,” and “I Could Write a Book.”
 9

these songs are 32-bars in length and can be divided into four 8-bar phrases.11 In the case of
“All of You,” these phrases combine to form two 16-bar periods. (fig.2.1)

The first of these periods ends with a harmonic interruption (half cadence) that evades
resolution and propels the music into the second period. The second period ends in an
authentic cadence to the tonic (Eb) in m. 31. Together, they form a “double period” which is
classified as a “parallel interrupted” structure because of the interruption that comes roughly
half way through the form (m. 16).12 This offers a major contrast with rounded binary forms
(AABA) where the interruption occurs three quarters of the way through (m. 24). (fig. 2.2)

Figure 2.2
A B A C

I V I I
m.16 / interruption

A A B A
I V I I
m.24 / interruption

Additionally, the 8-bar phrases upon which the periods are built contain contrasting thematic
material. Combined with interruptions in measures 8 and 24, each 16-bar period resembles a
“contrasting interrupted” phrase structure.13

Each 8-bar phrase in “All of You” is comprised of two 4-bar motivic groups. (fig. 2.3)
These groups interact in typical antecedent-consequent fashion. Example 2.3 demonstrates
the manner in which the first 4-bar groups are “answered” in the second 4-bar groups through
similar intervallic and rhythmic gestures. The period and phrase structure of “All of You” fig-
ures prominently in improvised solos and ensemble interactions, a discussion reserved
for later.

11 While most songs adhere to a 32-bar form, some incorporate an additional 2-bar or 4-bar phrase extension at
the end of the form. Well-known examples include “I Got Rhythm” (2-bar extension) and “My Funny Valentine” (4-bar
extension).
12 A comprehensive list of terms describing phrase and period structures can be found in Stephen Laitz, The Com-
plete Musician, (New York, Oxford University Press, 2008).
13 Strictly speaking, this is only true of the second half of “All of You” which concludes on the tonic. The first half
contains an interruption in measure 8 and in measure 16.
Figure 2.1

Period 1
Phrase 1

A b/E b Eb A b min F m7 b 5 () A b/E b Eb A b min ()F m7 b 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
b œ ˙. ˙. œ ˙. œ
& b b Œ œ œ œ ˙. œ ˙. b˙. œ œ ˙. b˙.
Phrase 2
œ œ
E b/G G b dim7 F min6 B b7 B b 7/A b E b/G D b 6/F C 7/E C 7 b 9 /E
() C 7 # 5 /E F min
() B b7
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
b œ ˙. œ ˙. ˙ ˙ œ b˙ œ ˙
& b b ˙. œ ˙. œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Phrase 3
A b/E b Eb A b min F m7 b 5
() A b/E b Eb E b/G C7 C 7/E E min/B
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
b œ ˙. ˙. œ ˙. nœ
& b b ˙. œ ˙. b˙. œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ œ ˙.
Phrase 4

Ab A dim7 G 7 #5
() G7 C7 b9 C7 F min C 7/G F min/A b B b 7 Eb
25 27 28 29 30 31
()
& b b b œ . œ œ . œ26 œ œ œ œ œ œ
w ˙. ˙ ˙ ˙ Ó ∑
J J œ ˙ ˙
Period 2
10
 Figure 2.3

Group 1 Group 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
b œ ˙.
& b b Œ œ œ œ ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙. œ
œ b˙. œ b˙.
Group 3 Group 4

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
b œ ˙. œ ˙. ˙ ˙ œ b˙ œ ˙
& b b ˙. œ ˙. œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Group 5 Group 6

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
b œ ˙. ˙. œ ˙. nœ
& b b ˙. œ ˙. b˙. œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ œ ˙.
Group 7 Group 8

25 27 28 29 30 31

& b b b œ . œ œ . œ26 œ œ œ œ œ œ
w ˙. ˙ ˙ ˙ Ó ∑
J J ˙
11

œ ˙
 12

Melodic Design

The melodic design of “All of You” is characterized by the use of accented passing
tones and an ascending melodic profile. These aspects of the melody work in tandem
with other elements of form, harmony and rhythm to create long-range continuity and satisfy-
ing resolutions.

Accented Passing Tones

A primary component of “All of You” is the use of accented passing tones to highlight

points of structural importance. This is reflected in the opening phrase. (fig. 2.4)

Figure 2.4 Eb

b
&bb Œ œ œ œ ˙. ˙.
1 2

œ
4 3

The dissonant a-flat is held a full 3 beats before finally resolving to g on beat 4 of m. 1. The
colorful harmony created by this 4-3 suspension helps to underline the structural importance
of g, and establishes it as the “primary melodic tone” of the song. 14

Accented passing tones also figure prominently at the beginnings of the B and C sections
in the form of appogiaturas. (fig. 2.5)

E b/G
Figure 2.5

b ˙.
&bb œ œ
8 9

4 3
Ab A dim7 ()
G 7 #5
b œ. œ œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
&bb nœ
24 25 26 27

J J w
4 3 4 3

14 Allen Forte, “Secrets of Melody: Line and Design in the Songs of Cole Porter,” The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 77, No.
4 (Winter, 1993), pp. 607-647.
 13

Notice how the d in measure 25 is also used as an accented passing tone in m. 26. These pass-
ing tones create the most colorful harmonies of the song. In typical Porter fashion, he creates
an effective climax by reserving these harmonies to coincide with the registral apex and peak
rhythmic activity of the piece.

Melodic Profile

A close examination of “All of You” reveals a compelling melodic profile. From this pro-
file, we may extrapolate an ascending line that leads from g to d in measures 1-12 and from g
to e-flat in measures 17-26. (fig. 2.6)

Figure 2.6
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
3 4 5 6 7 Interruption
Period 1
b œ ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙. ˙ ˙ œb˙ œ ˙
& b b Œœ œ œ ˙ . œ ˙ . œ ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

b˙. œ b˙. œ ˙. œ œ œ œ œœœ

j
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
3 4 5 6 7 8 (apex)
Period 2

bb b ˙ 18 œ ˙ . n œ œ œ .œ œ œ œ Jœ œ w
œ .
˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Ó ∑
32

. œ ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙. œ œ
17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

& œ J J
œ b˙. œ œ œ ˙.

During the first half of the form, the line arrives at the leading tone (d) only to “pull back”
from a resolution to the tonic note (e-flat). This resolution is finally granted at the song’s apex
in m. 26, a climactic moment that coincides with the peak register, rhythmic intensity and
harmonic complexity of the piece. Porter ingeniously presents this same melodic profile over
the last six measures of the melody, providing an emphatic and final resolution to the tension
created in the first three quarters of the song. (fig. 2.7)

Figure 2.7
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
3 4 5 6 7 8

b ˙
&bb w ˙. ˙ ˙ Ó
27 28 29 30 31

œ ˙ ˙
 14

Aspects of the melodic profile are hidden through dramatic leaps of major and minor 7ths.
These leaps pervade the song and disguise the direction of the line, which moves in the op-
posite direction of the leap. (fig. 2.8)

Figure 2.8
^ ^

b
b6 7

&bb œ ˙.
7 8

b˙.
7 th
^ ^

b
6 7

& b b ˙.
11 12

œ ˙.
7 th
^ ^ ^

bbb
6 7 8

˙ ˙ ˙
29 30 31

& ˙ ˙
7 th

The use of 7ths is likely derived from the verse where they are expressed more gradually via
stepwise motion. (fig. 2.9)

Figure 2.9 ^ ^
4 3
7 th

b j
&bb œ œ œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ ˙
œ
7 th
b œ.
&bb œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
J ˙
7 th

b œ œœ œœœœœ œ
&bb œ nœ œ œ œ œ
7 th

The consistency of Porter’s melodic design adds another level of cohesiveness to “All of
You” and helps to guide many of the harmonic and rhythmic elements of the piece.
 15

Harmonic Design

Modal Mixture

The use of modal mixture is a critical aspect of many of Porter’s songs.15 In “All of You,”
this is expressed via the use of the flatted-6th scale degree (c-flat) which is borrowed from the
parallel minor mode and which provides the primary harmonic color. Over the course of the
song, this note is rendered in two different harmonic contexts: as the third of a-flat minor, and
as the chromatic lower neighbor of c-natural. (fig. 2.10)

Figure 2.10

A b/E b E b A b min F m7 b 5() A b/E b E b A b min ()

F m7 b 5

b œ ˙. œ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

& b b Œ œ œ œ ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙.
œ b˙. œ b˙.
N

The insertion of chromatic harmonies, drawn from the parallel minor key and placed at the
ends of these 4-bar units, engages the listener and propels the music forward.

Note also the contrast between c-flat in m. 7 and c-natural in measure 23. Both notes ap-
pear in the seventh bar of the A sections. (fig. 2.11)

Figure 2.11
A b min ()
F m7 b 5

b œ ˙.
&bb œ
6 7 8

œ b˙.

C7 C 7/E

b ˙.
&bb œ
22 23 24

œ œ œ œ ˙.

15 Well-known examples of Porter compositions that employ modal mixture include “I Love You” and “What is
This Thing Called Love.”
 16

The large-scale juxtaposition of parallel minor and major modes is particularly effective
because the natural 6th scale degree (c-natural) is heard in relationship to the flatted 6th scale
degree that precedes it (c-natural). This device has an uplifting effect with the “darker” sound-
ing minor harmony giving way to the brighter sound of the major key. Contrasts of this type
were not uncommon in popular songs of the day. Irving Gordon’s “Unforgettable” provides
one well-known example.16 (fig. 2.12)

& œ
œ œ œ œ œ bœ œœ œ
Figure 2.12 9 10

Like a song of love that clings to me

& œ œ œ œ œ œ nœ œœ œ
25 26

That's why, dar - ling it's in cred i ble

The use of c-flat is further enhanced in m. 24 when it is spelled as a b-natural. In this

context, it functions as a chromatic lower neighbor to c-natural in m. 25. (fig. 2.13)

E min/B A b
Figure 2.13
C 7/E A dim7

b œ. œ œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
& b b ˙. nœ
24 25 26

J J
N

The fact the Porter employs this note immediately before the song’s apex is no accident. By
using it in a context unrelated to the song’s parallel minor key (as a chromatic lower neighbor),
he creates a contrast with measures 1-8 and raises our awareness of the note’s special signifi-
cance.
16 Irving Gordon, “Unforgettable,” The New Real Book, Volume 2 (Petaluma, CA: Sher Music, 1991), 399.
 17

Rhythmic Design

Perhaps the most pervasive aspect of “All of You” is its repetitive rhythmic profile. In
measures 1-12 and 17-24, each bar is approached by an offbeat quarter note pickup that pro-
ceeds to a dotted half note in the following measure. (fig. 2.14)

b
& b b |. Û |. Û
Figure 2.14

Additionally, this rhythm is employed in an accelerated fashion at the song’s apex in measures
25-26. (fig. 2.15)

b
Figure 2.15

& b b Û. Û Û. Û
J J

These repeating, syncopated figures create an ongoing rhythmic tension that is resolved at the
ends of the B and C sections through strong, non-syncopated gestures. However, this resolu-
tion is aborted at B when the non-syncopated half notes in measure 13 proceed to an accented
offbeat in measure 14. (fig. 2.16)

() ()
Figure 2.16
E b/G D b 6/F C 7/E C 7 b 9 /E C 7 # 5 /E F min B b7

b œ b˙ œ
&bb ˙ ˙ ˙
13 14 15 16

œ œ œ œ œ œ
 18

The “blue note” in measure 14 (d-flat) stands out as an unprepared dissonance.17 This high-
lights the unexpected syncopation, contributing to an unsettled feeling and helping to propel
the song into the second A section. The promise of resolution, which is thwarted at the end of
B, must therefore wait until the end of the song (measures 29-31), where it is all the more
fulfilling. (fig. 2.17)

Figure 2.17

F min C 7/G F min/A b B b7 Eb

b ˙
&bb ˙ ˙ Ó
29 30 31

˙ ˙

Interaction of Formal, Melodic, Harmonic and Rhythmic Designs

More than anything else, “All of You” demonstrates Porter’s ability to direct multiple
aspects of the form, melody, harmony and rhythm towards a climax in measures 25-26. This
peak in intensity is achieved gradually. The accented passing tones that characterize the begin-
nings of formal units progress from creating slightly colorful harmonies in measures 1, 9 and
17 to very colorful harmonies in measures 25-26. As well, the repeating rhythmic profile of
the song “accelerates” from a 1-bar pattern over most of the piece to a 1/2-bar pattern, also in
measures 25-26. Finally, the melodic profile subtly works its way through the first half of the
form towards a registral peak.

Chapters Three and Four will demonstrate how the Miles Davis quintet is also able to
coordinate an intensification of multiple aspects of melody, harmony and rhythm during the
improvised solos. Each solo builds to a discernable climax in a unique manner that mirrors
the composition itself.

Initial Jazz Interpretations

Much has been made over the years of the influence of Ahmad Jamal on Miles Davis.
Indeed, Davis’ original quintet from the mid 1950s recorded some of the same repertoire

performed by Ahmad Jamal’s seminal trio earlier in the decade, including “All of You.” Jamal’s
17 Forte, “Secrets of Melody,” 617. The use of “blue notes” is an effect that Porter often uses to color important mo-
ments in a song. Its use here, in conjunction with syncopation, indicates the influence of jazz on Porter’s style.
 19

influence is not only apparent in Davis’ choice of songs, but also in Davis’ phrasing style and
with the ensemble’s approach to interaction, especially on standards from the Great American
Songbook. With this in mind, we will examine Jamal and Davis’ earliest versions of “All of
You,”18 illuminating Davis’ original conception of the piece.

Formal Treatment

Both early versions of “All of You” by Jamal and Davis are basically loyal to the 32-bar/
ABAC form of the original. What makes them different is the addition of a repeating 4-bar
“tag” at the end of the refrain.19 As with many of the elements that define Davis’ “All of You,”
the use of a tag section originates with the Ahmad Jamal Trio. Here, Jamal uses the tag at the
end of the final chorus of the performance.20 (fig. 2.18)

Figure 2.18

F min7 B b7 Eb C7 End of 32-bar form

b œ #œ œ œ Œ ‰ œ nœ #œ œ ˙ œ œ nœ œ #œ œ œ n˙.
& b b ˙. œ
J
3 3

B b7 Eb
Tag

b
F min7 C7

& b b .. ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ..

The repeating 4-bar phrase persistently avoids resolution by moving to a VI7 chord (C7) in m.
4 instead of staying resolved on the tonic. Jamal maintains interest during this monotonous
chord progression by playing softly and by gradually building the dynamics and register of his
line until the very end of the performance. This gradual building during the tag foreshadows
several elements of Davis’ style, a discussion reserved for later chapters.

In addition to utilizing a repeating tag section at the end of the performance, Davis in-
serts a tag at the end of each solo. (fig. 2.19)

18 Ahmad Jamal Trio, Chamber Music of the New Jazz; Miles Davis Quintet, ‘Round About Midnight.
19 Barry Kernfeld, ed., “Tag,” in The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994), 1184. “A
phrase (usually of a few bars, sometimes no more than a motif) added to the end of a theme, chorus, or (most often) an
entire piece.”
20 For the purpose of this study, Jamal’s version of “All of You” is transposed to the original key, Eb.
 20

Figure 2.19
Melody Solo Solo/Melody Coda
Jamal Prototype
Form Form Form Tag

Melody Solo 1 Solo 2 Solo 3 Melody Coda

Davis Prototype
Form Form Tag Form Tag Form Tag Form Tag

The procedure for initiating a tag requires that the soloist cue the rhythm section that he will
not be returning to the beginning of the regular form of the refrain. As well, the soloist must
be able to cue the rhythm section that he is about to complete his improvisation on the tag
section so that they will be ready to return to the top of the form for the next soloist. The
addition of these “tag sections” allows the soloists to depart from the constraints of the song’s
fixed formal structure. This new degree of freedom from formal constraint, though cloaked in
the traditional “hard bop” styles of the day, foreshadows the arrival of “free jazz” in the
late 1950s.21

Melodic Treatment

One of the subtle aspects of “All of You” is the slight difference between the pickup notes
that precede the first A section and the pickup notes that come before the second A section.

(fig. 2.20)

Eb
Figure 2.20

bbb
œ œ œ ˙. œ ˙.
1 2

&
œ

Eb

b
&bb ˙. ˙.
16 17 18

œ œ œ œ
œ

21 David Such, Avant-garde Jazz Musicians: Performing “Out There” (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1993),
4. Such states that the lack of “adherence to either a twelve-bar or thirty-two-bar form” is one of the three characteristics
distinguishing “out jazz” (free jazz) from “hard bop.”
 21

Starting the pickup phrase on d instead of e-flat in measure 16 allows for smooth, step-wise
motion from c to f. More importantly, when the line skips from f to a-flat at the beginning of
the new phrase, it heightens the accented dissonance and makes the resolution to the primary
melodic tone (g) more fulfilling than the first time.

An examination of the Jamal recording finds that he ignores this contrast between pickup
notes. Instead, he utilizes the pickup notes to the second A section for both A sections, elimi-
nating the heightened tension of the original version. (fig. 2.21)

b j
Figure 2.21 1

&bb ‰ œ. œ œ ˙ œ. œ

b œ œ œ. œ
œ
16 17

&bb Œ J Ó

A quick review of all of Davis’ early recordings of “All of You” reveals that he too plays both
pickup phrases the same way.22 (fig. 2.22)

Figure 2.22
b j ^
& b b Œ ‰ œj œj œ œ ˙ .
1 2

œ œ Œ Ó

b
16 17 18

&bb Ó Œ j œ œ œ œ. Œ Œ ‰ œ œ Œ Ó
3 3

œ J .

An examination of these recordings suggests that Davis learned “All of You” not from the sheet
music, but from listening to Jamal’s recording. This reliance on secondary sources is common

22 Davis mostly plays the same notes during the opening phrase in all of his live recordings. The one exception is
the primary take of “All of You” from ‘Round About Midnight when he starts the melody, correctly, on e-flat. Even so, Davis
plays the opening phrase starting on d in the alternate take from the same session, raising the possibility that the final take
may have been edited to eliminate the d from the beginning. The example presented here is from this alternate take.
 22

in jazz. The result here is a tendency by Davis (and Jamal, for that matter) to “give away” some
of the more colorful moments of the song.

Jamal’s influence on Davis can be seen not only in Davis’ choice of notes, but also in how
he phrases them. This is especially evident in measures 3-4 of the melody when both Jamal
and Davis “lay back” on the original phrasing of the tune. (fig. 2.23)

Figure 2.23

b
& b b Œ œ œ œ ˙. ˙. œ ˙.
1 2 3 4

œ œ
Original
œ b˙.

b j œ ˙.
Œ ‰ œ bœ
1 2 3 4

Jamal &bb ‰ œ. œ œ ˙ œ. œ ∑
J
Œ

b j œ œj ˙ . j4 ∑
&bb Ó ∑ Œ ‰ j œ
1 2 3

œ œ- œ.
œ bœ.
Davis

Measures 7-8 represent the one instance where Jamal plays the melody correctly and Davis
once again “gives away” a special moment. (fig. 2.24)

Why Davis chooses a c-natural here instead of c-flat is perhaps unknowable. One might

bb œ ˙.
Figure 2.24 6 7 8

& b ˙. b˙.
œ
Original

œ. œ
b Œ œ bœ Œ J
6 7

Jamal &bb Ó

bbb œ. Œ
6 7

& œ j j
œ œ œ œ. n˙
Davis nœ
 23

speculate that Davis sensed the special quality of this c-natural as it occurs during the sec-
ond A section, and that it “stuck” in his head as the “right” way to play the melody. It is also
possible that the rhythm section was unaware of the correct melody and harmony during the
original recording session and played chords that forced Davis in a different direction. In any
case, and as with the pickup phrases, Porter’s carefully constructed contrast between the c-flat
in m. 7 and the c-natural in m. 23 is negated.

In measures 15-16, the situation is reversed. Here, Jamal and Davis play a c-flat instead of
what should be a c-natural. (fig. 2.25)

Figure 2.25

b
15 16

&bb ˙ œ œ œ
nœ nœ œ
Original

œ
bb b . bœ Ó œ œ œ
15 16

& Œ
Jamal J

b
15 16

&bb ˙ ‰ Ó Œ j
œ œ œ œ
3 3

Davis bœ.

With yet another c-flat out-of-place in the melody, Porter’s careful juxtaposition of major and
minor modes disappears. However, we see later how this alteration to the melody leads to a
colorful new chord progression that otherwise would not have been possible.

In measures 23-24, both Jamal and Davis alter the melody, going to c-natural instead of
a b-flat. (fig. 2.26) This is yet another piece of evidence suggesting that Davis learned the song
from Jamal’s version. In Davis’ version, the c-natural in measures 23-24 at least provides a
contrast with measures 7-8. In this sense, Davis acknowledges the difference between the
A sections.

 24

Figure 2.26

bbb
23 24

& œ ˙.
Original
˙.

bb
& b . Jœ œ . œJ ˙ .
23 24

œ
Jamal

bb ‰ œ œ œ ˙
23 24

& b
˙
Davis

Leading up to the song’s apex, Jamal and Davis have ignored the b-natural that leads into mea-
sure 25. (fig. 2.27)

Figure 2.27

b œ. œ œ. œ
& b b ˙.
24 25

Original nœ J J

b ‰ Jœ œ œ œ
& b b ˙.
24 25

Jamal Ó

b Œ ‰ Jœ œ œ œ œ
&bb ˙
24 25

Davis

With this alteration, the delicate placement of b-natural and its structural juxtaposition with
c-flat is completely eliminated.
 25

Perhaps the most important alteration of the melody occurs in the final phrase of the
song. The following example compares the original with Jamal’s recording. (fig. 2.28)

Figure 2.28

b ˙
&bb ˙ ˙ Ó
28 29 30 31

Original
œ ˙ ˙

œ œ œ œ bœ œ ∫œ œ nœ œ œ # 3œ œ ˙ œœ
.
bbb
3

Jamal & ∑
28 29 30 31

Jamal’s new phrase represents a reordered collection of the same notes from the original song.
Jamal plays a variation of this phrase at the end of every chorus, and the following example
demonstrates how it influences Davis. (fig. 2.29)

Figure 2.29

œ b œ n œ œ # 3œ œ ˙ œ œ 31
.
œ ∫ œ œ œ
bb
3

b ∑
29 30
Original
&

b ˙ œ^
&bb ˙ ˙ ˙ Œ Ó
29 30 31

Davis

As with the original melody, this line is strong and leads unambiguously towards a resolution
to the tonic. Unlike Jamal, Davis avoids using this phrase at the end of the melody and instead
waits until the end of his solo where the resolution is even more gratifying. Davis adopts this
phrase as a “cue” by which he indicates to the rhythm section his intention to end the tag sec-
tion and complete his solo. In later sections and chapters, this phrase is referred to as the
“transition motive.”
 26

Harmonic Treatment
In both the Jamal and Davis recordings, there is a basic adherence to the harmonically
important aspects of the original song’s structure. This includes major appearances of the
tonic chord (m. 2, m. 6, m. 18, m. 22, and m. 31), and the half-cadence at the end of the first
16-bar period. These similarities aside, the most significant differences between the recordings
are in their treatment of harmony.

To a large extent, these variations are the result of contrasting stylistic influences. Where-
as Jamal’s harmonic conception is more rooted in the “swing” style, the Davis quintet’s ap-
proach is clearly derived from the “bebop” tradition.23 Moreover, the Davis quintet utilizes
a unique harmonic approach that easily applies to most standard 32-bar song forms. This
approach emphasizes the use of chromatic ii-V progressions and tri-tone substitutions, and is
an important aspect of the Davis quintet’s conception of popular songs into the mid-1960s.

Harmonic Support During Primary Melodic Statement

The following example is a comparison of the first 6-bars of Cole Porter’s harmony with
Jamal and Davis’ harmonies. (fig. 2.30)

7
Figure 2.30 iv ii
A b/E b Eb A b min F m7 b 5 () A b/E b Eb
b
&bb Œ œ œ œ 1 ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙.
Original
2 œ 3 b˙. 4 5 6

B b 7 b 9 E b Maj7 B b7 b 9 B b 7 b 9 E b Maj7
# 11 # 11 # 11

b j œ ˙. œ œ œ œ
&bb ‰ ˙ œ. œ ∑ Œ ‰ œ bœ Œ Œ ‰J J J ∑
Jamal œ. œ œ 1 2 3
J 4 5 6

() () () B b7 (b 9) ( ) B b7 (b9) E bMaj7
7 7
ii v ii ii v
F m7 b 5 B b7 b 9 E b Maj7 F m7 b 5 F m7 b 5
b j œj ˙ . j
&bb Ó œœ œ- œ. ∑ Œ ‰ j œ ∑ Œ ‰ œj œ œ œ
œ bœ. 4 œœœœ œ
Davis
1 2 3 5 6

What must first be noted is the relative harmonic simplicity of the original. Porter prolongs
the tonic through modal mixture, leading from the iv-minor chord in m. 3 (a-flat minor) and
ii-half-diminished chord in m. 4 (f half-diminished) to the tonic in measures 5-6 (e-flat). In
contrast, both Davis’ and Jamal’s versions replace the subdominant motion in measures 3-4
with V7 (Bb7), providing a different resolution to the tonic. A good deal of jazz improvisa-
tional vocabulary is built around V-I relationships, so this may in part explain the conversion
23 Ted Gioia, The History of Jazz (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 253.
 27

from iv/ii to V7. As well, this vocabulary is designed largely around simple chord relationships
that don’t necessarily take specific contrapuntal motion into account.24 This would explain
why the accented passing chord in m. 1 (a-flat) is also changed to V7. Regardless of whether
iv/ii-I or V7-I is used, a sense of tension with resolution to the tonic chord is achieved. The
primary difference between the Davis version and the Jamal version is the insertion of ii
chords before the V7 chords. This frequent use of ii-V7 progressions places the Davis quintet
squarely in the “bebop” tradition.

An examination of the B section (measures 9-16) shows both Jamal and Davis more or
less in step with the original. The only important point of departure is in m. 10. (fig. 2.31)

Figure 2.31
E b/G G b dim7 B b7 B b 7/A b
b
F min6

&bb œ ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙.
8 9 10 11 12

Original œ ˙. œ
B b 13 (b 9)

bb œ œ^ Œ ˙ .
G m11 C 13 F min7

˙ Œ Œ ‰ œ œJ j
8

& b œ
9 10 11 12

Jamal J œ œ ˙
G b7 #11/D b G b7 #11 B b7
^
bb ‰ œ ˙ .. œ. ˙ .. œ œ.
8 G min7 F min7

& b ∑
9 10 11 12

Davis
J J J œ ˙
>

In Porter’s original, the melody in measure 10 is harmonized with a diminished 7th chord
(Gbdim7) passing between Gmin7 and Fmin7. The Jamal and Davis versions, however, once
again show a preference for using dominant-tonic relationships (V7-I). To that end, Jamal
uses C7 to tonicize Fmin7, and Davis uses Gb7#11/Db. The Davis quintet’s use of a tri-tone
substitution is more colorful than Jamal’s C7 because of the major 7th interval between the
bass and melody and tri-tone interval between the melody and root of the chord.

Harmonic Support During Solos

The harmonies used during the melodic statement become significantly more flexible
during the solos. Here again, there exist fundamental differences between the Jamal trio

24 While specific voice leading may be indicated in chord symbols via extensions or “slash” chords, it’s often
replaced by more simplistic versions of the same harmonies during solos, giving soloists more choices as to different voice
leading trajectories.
 28

and Davis quintet. The most telling of these differences is in measures 1-6 of the form. As
discussed, both versions utilize V7-I progressions here. However, Jamal and Davis employ
different types of extensions on the V7 chords, implying contrasting chord/scale relationships.
While the basic V7-I function remains the same in both versions, the use of these different
scales represents a distinctly different set of colors between them. (fig. 2.32)

Figure 2.32

B b7 b 9
# 11

b n ˙˙ .. œ œ
Bb octatonic/”diminished” scale
bœ nœ nœ œ
Jamal & b b b ˙ . bœ
3

Œ œ
F m7 (b 5) B b7 (b 9) Ab melodic minor scale/ suggests Bb13susb9
b .œ œ œ œ ˙
3 4

Coltrane & b b ‰ j œ œ œ
3

œ œ œ œ œ œ
œ bœ bœ œ œ œ bœ bœ œ
(
F m7 5 b ) b
B7 9 ( b )
bb b ‰ œ ‰
3 4 Ab Dorian scale/ suggests Db7 substitution for Bb7(b9)
Coltrane & œ œ bœ œ bœ œ
bœ œ nœ bœ œ ¿ œ œ bœ œ œ œ bœ bœ œ

Jamal’s chords and improvised lines utilize the octatonic scale, imposing a symmetrical
character on the chord progression. A selection of phrases from the Davis quintet tells a dif-
ferent story. Here, the a-flat melodic minor and Dorian scales are employed over the domi-
nant chord (Bb7). These scales are asymmetrical, but more importantly, they directly relate
to Porter’s original use of Abmin in m. 3. Moreover, these scales allow for a broader range of
harmonic implications. (fig. 2.33)

Figure 2.33
Ab Melodic Minor Scale () B b 13s us b 9

bb b œ b œ œ œœœœ
& b œœœ œ
œ œ bœ bœ œ
A b m (m aj7) F m7 (b 5)

Ab Dorian Scale
b
&bb œ œ b œ œ œ bœ bœ
œ œ bœ b œ
D b7
 29

With these possibilities in mind, a soloist can play either type of a-flat minor scale over this
portion of the form and remain confident the he is “making the changes.”

In practice, it is not uncommon for a song’s framework to consist of two sets of chord
progressions: one for the melody and one for the solos. This is the case in measures 9-12 of
Davis’ “All of You.” In measure 10, the pianist is forced to use Gb7#11 to accommodate the
melody note. However, this accommodation becomes unnecessary during the solos. (fig. 2.34)

Figure 2.34

Melody G b7 #11/D b G b7 #11 B b7

^
G min7 F min7

& bbb ‰ œ ˙ .. œ. ˙ .. œ œ. ∑
9 10 11 12

J J J œ ˙
>
Solos G min7 G b min7 F min7 B b7

b
&bb ∑ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’

Here, the soloists play Gbmin7 instead of Gb7#11/Db, thus linking Gmin7 and Fmin7 via
chromatic parallelism. These descending chromatic ii-Vs are common in Davis’ versions of
popular songs, especially in later versions of standards like “Autumn Leaves” and “There is No
Greater Love.” (fig. 2.35)25

Figure 2.35

From Herbie Hancock’s Solo on “There is No Greater Love”

B b7 A 7(# 9) A b 7(# 9) G 7(# 9)
œ bœ œ œ œ 2 œ bœ œ œ 4
C7
1
b œ œ # œ nœ œ œ
3
œ b œ œ œ œ œ bœ
5

&b œ œ nœ œ bœ bœ bœ œ œ œ n œj

From George Coleman’s Solo on “Autumn Leaves”

G m7 G b m9 F m9 E 9(#11) E b Maj7

b
27 29

&b ‰
28

œ bœ bœ bœ bœ nœ œ œ bœ bœ œ œ ˙
œ œ

25 Miles Davis Quintet, “There is No Greater Love,” Four and More; Miles Davis Quintet, “Autumn Leaves.” Miles
Davis in Europe (Columbia, CL 2183, 1963). LP.
 30

In summary, Davis’ conception of the melody is largely derived from Ahmad Jamal’s
original recording. And while their harmonic conceptions are also similar, some
major contrasts are evident. These differences suggest that Davis’ rhythm section may have
developed their approach somewhat independently of Davis. Looking ahead to the next
section, we will see how these formal, melodic and harmonic approaches to “All of You” evolve
through three distinctly different quintets, each of which draws heavily upon the work of
their predecessors.

Evolution of Versions by the Miles Davis Quintet

On the surface, the Davis quintet’s February 12, 1964 recording of “All of You” seems far
removed from earlier versions. Certainly, the members of the ’64 quintet had individual styles
that distinguished them from members of the earlier quintets. However, a close look at vari-
ous recordings from 1956 to the 1964 recording shows that the Lincoln Center performance
bears many of the marks of the previous versions. Ron Carter speaks indirectly to this point in
his interview with Benjamin Cawthra in 2001:

As I got in college in ’57, ’58, the Red Garland, Paul Chambers, Philly Joe Jones rhythm
section was all anyone talked about and played like . . . they just played like a group. They
made the rhythm section sound like a big band. They knew the songs, they knew the
forms, they understood the changes. They were all, in their own way, individually creat-
ing on their instrument, but they sounded like one.26

Indeed, the earlier quintets exerted an enormous influence on the 1964 rhythm section, a fact
that will be demonstrated in the following pages via a cursory examination of multiple ver-
sions of “All of You.”

Formal Treatment

The addition of a tag section at the end of each solo is a unique aspect of the Davis
quintet’s formal treatment of “All of You.” In earlier recordings, this tag is somewhat of an
afterthought, a short coda that occurs after multiple solo choruses on the song’s normal form.
However, as the 1950s push towards the increased freedoms of the 1960s, the tag becomes
more and more significant. The following chart demonstrates how the tag gradually develops
into the most important section of the solo. (fig. 2.36)

26 Early, Gerald, ed. Miles Davis and American Culture (St. Louis, Mo.: Missouri Historical Society Press, 2001),
99-100.
 31

Figure 2.36
Trumpet Solo Saxophone Solo Piano Solo
Form Tag Form Tag Form Tag

“Midnight,” 1956
4 — 1 4 — 1 4 — 1

Form Tag Form Tag Form Tag

“Stockholm,” 1960
6 — 5 5 — 3 7 — 2

Form Tag Form Tag Form Tag

“Valentine,” 1964
4 — 7 7 — 6 3 — 4

As indicated in the previous section, navigation into and out of the tag section requires
a clear set of cues by which the rest of the ensemble might realize the soloist’s intentions. To
this end and over the course of multiple performances, Davis develops two recognizable mo-
tives: the “Tag Motive,” and the “Transition Motive.” These motives serve to guide the rhythm
section into and out of the tag while suggesting the emergence of a larger formal plan that
transcends the repeating 4-bar chord progression.

Tag Motive

The “tag motive” is a recognizable phrase that Davis uses to initiate the tag section of his
solos. As well, he reintroduces this motive later in the tag as a way of “resetting” the dynamic
and building towards a final climax. The following figure is a chronological comparison of
these motives as they appear at the beginnings of Davis’ tag sections. These excerpts are orga-
nized into three prototypes that represent each of the three quintets that recorded “All of You.”
(fig. 2.37)

Figure 2.37
Prototype 1/1957
F min7 B b7 G min7 C7 F min7 B b7 G min7

b ˙ œ œ œ3 œ œ œ3 œ .
&bb Ó œ ˙ Œ ∑ Œ œ. ˙ œ œœœœœ
œ. œ. ˙

Prototype 2/1961 F m9 B b 13 ()
G 13 b 9
#9
C 7#5 F m9

b
& b b Œ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ ˙. œœ ˙ ‰ œ œ ˙. œœ ˙ œ œ ˙ Ó
3

nœ œ
Prototype 3/1964 F m9 B b7 G m11 C7 F m9 B b 13 G min7 C9

b œ. œ œ œ œ ˙. ˙ . Œ Œ ‰ œ œ œ œ ˙ Œ ‰ œj ‰ ‰ œ œ œ . œ . œ œ œ . ˙
&bb J œ w
Ó Œ œ
œœ J œœ
 32

A close examination of the second and third prototypes reveals an intimate relationship
with aspects of the original melody. Prototype 2 effectively evokes the opening notes of the
melody by exploring the relationship between a-flat and g. (fig. 2.38)

Figure 2.38

“All of You” melody, mm. 1-12

A b/E b Eb

b
1 2

&bb Œ œ œ œ ˙. œ ˙.

Prototype 2
F m9 B b 13 ()
G 13 b 9
#9
C 7#5 F m9

& bbb ˙. œ œ ˙ ‰nœ œ œ ˙. œœ ˙ œ œœ ˙ Ó

Davis’ persistent use of a-flat forces Wynton Kelly to change the harmonies over the third
and fourth bars of the repeating chord progression. The resulting harmonies lend a new
degree of color to the performance and place the a-flat in a radically different context from the
original melody.

A different comparison to the melody may be drawn with Prototype 3. (fig. 2.39)

Figure 2.39

“All of You” melody, mm. 9-13

E b/G G b dim7 F min6 B b7 B b 7/A b E b/G

b
& b b ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙.
9 10 11 12 13

˙
œ ˙. œ
th th
7 7
Prototype 3
B b7 B b 13
j
bbb ˙ Œ ‰ œj ‰ œ œ
F m9 G m11 C7 F m9 G min7

& w Ó Œ œ ˙. ˙. Œ Œ ‰œœœœ
œ œ
th th
7 7

In these instances, Davis mimics the melodic profile of “All of You” with the wide leaps and
large registral spans that are so characteristic of the piece.
 33

In all of the prototypes, there exists a lyrical quality resulting from longer note values
and the frequent use of diatonic and step-wise motion. We also find that the majority of these
prototypes are focused on g, the primary melodic tone of the piece. The combination of lyrical
qualities and allusions to the melody make these phrases extremely effective as cueing devices.

When Davis reintroduces these motives later in the tag section, it is often as a prelude to
the climax of his performance and the end of his solo. (fig. 2.40)

Figure 2.40
Form Tag
“tag motive” “tag motive”
prototype 1 prototype 1
“Peacock,” 1957 Melody Solo

1:33 2:37 2:51

0:00 END SOLO

Form Tag
“tag motive” “tag motive” “tag motive”
prototype 2 prototype 2 prototype 2
“Blackhawk,” 1961 Melody Solo

0:00 2:35 (3:23) 4:05 4:19

END SOLO

Form Tag
“tag motive” “tag motive”
prototype 3 prototype 3
“Valentine,” 1964 Melody Solo

1:38 3:40 4:48

0:00 END SOLO

Here, the tag motive acts as a cue for the rhythm section to build into the end of Davis’ solo.
This cue provides the rhythm section an opportunity to mentally prepare for the next solo
where they will return to the regular form of the song.

Transition Motive
As mentioned in the previous section, the “transition motive” is Davis’ cue to the
rhythm section that he is ending the tag section and completing his solo (see figure 2.29).
This phrase is derived from Ahmad Jamal’s variation of the final bars of “All of You.” Unlike
the “tag motive,” the essential structural pitches of the “transition motive” remain unchanged
through years of multiple performances. However, Davis’ approach to the ends of the phrases
undergoes significant changes. (fig. 2.41)27

27 Davis, ‘Round About Midnight; Miles Davis, Peacock Alley St. Louis February 16th and 23rd, (St. Louis, Sou-
lard, 1957).CD; Miles Davis Quintet, Miles Davis In Person: Friday and Saturday Night at the Blackhawk, (Columbia, CL
87106,1961). CD; Miles Davis Quintet, My Funny Valentine, (Columbia, CL 2306,1964). CD.
 34

Figure 2.41

Prototype 1 solo break

b ˙ œ Œ Ó
^
&bb ˙ ˙ ˙ ∑

Prototype 2
b ˙ œ œ œ¿œ¿œ¿ œ œ œ¿ œ¿ œ¿ œ¿œ¿ œ¿ œ¿
& b b Œ ‰ œJ Jœ œ Jœ ˙ ˙
j
˙ #œ

‰ œJ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ Ó
Prototype 3
b Œ œœ ˙ œ œ œ ¿ œ¿ ˙
&bb Ó
3

^
µ 3 µ b œ œ n œ b œ n œ b 5œ n œ œ œ œ œ5 œ œ œ
Prototype 4
µµµµ µ
b œ œ œ œ œ œ
&bb Ó Œ œœ ˙ œ . Jœ ˙ Œ ‰ Jœ ˙ œ œ bœ œ Œ Ó

Multiple observations can be made from these examples. In the first example, Davis’ solo
ends on the downbeat of measure 3, leaving the solo break for the next soloist. In all subse-
quent examples, however, he plays through the break, an effective device that carries Davis’
momentum into the following solo. By playing through the break, Davis prolongs the tension
that would have naturally resolved on the downbeat of measure 3. This prolonged tension
is especially effective in Prototypes 3 and 4 because of Davis’ use of f and d, pitches that are
unresolved in the key of E-flat.

Each prototype ends in a higher register than the last, adding more and more drama to
Davis’ final climaxes. The “transition motive” from the Lincoln Center concert presents the
highest final register of all of the examples. Here, Davis briefly focuses on d in measure 3
before playing an ascending figure through the solo break. The jagged rhythms add to the ten-
sion of the gesture, and the phrase dramatically concludes on the tonic (e-flat) at the downbeat
of the next chorus.

An examination of Davis’ first recording of “All of You” reveals that he is initially the only
soloist to use the “transition motive.” In subsequent recordings of the song, the other soloists
from each quintet adopt the motive, one of the many subtle examples of Davis’ influence.
 35

Melodic Treatment

The evolution of Davis’ treatment of the “All of You” melody is similar to his approach to
other popular songs during the same period. In early versions, Davis stays more or less true
to the melody, occasionally adding ornaments or altering certain notes. However, subsequent
versions reveal Davis’ gradual abandonment of the melody with more adventurous ornamen-
tations and improvisations dominating his performances. (fig. 2.42)

Figure 2.42
A B A C

“Midnight,” 1956 Melody

“Blackhawk,” 1961 Melody Ad Lib

“Plugged Nickel,” 1965 Melody Ad Lib

Plays opening phrase only

Despite his increasing tendency towards melodic abstraction, Davis consistently performs the
melody in a recognizable way during the opening phrase. (fig. 2.43)28 This initial “nod” to the
melody likely represents a compromise between Davis’ artistic impulses and the demands of
his audience, a great many of whom were fans of Davis’ earlier and less adventurous versions
of the same songs. These opening phrases also serve as convenient alternatives to “counting-
off ” the rhythm section. Without any reference to tempo, a recognizable phrase from the
beginning of a song is all the rhythm section requires to initiate their accompaniment.

Figure 2.44 illustrates that the rhythm section waits until the end of Davis’ opening figure
before entering. (fig. 2.44)29

28 Davis, ‘Round About Midnight; Davis, Peacock Alley; Davis, Blackhawk; Miles Davis, Miles Davis in Europe, (Co-
lumbia ,CL 2183, 1963). LP.; Davis, My Funny Valentine.
29 Davis, “All of You,” Valentine. Davis, “Autumn Leaves,” Europe.
 36

Figure 2.43

“Midnight,” alternate take, 1956

bb b Œ ‰ j j j ˙
1 2
^
Œ Ó
& œœœ œ . œ œ
“Peacock,” both performances, 1957
b j j
& b b Œ ‰ œj œj œ œ ˙
1

œ. œ

“Blackhawk,” 1963
b j
& b b Œ ‰ œj œj œ œ œ- œ̈ œ̈ Œ
1

“Europe,” 1963

b j œ
1

&bb ‰ œ
œ. œ. . œ - œ̈ œ̈ Œ
“Valentine,” 1964
b ‰ j œ œj œ- œ̈ œ̈ Œ
1

&bb ‰ œ. œ .

Figure 2.44

b ‰ j œ œj œ- œ̈ œ̈ Œ
“All of You” 1 2

&bb ‰ œ. œ .
B bPedal

? bb >
b ∑ ∑ Û̈ ‰ Û |
J

b œ. Œ Ó
“Autumn Leaves”
b œ # œ œ
1

&b Œ œ. #œ nœ œ œ # œ # œ n œ
3
C min7 F 7
>
? bb ∑ Ó Û. ‰ Û |
J
 37

Note the similarity between the accompaniment in “All of You” and “Autumn Leaves.” In both
cases, a short rhythmic motive is used by the rhythm section to establish the tempo of the
performance before settling into a standard two-beat style of accompaniment. The following
examples show how this rhythmic motive evolves through years of performances of “All of
You.” (fig. 2.45)30

Figure 2.45 “Peacock,” 1957

b ‰ j j œ œj ˙ j
1

&bb Œ œ œ œ. œ
B b7 Eb

? bb Œ ‰ ‰ Ó Ó Û. Û
b
J
“Blackhawk,” 1961
b ‰ j jœ j
1 2

&bb Œ œ œ œ œ- œ̈ œ̈ Œ ∑
Eb

? b ∑ Ó Œ
bb ’ ’ ’ ’ ’

“Valentine,” 1964
b ‰ jœ j
1 2

&bb ‰ œ œ . œ œ- œ̈ œ̈ Œ ∑
.
œ¨ >œ ˙
? bb œ œ ˙
b ∑ ∑ œ ‰ œ ˙
J

In the last of these examples, we see that this short rhythmic motive has developed into a full-
blown arrangement. (fig. 2.46)31

b ‰ jœ j ÿ
Figure 2.46 &bb ‰ œ œ . œ œ- œ̈ œ̈ Œ ∑ Œ ‰ j ‰ œ.
. œ b˙ ˙
œ¨ >œ ˙ ´
()
B b 13s us b 9
? b œ œ ˙ >
bb ∑ ∑ œ ‰ œ ˙ ∑ Û̈ ‰ Û |
J J

b ‰ œj œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ œ œ
í
&bb Œ Ó ‰œ
œœ œ ¿
Œ Ó
k¿
œ¨ >œ ˙ G min7/B b

? bb œ œ ˙ >
b œ ‰œ ˙ ∑ Û̈ ‰ Û |
J J

30 Davis, Peacock; Davis, Blackhawk; Davis, Valentine.

31 Davis, “All of You,” Valentine, measures 1-8.
 38

Clearly, this aspect of the 1964 framework is the result of an evolution that began years before
when Davis started performing “All of You” without a standard “count-off.”

Harmonic Treatment

From 1956 to 1964, versions of Davis’ “All of You” demonstrate an increased degree
of harmonic complexity and color. Aspects of Davis’ original harmonic design are altered
through new chord extensions, the use of modal interchange, complex chord substitutions and
the addition of chromatic passing chords.

Measures 1-6

One of the critical aspects of this evolution involves the pervasive use of the melodic mi-
nor scale. At first, the use of a-flat minor in measures 1-6 is represented horizontally. Soloists
from the ‘Round About Midnight version use the a-flat melodic minor scale over the normal
progression of Fmin7(b5)-Bb7(b9). (see figure 2.33)

In versions with Davis’ second quintet, pianist Wynton Kelly presents the a-flat melodic
minor scale vertically, adding a new color to the harmony in measures 1-8. (fig. 2.47)32

Figure 2.47
Ab melodic minor

F m7 b 5() ()
B b7 b 9 Eb 9 F m7 b 5 () ()
B b7 b 9

œœ ‰ œ œ œ.
6

b j œœ . j
j Ó
1 2 3 4

& b b ‰ œœ Œ n œœ. œ Œ œ .. œ Œ ‰ œœ ‰ œœ
bœ J b ˙˙ œ -
-
œœ .. œœ ˙˙ b œœœ œœ
? bb ∑ J Ó Œ # œ œœ Ó œ œ
b

œ. œ j œ ˙ ¿¿¿¿
? bb ˙ J œ. œ œ ˙ ¿¿¿¿¿ œ
3

b ¿
3

() ()
3

F m7 b 5 B b7 b 9 Eb 9
6
G m9 C7
j
bb œ . ‰ n œœj ˙˙
5 6 7 8

& b œ. œœ Ó œœ Œ œœ n œœ œœœ œœœ .. ‰ Ó

œ œ œœ ˙˙ œ. .
œ. b œœœ œœ. œœ n œœ
? b œœ .. J Œ # œ. œ Œ œ #œ nœ ˙ œœ œœ
Ó
bb

? bb ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ j
J œ. J nœ. œ
b œ. ˙ J œ nœ.
Ab melodic minor

32 Davis, Blackhawk.
 39

Despite these vertical representations of A-flat melodic minor, Chambers’ bass line remains
anchored to a basic V-I progression.

This conception is also present in the version of “All of You” from the 1964 concert at
Lincoln Center. (fig. 2.48)

Figure 2.48
j 1-
‰ œj œ œ̈ ‰ œ.
2 3 4

&b ‰ œ œ œ œ̈ Œ ∑ Œ ‰ j
. . œ b˙ « ˙
. ( )>
B b 13s us b 9

bb ∑ ∑
>
œ. ‰ œ ˙ w b œœ ‰ œœ ˙˙
& b J J

œ œ ˙ w b œœœ œœ ˙˙
? bb
b ∑ ∑ ‰ J ‰ Jœ ˙

? b œ œ œ œ œ œ
bb ∑ ∑ ‰ J œ w ‰ J œ
> >

Hancock’s use of a-flat melodic minor over a V bass pedal (Bb) during the opening statement
of the melody results in a colorful Bb13sus(b9) chord.

Also notable in this performance is Ron Carter’s bass line under measures 3-4 of the form
during the solos. Here, Carter’s line suggests Abmin6 as the harmony, a departure from
the Fmin7(b5)-Bb7(b9) that characterizes Paul Chambers’ lines in previous versions. This
return to a subdominant-tonic progression brings the harmony back to where Porter had
originally intended.

The impact of the melodic minor scale also makes itself known in other measures of
the form during the solos. This discussion is reserved for analysis of individual solos in
Chapter Four.

Measure 10

The framework to “All of You” accommodates two basic chord progressions at m. 10: one
to accompany the melody and the other for solos. In the case of the melodic accompaniment,
we find several variations. (fig. 2.49)33

33 Davis, Midnight; Davis, Blackhawk; Davis, Valentine.

 40

Figure 2.49
G b7 #11/D b
First quintet

bbb
10

& ’ ’ ’ ’
G b dim7
Second quintet

bbb
10

& ’ ’ ’ ’
B bPedal
>
Third quintet

b
10

& b b Û̈ ‰ Û |
J

The use of Gbdim7 in the versions following ‘Round About Midnight once again brings the
harmony closer to Porter’s original conception.

As for the solo framework, all three quintets are content in using Gbmin7 in measure 10.
In later versions of “All of You,” the chromatic string of parallel minor seven chords at mea-
sures 9-11 provides an excellent opportunity for soloists to insert the melodic minor scale.
(fig. 2.50)34

Figure 2.50

Coleman Solo
( )
G m m aj7 ( )
G b m m aj7 ( )
F m m aj7

b
8 9 10 11

& b b Œ ‰ j œ nœ nœ œ #œ œ j bœ œ œ œ ˙ Œ œ nœ ˙ Œ
3

nœ œ nœ œ
Hancock Solo
( ) ( )
G m m aj7 G b m m aj7 F min7

bb j œ # œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ
œ # œ œ œ œœœ
8 9 10 11

b
& œ Œ ‰ n œ œ n œ b œ b œ n œ œ
3

œ # œ n œ # œ œ

Measures 13-16

Each of the three quintets discussed here provides a distinct way of approaching measures
13-16 of the form. Each prototype features more harmonic complexity than the one that pre-
ceded it. (fig. 2.51)

34 Davis, Valentine.
 41

Figure 2.51

( ) B b7 (b9)
Prototype 1
Eb D b7 F m7 b 5
bbb
C7

& ’ ’ ’ ’ ’’’’ ’’’’ ’’’’

13 14 15 16

b 7(# 9) b 7(# 9) C 7(# 9) F m7 (b 5) B b7 (b 9)

Prototype 2

bb E D
& b ’ ’ ’ ’ ’’’’ ’’’’ ’’’’
13 14 15 16

( )
Prototype 3
E b7 D b7 C 7 E M7 #11
bb
D7 B Maj7

& b ’ ’ ’ ’ ’’’’ ’’’’ ’’’’

13 14 15 16

Prototype 2 provides significant new harmonic color with the addition of raised ninths on
Eb7, Db7 and C7. In Prototype 3, the insertion of a new chord (D7) and the use of tri-tone
substitutions contribute to a significantly higher level of chromaticism. In a sense, the use of
Bmaj7-Emaj7#11 in measures 15-16 can be traced to Ahmad Jamal’s original version. It is in
this version that Jamal alters the melody from a c-natural to a c-flat, an alteration adopted by
Davis. This alteration replaces a pitch that is not supported by Bmaj7-Emaj7#11 (c-natural)
with one that is (c-flat), creating an opportunity for the substitution and adding a new level of
harmonic color to the performance.

Measure 26

In versions by the first two quintets, the harmony at m. 26 is Adim7 for both the melody
and solos. This changes in versions by the third quintet. Here, we find that the Adim7
chord at measure 26 of the melody has been converted to Amin7(b5)-D7(b9) during the solos.
(fig. 2.52)35

35 Davis, Europe.
 42

Figure 2.52

b ‰ j œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ n œj œ . œ
25 26 27

&bb Ó
3

Coleman œœ J Aeolian Scale (diatonic)

A m7 (b 5) œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ œ
b
A Maj7 D 7 #11 G m11

? bb œ œ œ œ n œ œ œ nœ nœ œ
Carter b nœ œ

b
25 26
œ œ # œj œ
Hancock &bb Ó œ œ œ œ œ œ nœ Melodic Minor Scale

nœ nœ œ
() œ œ œ œ œ
3

A b Maj7
œ œ œ
A m7 b 5
? bb œ
D 7alt

b œ nœ #œ œ
Carter

Here, Coleman and Hancock use versions of the c minor scale to express the harmony, which
is no longer Adim7. This conversion from a diminished chord to a dominant chord recalls a
similar contrast in measure 10 where Gbdim7 is changed to Gbmin7 for the solos.

The Tag Section

In order to maintain interest in an expanding tag section, the harmonies gradually

become more intricate and daring. Chromatic alterations and unusual chord substitutions
become more common as the soloists strive to keep the repeating 4-bar tag from
becoming monotonous.

The following comparison demonstrates the growing degree of harmonic complexity in

the tag section as expressed over multiple performances. (fig. 2.53)36 A high degree of famil-
iarity and coordination is required by the ensemble members to execute these substitutions in
a cohesive manner. Chapter Four explores this subject in greater detail.

36 Davis, Midnight; Davis, Blackhawk; Davis, Valentine.

 43

Figure 2.53

Standard Chord Progression

F min7 B b7 Eb C7

bb
& b ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’

C 7 (b 9)
Red Garland “Midnight” 1956
F # dim7 Eb
œ œ œ œ nœ œ nœ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ nœ nœ œ œ bœ œ
F min7

bb ‰ J bœ œ œ œ
& b Œ œ
3

Hank Mobley, “Blackhawk,” 1961

Eb
b9
F min7 E7 C 7#9

b œ œ b œ ‰ Œb œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ
&bb œ œ œ
3

‰ j œ œ œ œ nœ œ #œ #œ nœ œ œ bœ œ nœ nœ œ
œ œ bœ œ œ œ œœœœœ
3

œ nœbœ œ bœ œ
3
nœ
George Coleman, “Valentine,” 1964
B Maj7 F min7 B b7 Eb D b min7 G b7

b bœ bœœ ‰
3

&bb œ bœ œ œœœ Œ ‰ œ
œ b œ .œn œb œ œ œ n œ n œb œb œ
3

œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙

Rhythmic Treatment

The basic rhythmic framework of “All of You” remains the same through performances
by all three quintets. The bass player and drummer are limited to playing in a two-beat style
during Davis’ melodic statements and solos, but switch to swing style during the other soloists.
(fig. 2.54)

Figure 2.54

Davis Coleman Hancock Davis

“Valentine,” 1964 2-beat Swing 2-beat

This type of partitioning is common in jazz and not unique to the Miles Davis quintet. How-
ever, Ron Carter and Tony Williams manage to keep this framework fresh by exploring a
variety of rhythmic accompaniment styles while never departing from its basic structure. This
constant insertion of ostinato figures and straight eighth-note styles is characteristic of the
third quintet’s treatment of popular songs. (fig. 2.55)37

37 Davis, Blackhawk; Davis, Valentine.

 44

Figure 2.55
Form Tag
number of measures
60
“Blackhawk,” 1961 92
2-beat
2-beat

Form Tag
number of measures

“Valentine,” 1964 12
ostinato
4
2-beat
8
ostinato
8
2-beat
28
2-beat
39
2-beat
14
ostinato
60
2-beat

An increase in rhythmic complexity is also evident during the solos. Much of this is
due to Tony Williams who frequently instigates complex rhythms behind the other
performers. (fig. 2.56)

Figure 2.56

œœ nœ. œœ b œœœ b œœ .. œœ n œœ # # œœ ... n œœ n # œœ n n œœ # œ b n œœ

334 335 336 337

#œ
b
&bb ‰
œ Œ ‰ n n œœ .. œ Œ ‰ œ. œ œ Œ ‰ #œ # # # œœœ n œœ ‰ n # œœ n n œœ ‰ n œœœ b n œœ
J
b b œœ n n œœœ ... œœœœ b bn œœœ # # œœ ..
Hancock
? bb ‰ œ Œ n œœœ .. œœœœ b bb œœœ
b J ‰ # œ. Œ ‰ n œ .. Œ ‰ #œ. ∑

jy
3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3
y y y y y y y
Williams ã 5 5 5 xO +x 5 5 5 xO x+ 5 5 5 xO +x 5 5 5 xO x+ 5 5 5 xO x+ 5 5 5 xO +x 5 œ x ‰ 5 5

j3
338 339 340 341

b œ nœ bœ ˙ œœ
& b b ‰ œœ n # œœ ‰ n n œœœ b œœ Œ b œ
œœ œœ # n n œœœœ n ˙˙
œ Œ b œœœ # n n œœœ b n b œœœœ ....
3

Ó œ œ œ œ œ Œ œ
œ # œ nœ œ œ nœ J
Hancock
? bb ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
b

j y jy j y j y
3 3 3
y xy y xy y xy+ y xy y
Williams ã ‰ 5 5 ‰ 5 5 ‰ 5 5 ‰ 5 5 + + ’ ’

There is little precedent in early versions of Davis’ “All of You” for this increase in rhythmic
activity and complexity, and it represents the most unique and influential quality of his
third quintet.
 45

Summary

Chapter Two provides a glimpse into the evolution of “All of You” as performed by the
Miles Davis Quintet from 1956-64. An examination of Ahmad Jamal’s seminal recording fol-
lowed by an analysis of Davis’ many versions reveals the existence of a “living framework” that
informs all subsequent performances of the piece. In the following chapters, this framework
serves as a guide for understanding the February 12, 1964 performance with a higher degree of
specificity and clarity.
 46

Chapter Three

The “Collective Aesthetic”

Chapter Three examines the Miles Davis Quintet’s “collective aesthetic” as exhibited in their
approach to performing American popular songs.1 This shared aesthetic leads to a cohesive ap-
proach to building the overall performance and individual solos through the intensification of
basic musical elements. Additionally, it includes the incorporation of a variety of “solo styles” and
“accompaniment styles.” First, we will analyze the collective tendencies of the quintet to increase
and decrease varying degrees of intensity at key points of the performance. Next, we will show
how the soloists deliberately alternate styles during their solos to affect the accompaniment, and to
guide the overall shape of the performance. Finally, we will conclude with a discussion of common
rhythm section styles, their role in form delineation, and their correlation with varying degrees of
musical intensity.

The “Jazz Aesthetic”

In the field of musicology, there exists an ongoing discussion over the essence of which might
be called the “jazz aesthetic.”2 From this discussion, two opposing schools of thought are evident.
One holds that the “jazz aesthetic” represents a break from European forms of music, and therefore
cannot be judged using the same analytical devices of traditional Western music theory. The other

1 There have been recent attempts to discuss jazz and improvisation in light of the branch of philosophy
known as “aesthetics.” Stephan Richter’s essay “The Beauty of Building, Dwelling, and Monk: Aesthetics, Religion, and the
Architectural Qualities of Jazz” draws on Martin Heidegger’s essay “Bauen Wohnen Denken” in an attempt to confront
the “aesthetical problems” and strengths inherent in jazz improvisation. Similarly, R. Keith Sawyer’s text Group Creativity:
Music, Theatre, Collaboration expands on the theories of John Dewey and R. G. Collingwood in an attempt to develop an
“aesthetics of group creativity.” While these approaches to analysis are compelling, they lack the degree of specificity re-
quired to address the issues examined here. Instead, this essay relies on a more general definition of “aesthetic,” and focuses
on the collective “conception of beauty” that informs the performances of the Miles Davis Quintet. For more information,
see: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2009), s.v. “aesthetic.” The first definition offered is: “a branch of philosophy deal-
ing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste and with the creation and appreciation of beauty.” The second definition offered
is: “A particular theory or conception of beauty or art: a particular taste for or approach to what is pleasing to the senses and
especially sight.”; Stephan Richter, “The Beauty of Building, Dwelling, and Monk: Aesthetics, Religion, and the Architec-
tural Qualities of Jazz,” African American Review, Vol. 29, no. 2 (1995), 259; Martin Heidegger, “Bauen Wohnen Denken,”
Vorträge und Aufsätze, (Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann, 2000); R. Keith Sawyer, Group Creativity: Music, Theatre,
Collaboration (Mahwah, N.J.; London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003), 115-116. Sawyer’s theories are developed
from two texts: John Dewey, Art as Experience (New York: Minton, Balch & Company, 1934) and R. G. Collingwood, The
Principles of Art (New York: Oxford University Press, 1938).
2 William J. Harris, The Poetry and Poetics of Amiri Baraka: The Jazz Aesthetic (Columbia: Universiy of Missouri
Press, 1985), 13. Harris embraces the term “jazz aesthetic” to describe Baraka’s destruction of “Western forms.”
 47

school of thought, as represented by historiographers like Gunther Schuller, attempts to apply the
Western concept of “coherence” to jazz.3
Ingrid Monson adopts this first viewpoint in her text Saying Something: Jazz Improvisation
and Interaction. Here, she takes Schuller to task for using “criteria derived from ideas of German
romanticism and modernism”4 to evaluate jazz performances.

Ethnomusicologists have long remarked that these supposedly “timeless” artistic values
actually articulate a culturally specific notion of musical art, not an objective, universal
framework. . . . In seeking to prove to classically oriented listeners that jazz improvisa-
tion is music of merit, he [Schuller] deprecates jazz improvisers who may not share his
aesthetic criteria.5

In one important sense, Monson is correct. Certainly, there are many “great” jazz performances
whose value cannot be determined using Schuller’s criteria. Elements such as “swing,” “groove,”
“feeling” and timbre can be difficult or impossible to quantify on the written page. However, a
close examination of Schuller’s famous analysis of Sonny Rollins’ “Blue 7” reveals an important
point.6 Rollins develops his solo thematically in a way that can best be appreciated and under-
stood in the context of traditional Western musical analysis. And though there are other musical
elements to be considered here, Rollins’ development of his theme and the “cohesiveness” it gives
his solo is of primary importance to its overall meaning. This underscores the inescapable fact that
jazz is a genre of music that is heavily influenced by and largely constructed in the European musi-
cal tradition.
In Brian Harker’s essay “Telling a Story: Louis Armstrong and Coherence in Early Jazz,” we
find an eloquent defense of Western musical analysis:

To discard every critical tool that is not specifically African-American ignores both the
European influence on jazz and the cultural intersection of the two traditions on certain
fundamentals (for example, triadic harmony)…Oral histories make clear that jazz musi-
cians have always practiced “close listening” to musical texts, and that they have found…
plenty of “significance” in the notes themselves, aside from any explicit cultural ties.7

3 Brian Harker, “Telling a Story: Louis Armstrong and Coherence in Early Jazz,” Current Musicology 63 (1999),
46. Citing jazz analyses of Schuller and others, Harker describes the concept of “coherence” as “a bedrock value of Western
European musical aesthetics.”
4 Ingrid Monson, Saying Something: Jazz Improvisation and Interaction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1996), 134.
5 Ibid., 134-135.
6 Gunther Schuller, “Sonny Rollins and the Challenge of Thematic Improvisation,” in Musings: The Musical Worlds
of Gunther Schuller (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 86-97; The Jazz Review (November, 1958), 6-21.
7 Harker, “Telling a Story,” 47.
 48

Harker describes Armstrong as a “storyteller” whose approach to improvisation creates coherence

through methods of “logical development and progressive expansion.” He goes on to summarize
the qualities that make Armstrong’s early work so revolutionary, in particular the “inexorable,
climactic trajectory of Armstrong’s solos.” And it is in this “climactic trajectory” that we find a
parallel between Armstrong’s seminal style and the Miles Davis quintet nearly forty years later.
Even Monson, who seems to reject the notion that jazz can be evaluated using European ana-
lytical techniques, is forced to acknowledge this “climactic trajectory” and the coherence created
through the use of “large-scale development” techniques in jazz. For her analysis of a Jaki Byard
Quartet performance, Monson provides an “intuitive schematic diagram,” a visual representation
“of the intensification occurring over the course of the performance.”8 Similarly, Todd Coolman’s
dissertation utilizes intuitive diagrams to describe how the textural, temporal and durational
changes in a performance of “Stella By Starlight” lead to an overall structural climax.9 Though well
intentioned, these diagrams are imprecise and fail to accurately convey the specific elements of reg-
ister, dynamics and rhythmic density that contribute to the peaks and valleys of the performances.
In order to address this lack of precision and to avoid the “intuitive” method of analysis,
detailed diagrams have been created using digital waveforms and midi-graphs. These diagrams
effectively depict the “climactic trajectory” of the performance and provide an accurate visual
representation of dynamics (waveforms), register changes and rhythmic density (midi-graphs). By
superimposing them over a chart that indicates other aspects of the performance, one can see how
shifts in these areas intersect with elements of form, instrumentation and style. Looking ahead,
Chapter Four will show that an adherence to this “climactic trajectory” and the “collective aesthet-
ic” takes a central role in facilitating effective ensemble interaction in the Miles Davis Quintet.

Building Performances Through the Intensification of Various Elements

Overview
Figure 3.1 presents an overview of the entire performance of “All of You.”10 Encapsulated in
this diagram are abstract representations of the solos, a waveform that indicates shifts in dynamics,
a timeline, indications of instrumentation and an outline of basic formal units. (fig. 3.1)

8 Monson, Saying Something, 138-139.

9 Coolman, “Synthesis,” 128-132.
10 Davis, “All of You,” Round About Midnight.
Figure 3.1: All of You Overview

Large-Scale Superstructure

A B A
“Development” “Recapitulation”
“Exposition”
PEAK
PEAK

Abstract PEAK
Representation
of Pitch and
Note Duration

Waveform

Drum Texture Brushes Sticks Brushes

Soloist DAVIS COLEMAN HANCOCK DAVIS
Structure Form Tag Form Tag Form Tag Form Tag
Measures 1 - 174 176 - 291 291-437 437-524
Timeline
49
 50

As touched on in Chapter Two, the basic rhythmic framework of “All of You” is comprised of
a two-beat feel during Davis’ melodic and solo statements, with a swing feel inserted in between.11
Figure 3.1 illustrates that this contrast in feeling is further enhanced by textural changes in the
drum part. Williams uses “brushes” underneath Davis and reserves the more powerful “sticks” for
the swing feel that underlies Coleman’s and Hancock’s solos.12 Over the course of the entire per-
formance, this partitioning creates a large-scale “super-structure” that shares some of the character-
istics associated with other large-scale forms. Figure 3.1 labels the sections of this “super-structure”
as ABA, suggesting a ternary form. And while it might not constitute a ternary form in a strict
sense, the comparison is apt. Davis states the primary “thematic” material during the A sections
with improvisations that are evocative of the melody. Conversely, Coleman’s and Hancock’s solos
during the B section contain contrasting material that is clearly delineated from the rest of the
performance. Most compelling is the fact that the peak register, textural13 and dynamic intensity
of the performance is reserved for the moment immediately preceding Davis’ restatement of the
“melody.”14 From this, we recognize a similarity with classical sonata form where the structural
climax is often reserved for the end of the development section.15
An examination of the other soloists (Davis and Coleman) is also revealing. They too have
reserved the peak register and dynamic intensity of their solos for the ends of their improvisations.
From these first examples, we begin to find compelling evidence of a shared aesthetic that guides
the decisions of the performers.

Davis’ Solo
Figure 3.2 is a detailed representation of Davis’ opening melodic statement and solo. An ex-
amination of this graphic reveals several of the compelling tendencies and strategies that character-
ize Davis’ style. (fig. 3.2)

11 See Figure 2.54.

12 Barry Kernfeld, ed., “Stick,” in New Grove Dictionary, 1162. “The standard beater used by the jazz drummer.”;
Barry Kernfeld, ed., “Brush,” in New Grove Dictionary, 165. “A fan of wire or plastic strands with a hollow or stick handle,
used as an alternative to the drumstick.”
13 Although texture is not indicated in Figure 3.1, a transcription of Hancock’s solo reveals his use of block chords
during this climax.
14 Unlike Davis’ initial statement of the melody, Davis’ final chorus on the form relates to the original melody only
in abstract ways.
15 James Webster, “Sonata Form,” in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. 26 Mar. 2009. In section ii (“The
Development”) of Part 3 (“The Classical Period) of his essay, Webster states that the end of the development section “pre-
pares the structural climax” that marks the beginning of the recapitulation.
Figure 3.2: Davis In Head Plus Solo

A Sections show increased range and dynamic level. lower register in solos leasds to lower dynamic
Abstract levels during accompaniament Peak
Representation
of Pitch and
Note Duration

Waveform

Structure A b A1 c A b A1 c Tag
Measures
1-16 17-32 33-48 49-60 61-174
Timeline
51
 52

Initially evident is Davis’ tendency to approach the A sections of the form with dramatic
increases in register and dynamic level. (fig. 3.3)

Figure 3.3

j œ ˙ ˙ -œ œ w œ
b œ
œ œ œ œ bœ nœ
œ
3

&bb Ó Œ Ó
3
3

17
bœ bœ œ œ 18 19 20 21

˙. ˙ œ œ œ bœ œ
b b œ bœ œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ œ nœ bœ Ó
&bb Œ œ
3

œ
3

œ
3 3

49
bœ bœ œ œ 50 51 52

b ‰ j œ œ œ œ b œ n œ # œ œ œ Œ Ó œ. œ. ˙
&bb Œ Ó ∑
3 3

œ œ
437 438 439

bœ bœ. œ w ˙.
bbb b œ œ œ œ œ œ3 œ œ œ
œ œ Œ
3

& œ œ œ nœ œ œ
3 3
j
nœ
454 455 456 457

These gestures serve important functions on the local and long-range levels. Locally, they act as
rhetorical gestures that effectively delineate the primary sections of the form (A sections).16 In a
long-range sense, Davis “teases” the listener with the suggestion of a climax, a peak that remains
unfulfilled until the end of his solo.
Second, Davis’ strategic forays into the lower part of his register, suggest the existence of a
long-range plan to build his solo. In tandem with less rhythmic activity and a sparser texture, these
forays function as cues to the rhythm section whose accompaniment subsequently mirrors Davis’
trajectory. This proves to be an effective strategy for cueing the start of Davis’ tag section, a strategy
also adopted in Coleman’s and Hancock’s solos.

16 Paul Rinzler, “Preliminary Thoughts on Analyzing Interaction Among Jazz Performers,” Annual Review of Jazz
Studies 4 (1988), 156-157. Rinzler describes “accenting the ends of formal units” as one of the five primary types of interac-
tions in jazz.
Figure 3.4: Coleman Solo

Descending sequence of Peak is held out for emphasis

A sections marked by extremes of range. long notes cues TAG and decrescendo
Abstract
Representation
of Pitch and
Note Duration

Waveform

Structure (A) b A1 c A b A1 c Tag

Measures
175-188 189-204 205-220 221-232 233-290
Timeline
53
 54

Coleman’s Solo
Taking a close look at Coleman’s solo, similarities in the aesthetic viewpoints of the performers
start to emerge. (fig. 3.4) The first comparison to be made is in regards to Coleman’s approaches to
the A sections. (fig. 3.5)

Figure 3.5

bœ ˙ b œ œ3 œ ˙ .
bœ œ
186 187 188 189 190 191

bb Ó œ bœ œ œ bœ œ œ œ
bœ nœ œ œ Œ
V b

202 203 204 205 206 207

. œ œ œœ
b
Vbb Œ ‰ œ. œ œ J bœ bœ œ ˙
J J

bœ bœ œ œ
b œ œ nœ œ b œ œ . œJ œ
218 219 220 221 222 223

œ œ bœ bœ Œ œ bœ œ
Vbb ‰ nœ bœ œ bœ bœ ˙ Œ œŒ
3

œ bœ b˙

As with Davis, Coleman delineates the important structural points of the form by going to extreme
points of his available register. The last of the above examples demonstrates a contrast with Davis.
Here, Coleman delineates the form by going to the lowest point of his register, a strategy that
proves to be equally effective.
Coleman also manages to delineate the form by using less rhythmic activity during the A
sections and more rhythmic activity during the B and C sections. (fig. 3.6) Going back to Chap-
ter Two, it is evident that the increase in activity in the B and C sections is largely the result of the
song’s natural framework. A discussion of Hancock’s solo in the next section reveals a similar
delineation of the form.
Like Davis, Coleman transitions to the tag section of his solo by playing fewer notes, longer
rhythms, a lower dynamic level and by going to a lower part of his range. This transition begins at
the final C section of Coleman’s solo (1:30). Here, instead of playing in a rhythmically dense fash-
ion, Coleman starts to play longer note values in a style more reminiscent of the A sections. (fig. 3.7)
 55

Figure 3.6
Average
3
œ œ notes per measure
bœ ˙
174

&b ∑ ∑ ‰ J ∑ (NPM)

A œ œ œ œ œ œ nœ
bœ nœ œ. j 3 œ œ œ w ‰ nœ œ œ
#œ œ œ
178

&b ‰ Œ
J 2.75

œ œ œ 3 œ
œ œ ˙ œ #œ ˙ j 3 œ œ œ
nœ œ bœ ‰ œ œ #œ œ
182

&b J
Œ Œ
B
nœ œ #œ #œ #œ œ b œ œ œ n œ #3œ œ # œ bœ œ bœ ˙ b œ œ3 œ
bœ œ œbœ œ bœ œ œ bœ œ
3

œ #œnœ Ó
186

&b 6.25

˙. œ œ œ œ
190
bœ nœ œ œ Œ ‰ œ b˙ œ œ ˙
&b Œ
J Ó
A
œ œ œ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ ˙ bœ bœ bœ œ œ
3

œ œ bœ nœ nœ #œ
194

&b Ó Ó
3

œ œ œ œ. œœ
3

œœ œ œ œ œ œœ œ
œ
œ nœ œ œ œ œ#œ#œ #œ œ œ œ.bœ
&b œ œœœœœ œ œ #œ . nœ bœ ‰œ œ bœ
198

œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ Ó
C œœ œ
œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ #œ nœ œ˙ .
‰ œJ. œ œ
œ
œœœ n œ ‰ ≈ # œr œ œ œ J
202

&b ‰ Œ Œ ‰ Œ
J 8.5

Figure 3.7

Coleman C Section, 1st chorus

b œ b œ œ œ 198œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ nœ œ œ œ
œ nœ œ. bœ bœ œ
3

b
bœ nœ nœ nœ bœ œÓ
197 199 200

Vbb Ó œœœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ
Coleman C Section, 2nd chorus.
231 œ
b œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ bœ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ
229 230 232

Vbb Ó Ó

œ œ œ. bœ œ œ
Coleman C Section, 1st chorus (cont.)
œ
b œ œ bœ œ nœ #œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ bœ œ nœ nœ bœ ‰ ≈ r œ œ œ ˙
Vbb ‰ ‰ Œ Œ œœœ #œ œ
201 202 203 204

œ
Coleman C Section, 2nd chorus (cont.)
b bœ œ ˙ œ
œ œ3 œ œ 3 ˙ œ œ œ œ bw
Vbb Ó
233 234 235 236
 56

The use of a particularly lyrical sequence provides the final impetus that transitions Coleman into
the tag section (1:45).
Coleman’s climax comes near the end of his solo and coincides with the highest register of
his performance (2:25). As with the other solos, the buildup to this peak starts at the beginning
of the tag section. The waveform in Figure 3.3 demonstrates that this is the lowest dynamic point
of his solo (1:50). In order to lead the ensemble from this low dynamic point to a climax, Cole-
man gradually increases the harmonic and rhythmic intensity of his playing. This is achieved via
the introduction of a unique chord substitution pattern and through a barrage of sixteenth notes.17
When Coleman finally reaches his peak note, he holds it out for 5 beats. This is in stark contrast to
the rhythmic density of the previous measures, a contrast that helps to identify this moment as the
climax of the solo.
The waveform in Figure 3.4 shows the rhythm section following Coleman’s trajectories with
masterful sensitivity in regards to dynamics (1:50-3:15). Not only are they able to build the inten-
sity of their accompaniment in concert with Coleman, but they also facilitate a gradual decrease
in intensity after his climax. Decreases in intensity are an important aspect of transitioning to the
next soloist, and a similar decrease at the end of Hancock’s solo will be examined later.

Hancock’s Solo
Figure 3.8 demonstrates that Hancock’s solo exhibits many of the same characteristics found
in Davis and Coleman’s performances. (fig. 3.8)
Once again, the A sections are delineated through motion to a higher register and through
increases in dynamic intensity. (fig. 3.9)

Figure 3.9 A

b œ b œ3 œ ˙. œ œ
305 306

bbb ‰ œ bœ bœ œ œ bœ bœ œ
3

&
3 3

œ bœ bœ œ bœ bœ œ œ
œ
321 322

& b bb Ó ‰œ
J

. œ n œ ‰ œ n œ. # œ œ >
334 335 336 337 338

b . œ
& b b ‰ Jœ Œ ‰ n œ . ‰ œJ Œ ‰ œ ‰ J Œ ‰ #œ ‰ # Jœ n œ n œ b œ Œ
.

17 A more specific discussion of Coleman’s chord substitutions is reserved for Chapter 4.

Figure 3.8: Hancock Solo

A sections are marked by less rhythmic Peak

Descent to bottom of range
activity than B and C sections.
A sections are marked by an allows for build to the higher notes
Abstract
increased range in dynamic
Representation
of Pitch and
Note Duration

Waveform

Structure (A) b A1 c A b A1 c Tag

Measures 291-305 306-321 338-349 350-437
322-337
Timeline
57
 58

As with Coleman, these delineations are fortified by an increase in rhythmic activity during the B
and C sections. (fig. 3.10)

Figure 3.10 Average

b ˙ œ œ3 œ b w œ œ œ œ
notes per measure
Œ
290

&bb œ œ
bœ ˙
Ó (NPM)

A
b ‰ œj j ‰ b œ3 n œ
294

&bb œ ˙. Œ Ó Œ
3 3 3 3

œœœœœœœœœ #œ
j œ œ bœ œ bœ
3.75

^œ
b j 3 j 3 j 3 œ œ œ œ #œ œ
298

& b b nœ œ ‰#œ œ nœ œ ‰#œ œ nœ nœ ‰#œ œ œ œ bœ nœ œ Œ œ Œ ‰ J ‰

3
j
#œ

B
b œ œ Œ b 3œ œ
œ œ3 œ Œ œ n œ3 œ b œ b œ3 œ Œ ‰ bœ bœ œ œ bœ bœ œ bœ
3

bœ bœ œ Ó
302 3

&bb J Œ Œ
3 3

œ 6.25

˙. œ œ ˙ œ ˙.
b œ œ œ œ œ ˙
306

&bb œ œ
A
œ œ. .
b .
& b b bœ œ nœ œ œ ˙ Œ n œj œ b œ œ œ œ ‰ n œ œ
310

J w
r
3
3 3

J J #œ
J J 3.125

b œ œ3 œ Œ œ3 œ3
‰ nœ œ œ œ ‰ œ #œ œ œ Œ ‰ j ‰ j # œj œ œ œ b œ œ œ n œ œ b œ
314

&bb Ó
3 3

œ œ nœ
œ bœ b œ œ
>œ œ œ # œj >œ
C
b
&bb œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ nœ œ œ œ œ œ
318

œ # œj œ Œ Ó
3

> > > 5.875

Hancock also seems to delineate the larger structure of his solo by engaging in increased
levels of rhythmic intensity during the tag section (1:40-4:00). This stands in contrast to
Hancock’s approach to the regular 32-bar form where he favors longer rhythms and a more lyrical
style (0:00-1:30).
Figure 3.8 illustrates that Hancock’s tag section features two climaxes instead of one. Each
climax is preceded by a deliberate movement to a lower register, thereby cueing the rhythm section
and providing maximum space for building. In both cases, the climaxes are reinforced with longer
note values and thicker textures. (fig. 3.11)
 59

Figure 3.11
œ œ ˙ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ ˙˙˙ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ
378 379 380 381 382

b œ # œj œ ˙ # # œœ œœ
&bb œ œ ˙ Œ ‰ ˙ ‰ ‰ # Jœ œ ˙
œœ œœ œœ # # œœ # # œœ œœ œœ
œ œ ˙
? b b œœ œœ ˙˙
œ n œœœ n œœ .. b œœ
‰ œœJ ‰ œ ‰
œ œ ‰ J ‰ ‰ œ œ. n œ Ó ‰ n œ ‰ # œ ‰ # Jœ œ ‰ œ ‰ œ
b œ J
bœ n
n b n œœœœ ˙˙˙ œ
b ‰œœœ œœœ
383 384

j
& b b
#œ ˙ ‰J
œœ .. œœ
œœœœ œœœœ œœœ
Block Chords

? bb ‰ œ . ‰
œ œ
‰JŒ
b J Peak at Solo

√
œ œ œ bœ œ bœ bœ nœ œ bœ œ n œ b ¨œ >œ œ
b œ œ n œ œ œ b œ œ b œ œ b œ œ n œœ œœ œ œ b b b œœœ œ b bb œœœ œ n œ œ ‰b œ b œ œ ‰ Œ
& b b œ œ œ œ œ ‰ bœ œ bœ bœ bœ œ ‰ nœ œ J J Ó
#œ œ nœ œœœ
œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ œ œ œ nœ œ œ bœ œ
? b b œœ n œœ œœ œœ œœ ‰ b œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ ‰ œœ œœ œœ œ n n œœ œœ n n # œœœ œœœ n œœœ œœœ ‰n b b œœœ œ ‰ Œ
b ‰ ‰ J Ó
426 427 428 429 430

The second climax is more substantial than the first. It is here that we find the highest range of
Hancock’s solo (indeed the highest range of the entire performance), and it comes right before the
transition to the last chorus on the normal form of the song. As with Coleman, Hancock quickly
descends from this climax allowing a smooth dynamic transition to Davis’ final statement.

Partitioning Solos Through Use of Contrasting Styles

Jazz musicians make use of a wide variety of well-established solo and accompaniment styles.
These styles can be interchanged over the course of a solo or larger performance to create contrast
and to delineate formal areas. A shared familiarity with each style’s characteristic qualities allows
for cohesive improvised interactions. Robert Hodson touches on this point in his analysis of an
interaction between saxophonist Cannonball Adderley and pianist Wynton Kelly:

Kelly’s strong, bluesy voicing of this chord seems to have a galvanizing effect on the per-
formance. It’s almost as if Adderley hears this chord, draws upon his knowledge of jazz
 60

styles he shares with Wynton Kelly, realizes that this harmonic configuration signifies the
blues style, and responds to Kelly’s assertion by continuing his improvisation in a blues
idiom. This type of interaction might be compared to a conversation: Kelly suggests a
“topic” (the blues style), Adderley “responds” by elaborating on the topic.18

Interestingly, Hodson uses the term “topic” in place of “style,” a term derived from Leonard
Ratner’s landmark text, Classic Music: Expression, Form and Style.19 In his second chapter, Ratner
uses the term “topic” to describe the prevalent “types” and “styles” of 18th Century classical music,
defining “type” as a “fully worked-out piece” and “style” as a “figure or progression within a piece.”
He is also quick to point out that the “distinction between types and styles is flexible.” Although
“minuets and marches represent complete types of composition, they also furnish styles for other
pieces.” As Hodson implies, a parallel to this concept is easily found in jazz. The term “blues,” for
instance, may be used to describe a “type” of composition, i.e. the standard twelve-bar blues pro-
gression. The term “blues” may also be used to describe the “blues style,” the use of which
may color certain sections of compositions or improvisations that are unrelated to the twelve-bar
blues form.
The discussion of “style” in Chapter Three focuses on three of the primary solo styles used by
Davis and his cohorts: the “blues style,” the “lyrical style” and the “bebop style.” As well, I reveal the
existence of other styles that are utilized in specific instances, including the “polymetric style” and
what I call the “swinging style.” As previously discussed, a mutual sensitivity to and understanding
of these styles leads to a more efficient interactive environment. Upon hearing a shift in style, the
performers can instantly draw upon a large vocabulary of complimentary solo and accompaniment
figures, leading to a more cohesive performance. Similarly, these styles tend to suggest specific
directions as to changes in dynamic intensity, instrumentation and texture.

Davis’ Solo
During the tag section of his solo, Davis alternates between improvising in a more “lyrical
style”20 with playing in a more syncopated/articulated style that is rich in “blues”21 vocabulary.
(fig. 3.12)
18 Hodson, Interaction, 8.
19 Leonard Ratner, Classic Music: Expression, Form and Style (New York: Schirmer Books, 1980), 9.
20 Ibid, 19. Ratner defines the “singing style” as “music in a lyric vein, with a moderate tempo and a melodic line
featuring relatively slow note values and a rather narrow range.” This definition easily applies to Davis’ use of the “lyrical
style.”
21 A defining aspect of the “blues style” is the use of “blue notes,” the lowered seventh, fifth and third scale degrees
of the tonic key. For more information, see J. Bradford Robinson “Blue Note,” in New Grove Dictionary, 120.
Figure 3.12: Davis’ Tag Section

Short, syncopated figures cue blues vocabulary

Abstract Rhythmic dissonance
Representation cues return of drums
of Pitch and
Note Duration TAG motif

Dramatic gestures are preludes

to “lyrical” sections of the TAG
Waveform

Structure TAG
Solo Style Lyrical Blues Lyrical Blues 61-174
Lyrical Blues Lyrical Blues

Measures 60-68 70-80 81-91 93-98 99-112 113-133 133-148 149-167

Timeline
61
 62

These alternations in style provide clear contrasts within a repeating 4-bar progression that by itself
lacks the musical diversity of a larger form.
As well, Davis facilitates complimentary accompaniment by the rhythm section by cueing his
transitions between these styles in an unambiguous way.22 The most obvious of these cues take
place when Davis is playing in the “lyrical style” and seeks to transition to the “blues style.” He ac-
complishes this by playing short, syncopated figures as pickups to the repeated 4-bar phrase.23
(fig. 3.13)

Figure 3.13
“Blues Style”
b œ
- œ
69 70

&bb Ó Œ Œ ˙
Œ

b œ
^ œ.
3
œ œ œ. œ
J œ
93 94

&bb Ó ‰ Œ ‰ nœ
J

b œ œ
^
œ œ œ˛ œ
&bb ˙
113 114

‰ J ‰ ¿ Œ

b œ. œ.
149 150

&bb Ó ‰ ¿
J
‰ œ œ. Œ Ó

In each case, the eighth notes are “swung” in an exaggerated manner, placing them in relief with the
lyrical, unarticulated quality of the preceding measures.24
Davis’ techniques for transitioning from the “blues style” to the “lyrical style” are slightly
harder to quantify. However, some tendencies become apparent upon closer examination. In some
cases, an episode in the “lyrical style” is immediately preceded by a dramatic upward or downward
gesture. (fig. 3.14)

22 A more detailed discussion of how solo styles affect accompaniment styles is found in Chapter 4.
23 Luca Bragalini. “My Funny Valentine: The Disintegration of the Standard” Italy: Musica Jazz; Volume 53, no. 8/9,
August/September, 1997. Bragalini refers to these cues as “sound signals.”
24 Kernfeld, “Beat,” in New Grove Dictionary, 86. Part 3 of Kernfeld’s article presents four possible methods for
notating “swing eighth-notes.” The third of these methods divides the beat into eighth note triplets with the first “swing
eighth-note” consisting of a quarter note triplet and the second consisting of an eighth note triplet. For the purposes of this
study, this conception of “swing” is used.
 63

Figure 3.14

3 œ œ bœ
3

œ
œ nœ œ œ œ œ J Œ œ œ œ
to “lyrical style”
b
3

œ œ J J œ œ. œ œ. œ œJ œ œ
&bb Ó œ nœ œ Ó ‰ J
3 3

J J J
54 55 56 57 58

œ œ œ3 œ b œ3œ œ œ œ œ œ w
to “lyrical style”
œ w
b œœœœ œ J œ œ ˙
3

& b b œ œ nœ œ œ
3

Œ
3 3

81 82 83 84 85
to “lyrical style”

b œ. œ œ œ . œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
3

& b b ‰n Jœ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ n œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ . n œ œ ˙ Ó œ . œj œ œ ˙ .
3

J J nœ
93 94 95 96 97 98 99

In the case of the upward gestures, Davis is creating room for a registral descent that helps to
reinforce the stylistic transition. Downward gestures accomplish the same thing, but without the
dramatic effect that accompanies the sound of the trumpet in its highest range.
Sometimes, Davis transitions to the “lyrical style” through the use of the “tag motive,” a lyrical
theme discussed in Chapter Two. (fig. 3.15)

Figure 3.15
Tag Motive

b œ. œ œ œ œ ˙. ˙. Œ Œ ‰ œJ œ œ œ ˙ Œ ‰ œj ‰ œ ‰ œ œ œ . œ . œ œ œ . ˙
&bb J œ w
Ó Œ œ
œœ œ
133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141

This motive functions as an effective transitional cue despite lacking an obvious rhetorical or sig-
nifying device. Its instantly recognizable theme is all the rhythm section requires for interpreting
Davis’ intentions.

Coleman’s Solo
Although Coleman’s use of contrasting styles during the tag is not always as explicit as Davis’,
it is just as evident. Moreover, Coleman makes use of the “bebop style,” an additional stylistic color
not represented in Davis’ solo.25 (fig. 3.16)

25 For a detailed description of the “bebop style,” see Thomas Owens, “Bop,” in New Grove Dictionary, 137-38.
Figure 3.16

Abstract
Representation
of Pitch and
Note Duration

Waveform

Structure Tag
Solo Style Lyrical Swinging Lyrical 61-174 Bebop (Transitional) Blues Lyrical Bebop

Measures 234-241 234-241 242-248 257-262 263-270 271-281 282-287 288

Timeline
64
 65

As with Davis, Coleman’s tag section begins in the “lyrical style.” (fig. 3.17)

Figure 3.17
Begin Tag Section

b
233 234 235 236 237

&bb œ Ó Ó ‰
œ b œj
3 3

bœ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ bw

b
238 239 240 241 242

&bb Œ Œ ∑ œ œ Œ Ó
3

b˙. bœ œ œ bœ nœ w .

Coleman’s use of chromaticism is in contrast to Davis’ “lyrical style” which is mostly diatonic in
character. However, the use of long notes and a downward trajectory effectively guides the rhythm
section to a lower dynamic.
Coleman effectively cues the rhythm section out of the “lyrical style” at m. 242 in a manner
reminiscent of Davis. (fig. 3.18)

Figure 3.18

245 246 247 248

b
242 243 244

&bb œ Œ Ó ‰ j œb œ b œn œ œ œ Œ Ó ‰œœ bœ bœ nœ bœ Œ Ó œ ‰ œ bœ œ Ó
œ. œ
œ œœ . œ bœ œ. œ bœ nœ ˙

Cues “Swinging Style”

Two simple eighth notes played with an exaggerated swing feel on the downbeat of a new 4-bar
phrase instantly indicates Coleman’s shift in style. He emphasizes this effect by repeating the
figure every two measures, providing additional motivic coherence to the solo. The music in these
measures contains rhythmic elements of the “blues style,” but is devoid of any “blues” vocabulary.
Therefore, the style is described as “swinging” in reference to the exaggerated swing feel that char-
acterizes the eighth notes.
 66

In measures 248-56, Coleman reverts to the “lyrical style” by once again emphasizing longer
notes. (fig. 3.19)

Figure 3.19 “Lyrical Style”

248 249 250 251 252

b ‰ j œ nœ œ œ bœ bœ œ bœ œ œ ˙ œ. ‰ bœ œ bœ
3

Vbb ˙ Ó ˙ Ó
3 3

œ nœ

œ nœ œ bœ œ œ b œ3
253 254 255 256

b œ b œ œ nœ œ bœ bœ œ œ œœœœ
‰ œœ
3

Vbb œ œœœ ˙ Œ

The lyrical qualities of these measures provide an effective contrast for the barrage of notes that
follows. (fig. 3.20)

Figure 3.20
“Bebop Style”

bœ œ b œ œ œ n œ n œ b œ b œ258 b œ œ œ b œ b œ œ œ œ œ
œ bœ bœ œ œ ‰ Œ #œ œ nœ bœ œ nœ œ œ œ œ œ
256 257 259

b ‰ œœ bœ. œ nœ œ
Vbb ˙ Œ ‰

œœ œ bœ œ œ bœ nœ œ
bb œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
b œ b œ œ b œ n œ œ3 b œ
260 261 262

‰ œ bœ Ó
3

b
V œ ‰ Œ bœ œ.

Here, Coleman draws upon his prodigious knowledge of bebop vocabulary to create another stylis-
tic contrast. The rhythmic density of these phrases stands out in relationship to the sparsity of the
previous phrase as well as the long note (measures 264-65) that occurs immediately afterwards.
After his climax and several other measures that are transitional in nature, Coleman begins
playing in the “blues style.” (fig. 3.21)

Figure 3.21

b œœŒ Ó - b œ. œ œ œ œ œ > .
œ >œ œ n œ b œ b œ œ b œ Œ
‰œ œŒ ‰ œJ
272 273 274 275 276

Vbb Œ J J Ó

œ bœ. nœ bœ. bœ œ b œ œ œ œ . b -œ .
b ‰ œJ
277 278 279 280 281

J J œ œ.
Vbb Œ Œ ˙ Œ ∑
 67

Unlike measures 242-248, which feature a similar use of “swinging” eighth notes, measures 271-
280 are largely characterized by “blues” vocabulary. Coleman’s use of the “blues style” here is
particularly effective in drawing Hancock into a “call and response” dialogue, an aspect of the solo
discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.26
The last few bars of Coleman’s solo are in the “lyrical style,” and are also transitional in nature.
(fig. 3.22)

Figure 3.22
Sequence
282
œ œ. œ
283 284
œ œ œ nœ #œ.
285

b œ nœ ˙
Vbb Œ ‰ J J Œ Ó J Ó

286 Sequence 287

b ˙
V b b ‰ œ. ˙ ˙

Transition Motive

As with his foray into the tag section (measures 233-240), Coleman favors sequences at important
points of transition. This can perhaps be traced to the ubiquitous “transition motive” which is also
sequential in construction.

Hancock’s Solo
Unlike Davis and Coleman, Hancock’s solo on the tag section revolves largely around the use
of one style. (fig. 3.23) As Figure 3.23 illustrates, Hancock’s performance relies primarily on what
I refer to as the “polymetric style.”27 He uses this style to superimpose triple meter over the native
duple meter of the accompaniment, often using forms of rhythmic displacement to heighten the ef-
fect. This “polymetric style” is at the core of Hancock’s approach to the tag. Although the “bebop,”
“blues,” and “lyrical” styles are integrated into this approach, they mostly serve in subsidiary or
transitional roles. Figure 24 illustrates this idea. (fig. 3.24)

26 Kernfeld, “Call and Response,” in New Grove Dictionary, 181. “The performance of musical phrases or longer
passages in alternation by different voices or distinct groups, used in opposition in such a way as to suggest that they answer
one another.”
27 Keith Waters, “Blurring the Barline: Metric Displacement in the Piano Solos of Herbie Hancock,” Annual Review
of Jazz Studies 8, (1996), 19-37.
Figure 3.23

Abstract
Representation
of Pitch and
Note Duration

Waveform

Structure Tag
Solo Style Bebop Polymetric
61-174
Block Chords Lyrical Blues Bebop Polymetric Swinging Block Bebop Transition
(Bebop) (Bebop) chords Motive

Measures 349-357 358-77 (368-9) 378-85 386 391-404 405-9 410-421 (414-7) 422-5 426-9 430-3 434-7

Timeline
68
 69

Figure 3.24

œ œ œ œ
“Bebop Style”
œ œ œ n œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ n œ œ œ3
œ
354 355 356 357

bb œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ nœ
& b œ bœ bœ œ bœ
œ œ
œœ œœ œœ
? b ‰ jŒ Ó Ó Œ ‰ œJ Ó Œ ‰ nœ ‰ nœ Œ Ó
bb œ J J

358
“Polymetric Style” 359 360 361

bb œ œ œ #œ œ œ nœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ œ œ
3 3 3

& b
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ n œ œ
œœœœœœœœœ œ œœœ œ œ œ
œ ˙ # n n œœœ n b b œœœ
? b
bb ∑ ∑ Œ ‰ n œJ ˙ Ó ‰ J
12 4
over
8 4

œ œ b œ n œ œ3 œ n œ n œ3 œ œ # œ n œ
362 363 364 365

b œ œ œ œ œ
3

bbb œ œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ b œ n œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ n œ œ œ œ b œ
3

œ nœ
3 3 3 3 3

&
3 3 3 3 3 3 3

œ œ œœ œœ œœ
? bb Ó ‰ œœ J ∑ ∑ Œ ‰ n Jœ œ œ œœœ
b J J
œ n œ3 œ b œ œ3 œ œ3 # œ œ œ 3 b œ œ œ b œ3 b œ
œ n œ3 b œ œ œ3 œ œ œ b œ3 b œ œ œ3
b œ œ œ3 b œ
366 367

bb b
&

.
? b œœœ .. j # ## œœœ œœ ..
œ. n nn œœœ
bb œ Ó Œ ‰ J J

œ œ œ nœ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ bœ œ
368 (“Bebop Style”) 369 370 “Polymetric Style”
b #œ œ b œ œ n œ œ b œ n œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ3 œ œ œ œ
3

& b b nœ œœ¿
3 3

#œ œ nœ œ nœ œ
˙ œœ œœ œœ ..
? b ˙˙ ‰ œ Œ Ó Œ
œœ
‰ œJ Œ ‰ œJ œ . j
bb J œ
6 4
over
8 4

In measures 354-57, Hancock uses the “bebop style” as a device for moving into a lower register
(in this case, the lowest register of his solo). From here, he develops a gradually ascending eighth-
note triplet pattern that superimposes a 12/8 meter over 4/4. As this pattern reaches into a higher
register, Hancock senses that he is running out of space and needs to change course. He accom-
plishes this by inserting bebop vocabulary into measures 368-69, effectively “resetting” the music
for another polymetric episode at measure 370.
 70

Similar activity is found in measures 404-18. (fig. 3.25)

Figure 3.25
(”Blues Style”) “Bebop Style”
j œ b œ œ œ œ3 œ b œ œ œ3 œ #œ nœ œ œ nœ
b nœ
b œ œ œn œ œ
&bb Ó œ bœ nœ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ nœ
3

œ œ œ nœ bœ œ œ œ #œ
œ œ 405 œœ œ œ œ # œœ
? b ‰ ‰ n œœœ Œ ‰ œœ Œ . n œ Œ œœœ ‰ œœ ‰ œœ Ó œ œ ‰ n œJ
404 406 407 408

bb œ J ‰ n œj ˙ œ nœ œ. J
J
nœ
œ# œn œ œ œ n œ œ œ œ3 œ3
n œ3 3# œ n œ 3 œ œ
“Polymetric Style”
œ œ œ# œj œ œ3 œ œ n3œ œ œ3 œ œ3 œ 3 œ œ 3 3œ nœ 3
‰ # œ n œ œ n œ # œ n œ œ n œ n œ # œ œ œ œ# œ œ œ
b œ œ œœ œ # œ3
&bb ‰ œ
3

# œœ œœ .. œœ j œœ œœ œ œ # œ . œœœ œœœ n # œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ

‰ œ œ Œ ‰ œœ œœ œœœ œœœ n œœœ ...
409 410 411 412 413

? b b Œ . n n œœœ œœœ ... b œœJ Ó ‰ Jœ

3 4
œ œ ‰ Jœ ‰ œ œ
over

œœ ˙˙ J ‰ J Œ
8 4

b J Œ. J J
J 3 3

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ # ¿ nœ œ œ nœ
œ nœnœ œ œ œ nœ nœ
“Bebop Style” “Polymetric Style”
bb œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ œ # œœ n œ œ b œ œ œ3 œ œ œ œ œ œ3 œ œ œ œ
3 3

& b
œœ ... œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ .. œœœ œœœ # œœ #œ œ œ. œœ
n œœ n œœœ œœœ .. n n œœœ œœœ
414 415 416 417 418

? b œœ . œ ‰ œ œ œ .. œ ‰ œ ‰n œœ
‰ Œ ‰ J . ‰ b œJ
12 4

‰ ∑
over

bb J J J J
8 4

nœ

Following a lengthy episode in the “blues style” (measures 391-405), Hancock once again employs
bebop vocabulary in his transition back to the “polymetric style” (measures 406-10). As with the
previous example (ex. 17), he temporarily returns to the “bebop style” in measures 414-17 as a
method for transitioning into a new polymetric pattern at m. 418.

During his final drive to a climax, Hancock plays with an exaggerated swing feeling. (fig. 3.26)

Figure 3.26 √ “Block Chord Style”

j 3 j
b œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ 3 œœ n œœ œœ œœ 3 œœ œœ 3 œœ œœ 3 œœ bb œœœ n nn œœœ
“Swing” 8th Notes
bb j 3 j 3 3
3

jœ œjœ œjœ œj œ œ œ œ œ Jœ œ œJ œ œ œ Jœ œ œJ
3

& b
3

b œ œ œ œ œ Jœ œ œJ
3 3 3 3

nœ œ J
˙˙ œœœ œœœ ... .
œœœœ œœœœ ... n œœœ
422 423 424 425

œœ n œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Hancock

? b ˙˙ ‰ œ ‰ œ œ
.
J œ œ œ œ œ œn œ n œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ b n œœ
bb J J J J J J J
3 3 3 3 3 3

(√) n œ b ¨œ >œ œ œ
œ œ œ bœ œ bœ bœ nœ œœ œ b b œœ
b bb œœœ œ n œ œ b œ
œ œ
bb b œœ œœ n œœ œ œ ‰ b b œœ œœ b b œœ b œœ b œ œ ‰ n n œœœ œœ œ b b œœ
‰ bœ œ
& œœ bœ œ J J
# œœ œœ n œœ œœ ..
426 427 428 429 430

œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ œ œ œ nœ œ œ bœ œœ n n # œœœ œœœ ‰ n œœ ‰ œœ ‰ n b b œœ œœ ..
Hancock

? b b œœ n œœ œœ œœ œœ ‰ b œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ ‰ œœ œœ œœ œ n n œœ œ
b
 71

Although the notes in measures 422-25 would normally be notated as eighth notes, the author has
used eighth-note triplets to underscore the intensity of the swing feeling. The eighth notes in the
following measures are notated in a “normal” fashion, but they too exhibit a deep sense of swing
that helps to reinforce the peak of Hancock’s solo.
As a fitting end to his solo, Hancock again uses the “bebop style” as a way to move from the
intensity of his climax to the “transition motive,” which is more lyrical and subdued in character.
(fig. 3.27)

Figure 3.27

√
“Bebop Style”
œ œ œ œ œ3 œ œ œ œ 431œ œ œ b œ œ œ # œj œ
bb b J œ J œ œ œ œ nœ œ ˙. œ
430 432 433

& œ œœ œœ
Œ Œ
œœ ... œœ œ # œœ œœ .. n œœ œœ œ œœ œœ
? b b œœ . œœœ ‰ ‰
œœ
‰ ‰ #œ œ. nœ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ n œJ ‰ nœ œ
b J œ J œ Œ Œ
3

j
Transition Motive/”Lyrical Style”
b ˙. œ
& b b # œJ ˙w œ œ.
434 435 436 437

‰ œ Œ ‰ j œ w
J œ
˙ œ
? b b www n ˙˙˙ œ. j œœ
b œ Œ Ó ∑

This stylistic shift effectively reinforces Hancock’s downward trajectory, and paves the way for
Davis’ entrance in measures 437-8.

Rhythm Section Styles

As with the styles used by the soloists, specific styles of accompaniment may be used by the
rhythm section to delineate aspects of the song’s regular form. These styles may also be used dur-
ing the tag section to create the impression of new formal units, thus helping to break the monoto-
ny of the repeating 4-bar progression.

Delineating Aspects of the Form

As Figure 3.28 illustrates, the rhythm section has a tendency to rely on ostinato figures during
the A sections of the solos. (fig. 3.28)
 72

Figure 3.28
A B A C (ABAC)
number of measures

Davis 12 4 8 8 28
Ostinato 1 2-beat Ostinato 1 2-beat 2-beat

A B A B (ABAC)
number of measures

Coleman 16 16 28
Swing Swing Swing

A B A C (ABAC)
number of measures

Hancock 8 8 8 8 28
Ostinato 2 Swing Ostinato 2 Swing Swing

One reason these ostinatos are so effective is their correlation with the motivic structure of the
melody. (fig. 3.29)

Figure 3.29

Ostinato 1 / Davis Ostinato 2 / Hancock

b œœ Œ ˙ œœœ
& b b œ- œ̈ œ̈ Œ ∑ b ˙˙ n nn œœœ ... œ
˙ J
œ¨ >œ ˙
3

.
# œœ .
? bb œ œ ˙ n ˙˙ œœ
b ∑ œ ‰ œ ˙ J ∑
J
2-bar groupings
“All of You” mm. 1-8
b œ ˙.
&bb Œ œ œ œ ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙. œ ˙. œ
œ b˙. œ b˙.

As with the melody, Ostinato 1 and 2 are built in 2-bar motivic groups. These groups give way to a
faster phrase rhythm in the B and C sections which are subsequently characterized by a more active
and consistent rhythmic accompaniment.
 73

Referring to Figure 3.28, the rhythm section does not employ an ostinato figure during Cole-
man’s solo. Apart from a repeating 4-bar rhythmic motive that occurs at the end of the B sections,
Coleman’s solo is swinging the entire time. This provides a welcome contrast from the constantly
shifting styles during Davis’ solo, and also makes the use of an ostinato at the beginning of Han-
cock’s solo sound fresh.

Creating New Formal Units

As Figures 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.8 demonstrate, the soloists spend as much or more time play-
ing on the tag sections of their solos then on the regular form of the song. One way the rhythm
section keeps the repeating 4-bar phrase from sounding too repetitive is through the insertion of
contrasting rhythmic styles. Figure 3.30 represents the tag section of Davis’ solo. (fig. 3.30)

Figure 3.30

Tag Section
number of measures

Davis 39
2-beat
14
ostinato
60
2-beat

This graphic shows that the majority of the rhythm section’s accompaniment is characterized by a
standard two-beat style. This style is interrupted in measures 100-13 by a repeating ostinato pat-
tern. (fig. 3.31)

b j
99 100

&bb c Ó
Figure 3.31
Davis œ. œ œ œ ˙.
⁄

b >. >˙ ..
& b b c œœ̈ ˙˙ . œœœ̈
99 100

˙˙ . Davis’ Ostinato
during Tag Section
œ¨ >˙ . ¨ >
n œœœ ˙˙˙ ...
? b b c œœœ ˙˙˙ ...
Hancock (mm. 100-13)

? bb c ˙ . œœ
œ
99 100

b œ̈ ˙.
>
Carter
3

99 100

Williams ã c xo xo x x x x x Ó
y y y y
 74

The introduction of this pattern provides a break from the rigidity of the two-beat style, and the
repeating rhythm of the ostinato gives Williams more freedom in his accompaniment.
Hancock’s solo on the tag section also features a change in the rhythm section’s accompani-
ment. (fig. 3.32)

Figure 3.32

Tag Section
number of measures

Hancock 36
Swing
16
Straight Eighths
16
Swing

The use of a straight eighth-note style during measures 386-402 of his solo provides an effective
contrast to the swing eighth notes that characterize the remainder of the tag section.

Summary
Chapter Three reveals that the soloists in Davis’ quintet share common goals and aesthetics,
and devise similar methods for accomplishing these goals. Additionally, the rhythm section is sen-
sitive to these aims, and crafts their accompaniment with them in mind. Chapter Four examines
some of these same musical episodes in more detail, often utilizing full or partial transcriptions of
the performance. This analysis provides a detailed description of the interactive methods employed
by the Davis quintet, and shows how those methods are used to unite the soloists with the rhythm
section in achieving their collective aesthetic goals.
 75

Chapter Four

Ensemble Interactions

Chapter Four takes a close look at how a wide variety of complex ensemble interactions are
negotiated in performance. First, we will focus on large segments of each solo, moving chronologi-
cally through to their respective climaxes. These excerpts, derived from the “tag” section of the
solos, provide a unique environment for observing the interactive process. The analysis emphasizes
each ensemble member’s unique techniques for expressing elements of the “collective aesthetic,”
and demonstrates how an adherence to this aesthetic leads to effective and cohesive interactions.
The study concludes with an examination of Tony Williams’ techniques for spurring stylistic
modulations within the rhythm section. These techniques are used to “suggest” a combination of
rhythmic and stylistic ideas to the soloists as well as to facilitate cohesive accompaniment within
the rhythm section.

Several terms appear in scholarship to describe the interactive process in jazz. Words like
“conversation” and “communication” are frequently used as metaphors to compare musical interac-
tion with spoken language.1 The word “improvisation” may also be used generically to allude to
the spontaneous interactions that occur in a typical jazz performance.2 However, a survey of nu-
merous studies on the subject reveals that the term “ensemble interaction” has become ubiquitous.3

Analyses of “ensemble interactions” are typically approached from one of two primary view-
points. Authors like Paul Berliner and Ingrid Monson favor an ethnomusicological perspective re-
lying primarily on exhaustive interviews of musicians to develop their theories.4 Conversely, as in
this study, more traditional forms of Western musical analysis may be used. This style relies instead
on an examination and interpretation of actual musical events, without regard to cultural context.

1 Berliner, Thinking in Jazz, 348; Monson, Saying Something, 73; Hodson, Interaction, 8. Coolman, Synthesis, 71.
Berliner, Monson and Hodson each use the conversation metaphor. Coolman cites “the literature” in praising the Davis
quintet’s “extraordinary communicative . . . abilities.”
2 Barry Kernfeld, “Improvisation,” in New Grove Dictionary, 354-63. The New Grove Dictionary does not have a
definition for “Interaction” or any of the other related terms. Kernfeld’s definition of “Improvisation” describes some of the
collective aspects of jazz improvisation.
3 As with this study, Coolman relies on the full term “ensemble interaction.” Both Monson and Hodson use the
word “interaction” in their titles, with Berliner favoring “interplay” which frequently occurs in the body of the text.
4 Monson, Saying Something, 1-10. Monson also discusses Berliner’s perspective in detail in her introduction.
 76

In general, most texts seem to concede that the multiplicity of types of ensemble interactions
makes comprehensive categorization difficult or impossible. There are, however, exceptions. For
instance, Paul Rinzler suggests five primary kinds of interactions: “call and response, fills, accenting
the ends of formal units, common motive and responding to the “peaks” of the soloist.”5 Rinzler’s
list accurately summarizes many of the most common types of interactions in typical jazz perfor-
mances. But as Robert Hodson indicates, this list is by no means comprehensive, and it cannot
explain the nature of a wide variety of interactive episodes.6 In contrast to Rinzler’s model, the
analysis in Chapter Four shows how ensemble interactions can be initiated from within any sphere
of the musical tapestry including aspects of dynamics, register, rhythm, phrasing, melody, harmony
and timbre.

The idea that we should categorize the types of “ensemble interactions” found in jazz is decid-
edly “Western,” and perhaps runs contrary to the research aesthetic of ethnomusicologists like
Monson. At the core of this debate is the notion that jazz scholarship has focused its attention on
“musical characteristics highly valued in Western classical music” at the expense of a more detailed
investigation into the “musical interaction within the rhythm section and between the rhythm sec-
tion and the soloist.”7 Monson is correct to imply that there are some aspects of ensemble inter-
action that cannot be accurately evaluated via traditional forms of analysis. As well, a thorough
search of any music library confirms her contention that “musical interaction” is a neglected field
in jazz research. However, she misses the point by blaming this lack of research on a preoccupa-
tion with the Western music aesthetic. Although the tools of Western musical analysis have been
trained primarily on “individual soloists,” there is no reason why they might not also be applied
to the collective aspects of jazz. Chapter Four shows that musicians’ interactions are frequently
informed by an in-depth understanding of and sensitivity to a variety of elements also valued in
Western classical music. The utilization of “complex voice leading, thematic integration . . . large-
scale planning”8 and other techniques by the ensemble members leads to myriad interactive pos-
sibilities and enriches the overall musical fabric of the performance.

5 Paul Rinzler, “Preliminary Thoughts on Analyzing Interaction Among Jazz Performers,” Annual Review of Jazz
Studies 4 (1988), 156-157.
6 Hodson, Interaction, 22.
7 Monson, Saying Something, 4.
8 Ibid., 4.
 77

Soloists
During the performance, each soloist displays unique techniques for adhering to the “collec-
tive aesthetic” of the group. In the analysis presented here, these techniques are examined at close
range, revealing a multitude of strategies for building solos in a coherent fashion.

Davis
The following excerpts from Davis’ solo are presented here because they are very characteristic
of his approach to ensemble interaction. During measures 126-65, local interactions become part
of a larger plan by which Davis is able to guide a reduction in overall intensity in preparation for
his push to a final climax.

Measures 126-34
The first thing apparent in measures 126-34 is Davis’ use of the “blues style.” (fig. 4.1)

Blue Notes
Figure 4.1

b bœ œ œ bœ œ b œ> œ> œ> b œ œ œj œ œ ˙

&bb ‰ œ œ œ Ó
126 127 128 129

Davis Œ Œ

œ bœ
response
√ response
œ œœ # œj œœœ
call call
b
& b b Ó. œœ Ó. ∑ Ó jœ œ
n b œœ
#œ

Hancock
# œœ b n œœ œœ
? b Ó
bb ‰ b œœ Œ ‰ œj Œ Œ ∑ Ó. ‰ œJœ
J
C b 13 (# 11) B b7 # 5
#9

b˙ œ.nœ ˙
G min7 C7

? b nœ bœ œ œ œ bœ œ
Carter bb bœ œ œ bœ

b 3 œ. b ¿3 œ œ. bœ œ œ œ œ.
130 131 132 133 134

Davis & b b nœ œ Œ Ó Ó Œ J ⁄ œ œ
J œ œ œ w
(√)
call

bb b ‰ œ ‰ Œ Œ b œœœœ n œœœ
response

∑ ∑ Ó ˙ ∑
& J œ b˙
3

œ œ b˙
œœœ ‰ n œ œ b œœ
Hancock

? bb Π.
J ∑ ∑ Ó n ˙˙ ∑
b
B b 13
# 11
F m9 G min7 C 7 #9
œ nœ
F m9
˙
? b œ œ œ œ bœ ˙ Ó
Carter bb ˙ ˙ nœ bœ œ. J
 78

In this example, the “blues style” is most apparent from Davis’ persistent use of g-flat, the flatted
third scale degree of the tonic key (E-flat). What this example doesn’t indicate is that Davis has
been focusing on g-flat since m. 116. From this repeated use of g-flat, the rhythm section is able to
safely anticipate its continued use during the following measures. This anticipation allows Hancock
and Carter to prepare chord substitutions that better accommodate g-flat, a dissonant note over the
normal progression. One of these chord progressions is illustrated in m. 126. Here, Carter begins
the bar on a c-flat indicating Cb7, the tri-tone substitution of the normal chord, Fmin7. Hancock
waits, but also plays a form of Cb7 at the end of the measure. With g-flat as the prominent note in
Davis’ line, this proves to be an effective choice. This is because g-flat is supported by Cb7 as the
fifth of the chord, but not by Fmin7 where it forms a flatted ninth with the root. The border be-
tween harmonic and linear forces dissolves as Davis’ line becomes part of a new chord progression,
and Hancock’s harmony is expressed horizontally.

Using tri-tone substitutions during sections of the tag that are in the “blues style” proves to be
an effective strategy. Tri-tone dominant chords can serve many harmonic functions and are gener-
ally more supportive of the chromaticism that exists in blues vocabulary. (fig. 4.2)

Figure 4.2

Tag chord progression Blue Notes

b9 #3 b13 #7 9 b5
b b˙ b˙
& b b b˙ n˙ ∑ b˙ n˙ ∑
Bb9
ww wwww w n wCww
n www
F m9 G m9 9

? b b ww w
ww
b w w
Tag chord progression

b
with Tri-tone substitutions 5 7 9 4 b13 2
b˙ b˙
&bb b˙ n˙ ∑ b˙ n˙ ∑
Cb9 Bb9 b b
b ww ww n www
b n n wwww n bb www
D 7 13 C9

? b b b n b www b w
ww
b

Another common type of interaction characteristic of the “blues style” is the “call and re-
sponse.” In measures 126-29, Davis plays a simple 2-bar motive that leaves space at the ends of
 79

every other bar. The use of space during his first 2-bar motive allows Hancock an opportunity to
play a short “response” in measure 127. When Davis begins playing a similar phrase in measure
128, it allows Hancock to prepare a similar response at the end of m. 129. This also happens much
earlier in Davis’ solo. (fig. 4.3)

Figure 4.3
Figure 4.3

˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ 45 œ
œ
41 42 43 44

Davis &b Œ ∑ Ó Œ Ó Œ Ó Œ
#œ. b n œœœ .. n œœ .. œ.
response response response
œ n œœ .. œ œœ œœ n œœœ ... œœ
call call call

b nœ ‰ Œ . œ. œ
&bb Ó J ‰ Œ ‰ Œ ‰ Œ ‰ Œ
j
n n œœœ œœ .. œ bœ. œœ
Hancock
œ. œœ n œ. œœ
? bb Ó
b ‰ Œ ‰ #œ. Œ ‰ n n œœ .. œ Œ ‰ n œœ .. œ Œ ‰ œœ .. œ Œ

In this case, Davis and Hancock are working with a shorter motive that demands Hancock’s
responses in every measure.

Measures 133-50

In measure 133, Davis shifts into the “lyrical style” without any warning. But despite this lack
of warning, the ensemble members are able to adjust their accompaniment. This is because of Da-
vis’ use of the “tag motive,” an instantly recognizable theme that indicates a shift to a lower dynamic
and legato style. (fig. 4.4) When compared with measures 126-32, the change in accompaniment
style is apparent. Hancock’s texture thickens and features longer notes, matching the character
of Davis’ lyrical statement. As well, Williams drops out of the texture completely in measure 138,
leaving only Hancock and Carter to accompany Davis.

During Davis’ use of the “tag motive,” Hancock explores a variety of complex harmonic colors.
Because he is able to anticipate the primary pitch of the “tag motive” (c-natural), Hancock is free
to utilize this pitch as the top note of his voicings, integrating complex chord alterations into
his harmony.

Having firmly established the “lyrical style” in measures 134-47, Davis’ solo reaches its lowest
dynamic in measure 148. From here, Hancock seems to sense the need to start building again, and
plays a short, syncopated figure on the end of beat 1 of measure 149. Hancock’s figure works as an
 80

Figure 4.4
Tag Motive

b œ. œœœœœ w œ œœ w ˙
133 134 135 136 137

&bb Ó Œ Ó
3

Davis J
“lyrical style”
j j j
b
&bb Ó
˙
b˙ Ó. ‰ œœ ˙˙ œœ n n œœœ ... œœœœ Œ b œœœ ... n œœœ œœ .. n œœ ˙˙
J œ . # n œœ ˙˙
Hancock
b˙ b œœ ˙ œœ n œ . œœ œœ .. n œœœ œœœ ... n b œœœ ˙˙˙
? bb Ó
b n ˙˙ Ó. ‰ œ ˙˙ œ Œ J J
J J
B b13 sus B b13b9#11
# 11
C 7 #9
œ nœ ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙ œ # œj n œ œ #œ
F m9 G m11 C 13b9#11

? b ˙ ˙ œ
Carter bb œ

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

‰55555555555 5555555555 5 5 55555555 555 5 555555 55 5 5 55 55 5 555 5

brushes
Williams ã y. y y y y
3

b
œ Œ ‰ œj ‰ œ œ ‰
œ œ3 œ ˙ œœ œ Œ
&bb ‰œœœ˙ œœœœ ˙
138 139 140 141 142 143

Ó Ó
3 3

Davis œœœ

b œ
&bb ∑ Œ . œœœ ‰ œœ ‰ œœ œ Œ Ó ‰ œ œ Œ œœœ œ w ∑
J œ J
3

œœ œœ .. n œœ œœ œœ ‰ œœ œ œ œœ ˙˙
Hancock
? b b Œ œœ œœ .. œJœ Œ . J‰ œ Œ Ó ‰œ J Œ www ∑
b
3

Bb9 E b Maj7 E b Maj7/C B b 13

œ œ œ bœ ˙ œ bœ œ œœ
F m9 F m9
˙ œ
Carter
? bb ˙
b œ bœ œ. œ ˙ œ bœ ˙ œ
3

Williams ã ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
Y

cues “blues style”

b Œ œ jj Œ œ j j ‰ ¿ œ. œ. ‰
144 145 146 147 148 149 150

&bb w ∑ Ó Ó Ó ŒÓ
. œœœ œ . œ œœ œ J œ œ.
Davis

j œ
b œ œ
&bb Ó ‰ n n œœœœ ... Œ . n œœ œœ œœœ www ∑ ∑ ‰ œœœ Œ Œ ‰ J ∑
. J œ w
B b Maj7 E b Maj7
œ.
Hancock ( F Maj7 )

? bb n œœœ ... ‰ Ó w œœ n œœ
b ∑ Ó ‰ J ∑ ∑ ∑
E b Maj7 B b7
#9
F m13 G min7 C 7#5 F7

? b b ˙˙ ˙ bœ œ ˙ œ nœ ˙ nœ bœ. #œ ˙ œ œ n˙
Carter
b œ nœ œ nœ ˙

Williams ã ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
 81

effective rhetorical device because its short and articulated quality stands in contrast to the legato
style and thickened texture of the previous measures. It subsequently functions as a cue for Davis
who immediately launches into the “blues style” in measure 150.

Measures 150-57
Starting at m. 150, the group begins a gradual and coordinated intensification of musical
elements that are aimed at bringing Davis’ solo to a final climax. An intensification of rhythmic
interplay and complexity has a large role in building to the peak of Davis’ solo. Take for instance
response

the rhythmic interplay between Davis and Hancock in measures 150-57. (fig. 4.5)

Figure 4.5
Downbeats

b ‰ œ œ Œ œ œ Œ
150 151 152 153

Davis &bb œ œ.
Œ Ó Œ
œ œ œ Œ ‰ nœ bœ œ ‰ œ
√
b œ œ œ œ
&bb Ó ‰ œœJ Œ Ó ‰ œœœ Œ Ó ‰ œœ Œ Ó ‰ œœ Œ
J J J
œ œ œœ b œœ
Hancock

? bb Ó
b ‰ J Œ Ó ‰ J Œ Ó ‰ n œJ Œ Ó ‰ n œJ Œ
Upbeats
nœ œ œ
^
œ
b
œ œ œ œ œ ‰ œj Œ ‰ j œ nœ œ bœ œ œ œ nœ œ nœ œ #œ œ nœ œ #œ
154 155 156 157

& b b ‰ n œ b œ œ. Œ Œ
3 6

œ
bœ œ
Davis

(√) œœ
bb b Ó œ œ b œœ
& ‰ œœ Œ Ó ‰ œJ Œ Ó ‰ b œœ Œ Ó ‰ Jœ Œ
J J
œ œœ
b b œœ
Hancock

? bb Ó œ nœ
b ‰ J Œ Ó ‰ J Œ Ó ‰ Jœ Œ Ó ‰ Jœ Œ

Synchronized

Hancock’s persistent “hits” on the end of beat 3 of every bar create an underlying rhythmic tension.
Davis compliments Hancock’s syncopations by playing short, 1-bar motives that start on down-
beats. The contrast between syncopated and non-syncopated ideas here adds to the tension. This is
eventually “resolved” in m. 155 when Davis finally “catches” Hancock on the end of beat 3.
 82

Measures 156-62
At this point in Davis’ solo, the drummer is still absent from the texture. But in order to drive
his solo to a final climax, Davis realizes that he will have to somehow coax Williams back into the
fray. Davis’ first attempt to do this comes in measures 156-7, the end of a 4-bar phrase. (fig. 4.6)

Figure 4.6

œ
nœ œ #œ œ nœ œ
156 157 158
^
b ‰ œ œ3 œ œ n œ3 b œ
b œ n œ œ # œ Œ Ó Œ ≈
6

& b j œ nœ œ bœ œ œ œ nœ
bœ œ
Davis

b œ b œœ # # œœ
&bb Ó ‰ b œœ Œ Ó ‰ J
œ Œ Ó ‰ # œJ Œ
J
b b œœœ n # œœ
Hancock
? bb Ó nœ
b ‰ œJ Œ Ó ‰ Œ Ó ‰ J Œ
J
D b7 ()
C 7 #9
#9

œ nœ
F 7#5

? b œ. œ bœ.
œ œ œ nœ nœ œ nœ œ œ ˙
3

bb J J
nœ
Carter
3

Williams ã ∑ ∑ ∑

“Rhythmic Dissonance”
159 160 161 162

b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ̈
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Davis &bb Œ Ó

˙œ # œ œ œ
b
&bb ∑ ∑ ∑ Ó

œœ
Hancock Rythmic Dissonance
? bb Ó b n œœ .. œ ‰ œœJ Ó
b J ∑ ∑ Œ
B b7 (b 9) Eb œ œ œ
˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ nCœ7 j œ. œ ˙ œ. œ
? b nœ
J J
Carter bb
3 3 3

∑ ∑ Ó Œ
3
brushes
Williams ã xx x x x x
Williams Reenters Texture

Here, Davis plays a dramatic figure that spans just over two octaves in range. As established in this
and other studies, these kinds of dramatic bursts in Davis’ playing are designed to influence the
accompaniment. In this case, the sudden increase in dynamic level seems to be inviting Williams
back into the texture.
 83

At the start of the next phrase, however, Williams still is nowhere to be heard (measure 158).
Not to be deterred, Davis unleashes a rhythmically complex figure in measures 158-62. The com-
plex rhythms used by Davis during these measures create a great deal of instability in the regular
pulse of the performance. Carter further adds to this instability in measures 160-61 by playing
quarter note triplets instead of a standard 2-beat pattern. This lack of stability calls out for a
resolution, and when Williams reenters the texture in measure 162, his steady timekeeping fulfills
the need.

Davis uses “rhythmic dissonance” throughout his performance to guide the rhythm section
into a steady pulse. (fig. 4.7)

Figure 4.7
G m9 C 13 A b Maj7

bbb ‰ œ œ œ nœ œ œ bœ nœ œ œ œ œ bœ nœ œ œ œ œ bœ œ nœ œ œ œ bœ nœ œ œ bœ nœ œ œ bœ œ œ nœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Ó
9 9 3 9 3

& œ Œ
23 24 25 26
B bPedal G min7/B b

? b b Û. ‰ >Û ∑ Û.
>
‰ Û
b | | ’ ’’’
J J
Ostinato 2-Feel
C Section/
G m9 C 13 Initial Melodic Statement

bbb
3

‰ ≈œ œ œ œ nœ œ œ bœ nœ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ nœ œ œ bœ œ œ nœ œ œ bœ œ œ nœ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ nœ œ
3

‰œ ‰Ó
3 3 5 G m11

& œ Œ
3

B bPedal B bPedal
443 444 445 446

? b Û. ‰ >Û ∑ Û. ‰
>
Û
bb | | ’ ’ ’’
J J
Ostinato Latin/2-feel
B Section/
Closing Melodic Statement

The first of these examples occurs during the second A section of the initial melodic statement,
and the second example during the first A section of the closing melodic statement. In both cases,
Davis uses rhythmically complex patterns to create tension that can best be resolved via the rhythm
section’s return to a regular time feel.

Measures 162-9
With drums back in the texture, the ensemble makes its final push towards a climax. Sensing
this, Carter becomes more active and pushes the time-feel from a 2-beat pulse in measures 162-65
to a swing feel in measure 166. (fig. 4.8)
 84

Figure 4.8 162 163 164 165

b œ œ œ bœ nœ œ œ Œ ÿ >œ
Davis &bb Œ Ó Œ Ó Œ nœ
j œ œ œJ œ J

˙ œ. œœ .. œœ œ
b œ #œ œ #œ œ œ
&bb Ó J Ó Ó ‰ b Jœ œ ‰œœœ ‰ œ
C 7(# 9) )
3
b
œœ ww n œœœ b bn œœœ
œ
( G 7#5
9
Hancock
œœ
? bb Œ
b ‰ œJœ Ó w Ó ‰ ‰ Ó Œ. J

œ. œ B b13 sus
˙ E b Maj7 ()
C 7 #9
œ œ
F m9
˙ œœœ
Carter ? bb ˙
b
J œ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ bœ
3 3
2 -feel Transition to 4-feel
brushes
Williams ã 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

166 167 168 169

b w œ ^œ
Davis &bb bœ œ ¿ œ œ b œ œ. œ̌
∑

√
b b # œœœ œœœœ .... ‰ b œœœ j œ œ. ˙
& b b Ó. #œ Ó œ #œ œ. œ bœ œ Œ Ó
n # œ˙ n œ . œ
√ ˙.
˙˙˙ ... # n #n œœœœ # œ n œ ‰ œ ˙
Hancock
? bb Ó
b ‰ œœœ Œ Œ Ó Œ. J
J
F m9 Bb7 #9 () E b7 C 13 (# 9)

? b œ œ nœ œ nœ. bœ œ
bb œ œ nœ œ nœ œ œ œ œ
Carter
œ
4 -feel

ã 5 5 5 5. 5 5. 5 5. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Ó Œ Œ Œ œy œy œy œy œy
Williams
y yo yo yo

Increase in Activity

This acceleration of the rhythmic feel creates tremendous momentum and helps to propel the
group towards the end of Davis’ solo. A reaction to Carter’s line is heard in all of the parts, espe-
cially with the dynamics as they become significantly more intense. This is also reflected in the
increase in activity in all of the parts when compared with measures 150-62.

Measures 169-74
As Davis invokes the “transition motive,” the ensemble quickly responds in a complimentary
style. (fig. 4.9)
 85

Figure 4.9
169 170 171
Transition Motive
b œ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ
Davis &bb Ó Œ œ. J Œ ‰ J
˙
˙˙
Synchronized
b b˙
&bb Ó # œ˙ n œ . œ Ó ˙˙ Ó

n ˙˙˙˙
Hancock
? bb # œ n œ ‰ œ ˙ Ó ˙˙˙ Ó
b
C 13 (# 9) F m9 ()
B b 13 b 9

? b œ nœ. bœ œ
œ.
œ ˙ b˙
˙
Carter bb ˙
3 3 3

‰ ‰ 5 5 5 ‰ 5 5 5 5 5
brushes

Williams ã 5
œ
5
œ
5
œ
5 5 5œ 5 5 5

172 173

œ œœ
174
œ
^
b ˙ œ œ œ œ œ3 œ œ b œ œ œ n œ b œ n œ b œ n œ œ œ œ
5

œ
&bb
5
Davis
J Œ Ó

b œœ www
Synchronized

& b b œ̈ Œ Ó ∑ w
Hancock
œœ b wwww
? bb œ Œ Ó ∑
b
Eb 9
6

? b ww œ
œ Œ Ó ∑
Carter bb

^ y y y
Œ Ó ∑ 5y 5y
to sticks

Williams ã 5

Although there is nothing extraordinary about the interaction here, it does demonstrate the power
of the “transition motive” to coordinate the ensemble at the end of Davis’ solo.

Coleman
An analysis of the tag section of George Coleman’s solo shows that he too starts from a point
of low dynamic intensity. From there, he builds to a climax and gradually returns to a more mod-
erate dynamic before transitioning to Hancock’s solo in measure 291.
 86

Measures 233-42
Coleman begins the tag section with a sequence in the “lyrical style.” This sequence is con-
structed of three, 2-bar motivic groups that descend by whole steps. (fig. 4.10)

Figure 4.10
1 Sequence 2
bb
233 234 235 236 237

& b œ Ó Ó ‰ j
3 3

bœ ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ bw œ bœ
œ œ
Coleman

œ œ. œ
b # œ œ . œj œ œ œœ .. n œœ Ó œœ ..
& b b # # n œœœ ... Jœ œ . œJ Ó ‰ œ Œ Ó œœ ˙˙ .. Œ
j
#œ
œ. œ J
J J
B 9(# 5) Bb9 Eb 9
#

œœ œœ .. F œœ œœ .. Cb œœ ˙˙ .. œœ F œœœ
7#
9

n # œœ œœ .. œœ
Hancock C 13b9#11 m9 m9
œ .
5

? bb n œ . œ œ . b œ Ó ‰ œJ Œ œ. œ Ó Ó œ. n œ ˙. nœ œ
b J J J J

y yy y yy y y y y y y yy y y y y y y y y y y y
ã ‰ 5J œ ‰ 5 œ 5 œ 5 55 5 5 5
Williams
J yo y yo œy
o
œ
Sequence 3
2
bb
238 239 240 241 242

& b Œ Œ ∑ œk Œ Ó
3

b˙. bœ œ œ bœ nœ w œ.
Coleman

j
b
&bb Ó Ó Œ ‰ n # n œœœj www ∑
# # œœ .. n n n œœœœ wwww #œ w
B b7 b 9
#

n # œœ .. œœ
11

œœœ ‰ œœœ ‰
Hancock B9 G min7 C 13b9#11 F m9

? b Ó
bb
b œœ ww Ó ‰ n œœ ww
Œ. J œ
J J
3 3 3 3
y y y y y y y y y y y y y yy y y y y y y x y y y y y y
Williams ã 5 5 5 5

Increased Rhythmic Freedom

Besides acting as effective transitional devices, sequences also lead to interactive opportunities.
As with call and response exchanges, a sequence allows the rhythm section to predict elements
of melody, harmony and rhythm that the soloist will play next. In measures 238-41, Hancock is
able to anticipate the chromatic notes of Coleman’s sequence, and responds to them in a colorful
and supportive way. This is seen in the way he includes b-natural in his voicing at measure 239
(Bb7#11,b9), and also in the way he includes a-natural in his voicing at measure 241 (C13#11,b9).

During episodes in the “lyrical style,” Williams tends to play in a more active and freer man-
ner (measures 239-40). In the “lyrical style,” the solo line is considerably less active, which means
that there is a lower risk of Williams’ polyrhythmic elaborations “getting in the way” of the flow.
 87

Measures 242-8
Coleman’s eighth notes on the downbeat of measure 242 instantly propel the ensemble out of
the “lyrical style” and into a powerful swing groove. (fig. 4.11)

Figure 4.11
Exaggerated Swing
b
242 243 244

bœ nœ œ
Coleman
&bb c œ Œ Ó ‰ j œ œ bœ œ. Œ Ó
œ. œ œœ
b call and response
242

&bb c ∑ ∑ ∑
Hancock
? bb c Œ . œœœ ‰ œœœ ‰ #œ
j
n œœœ n œœœ ‰ œœœ
b J œ Œ Ó Œ. J ‰ œ
F m9 Bb9 G m9

? bb c œ
242

b œ œ nœ œ nœ œ bœ œ œ nœ
Carter
œ
242
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Williams ã c

b
245 246 247 248

&bb ‰ œ œ bœ bœ nœ bœ Œ Ó œ ‰ œ bœ œ Ó
œ bœ œ. œ bœ nœ
Coleman
˙
call and response

b b œœ œ ‰ œ ˙ j œ œ œ
& b b Œ. j n ˙˙ œ œ
245

œœ Œ Œ #œ
j
‰ œœœ Ó
# # n œœœ ˙˙˙ œ œ
()
C 7 #9
œ œœ b œœ œ œœœ n ˙˙˙ œ œ œ
Hancock (

? b b n œœ œ ‰ ‰ Jœ ˙ Œ œ Œ ‰ œJ ‰ œ ‰ œ Œ. n œœ
b J
B b 13 (b 9) E b Maj7
#9

œ nœ œ bœ œ œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ. œ œ œ
C 7b 9
œ
F min7

œ œ¿œ
3

? bb
3

¿œ
245

Carter b œ

y y y y y 5y 5y 5y 5y 5y 5y 5y 5y 5y 5y 5y
5y 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
245
y y y y y y y 5y 5y 5y 5y 5y 5y 5y 5y
Williams ã

Besides using eighth notes in m. 242 to establish a swing groove, Coleman also uses them as the
basis for a call and response exchange with Hancock. His line is effective in this regard because of
the space he leaves every 2-bars after the eighth-note gestures.
 88

Measures 248-65
In measure 250, Coleman introduces a new chord substitution pattern. (fig. 4.12)

Figure 4.12
( C # min7 F #7 B Maj7 )

b œ œ b œ3 b œ
250

j
248 249 3

Coleman Vbb c ˙ Ó ‰ œ nœ œ nœ œ bœ œ œ ˙

b œ œ œ ww j
&bb c Ó œ œ Œ ‰ œœ ˙˙
bœ ˙
()
œ
C 7 #9
œœ œœ .. nœ œ #œ #œ nœ bœ
Hancock F Altered

? bb c ‰ œ ‰ œ Œ ‰ nœ œ. J Œ. # n œœ œœ .. nœ
b J J J
E b Maj7 D b7
œ œ œ3 b œ œ3 œ œ3
D7 C7

œ¿ œ
3

? bb c ¿ œ ¿ bœ ¿ ¿ ¿ b¿ œ
3
Carter b œ œ œ

This pattern functions by approaching Bb7 with BMaj7 instead of Fmin7. For additional color, C7
is replaced by its tri-tone substitution (F#7) in order to tonicize BMaj7 when the phrase repeats.

To some degree, these substitutions are “suggested” by Carter and Hancock in measures 248-
49. Here, Carter plays a chromatically descending bass line that stands in harmonic and rhythmic
contrast with the preceding measures. Carter’s line presents a typical type of substitution, bridging
the chords Eb and C7 chromatically via Eb-D7-Db7-C7, and leading back to Fmin7 in measure
250. However, another possibility that is suggested by this line is Eb-D7-Db7-C7-BMaj7, a pos-
sibility reflected in Coleman’s phrase in m. 250 (C#min7-F#7-BMaj7). Although Carter does not
play BMaj7 with Coleman, this perhaps represents an example of how some types of interactive
intentions may produce unanticipated outcomes.

Hancock also plays a role in facilitating a cohesive transition into the new harmonic progres-
sion. In m. 249, he plays C7(#9) with e-flat as the top note in his voicing. The added extension
makes the dominant chord here more ambiguous because it contains notes from both C7 and the
tri-tone, Gb7, which is what Coleman’s line suggests. Coleman responds to Hancock’s voicing by
also focusing on e-flat, reinforcing the note’s functional ambiguity.

In considering how these interactions work, it is important to consider the context of the
phrase structure and how Coleman and the rhythm section are dependent on it for creating
anticipation and for making logical decisions as to what should be played. Measure 249 is the
 89

fourth measure of the repeating 4-bar phrase that comprises the tag section, and is thus the pick-up
measure for the beginning of the next phrase. What happens in m. 249 is thus a preparation for the
new phrase at measure 250. Coleman, who is probably the only one who knows for sure what is
coming, provides a clear indication of his movement to BMaj7 with a Dbmin9 arpeggio in m. 249.
The two b-naturals in this phrase are clearly outside of the usual C7 and give Hancock a good clue
as to what is coming.

In measure 250, Coleman’s line is simple and focuses on the note b-flat. (fig. 4.13)

Figure 4.13
œ bœ
b œ bœ œ nœ œ nœ
œ. ‰ bœ œ bœ
250 251 252 253

V b b œ bœ œ œ ˙ ˙ Ó
3
Coleman

j
‰ œœj ˙˙
b œœ .. œœ œ œœ # # œœ #œ ˙ ‰ # œœœ
# œ ‰ # # # œœœ ˙˙˙
250

&bb Œ bœ ˙ œœœ Œ j
n œœ Ó
#œ
J J
B b 13 (b 9) Eb 9j œœ œœ Cn#œm11 F # 13
n œ ˙
Hancock
#œ
6 6

n œ œœ œ ‰Œ œ n œœœ .. œœ œ œ nœ
F Altered F m9 B9

? bb Œ . # n œœ œœ .. ‰ # Jœ ˙ ‰ J
b J J ‰ . J Ó

œ œ
? b œ œ œ
250

bb œ œ œ œ nœ œ œ bœ œ nœ
œ
Carter

œ œ b œ3 œ
b bœ œ œœœ œ œ
3

bœ œ œ œ œ œ ˙
254 255 256

Coleman Vbb œ Œ ‰

b œ œ. j
# # ## ˙˙˙˙ ‰ œœœ œœœ ...
254

&bb Ó j œœ
œ n œœœ Ó j œœ n n œœ n # œœ
J
#œ #œ

Cues new harmony for Carter B b 13 E b Maj7 E b7 D m7 C # m7

œœ œœ .. œœ bœ
Hancock
œ nœ
? b b ‰ n œj ˙ . ‰ œ ‰ J Ó œ œ œ #œ
b
œ
œœ œ œ
Cues new harmonies to Carter
? b
254
œ bœ nœ nœ. œ. bœ nœ œ
Carter
bb bœ

The notes here (b-flat, g-flat, a-flat and b-flat) are significant in multiple ways. The focus on b-flat is
connected with the placement of b-flat in measure 248. By adding g-flat in measure 250, he subtly
provides a context by which the two b-flats can be compared, with the g-flat sticking out as unique.
Coleman’s notes at measures 249-250 can also seen as a modal expression of Eb Phrygian or E Lyd-
ian, each of which share the same notes as B Ionian. This ambiguity allows Coleman a little wiggle
 90

room should his chord substitutions not be adopted by the rhythm section. In measures 253-254,
Coleman repeats the same collection of notes used in the earlier phrase, further emphasizing his
intentions and establishing the new harmonic progression. These examples reveal Coleman’s
strategy of establishing new harmonies with simple and straight forward figures that clearly outline
and suggest the chords, waiting to play more elaborate figures and harmonies until after Hancock
has had a chance to hear what he is doing. By the end of m. 256, it is clear that Hancock recognizes
the new progression, and Coleman feels free to play in a manner that employs more harmonic
complexity and less motivic development (measures 257-262). Once Hancock recognizes the
new progression, he makes a couple of attempts to indicate the harmonies to Carter who is still
outlining the native chord progression. This occurs most clearly in measure 254. Here, Hancock
plays a b-natural loudly in his left hand to indicate the BMaj harmony. His rhythmic placement is
important and he puts it on the end of beat 1. This unusual placement is out of the context of what
Hancock is otherwise playing, and is meant to stick out in an obvious way for Carter. Two mea-
sures later, Hancock plays block chords squarely on beats 3 and 4 which seems meant to clearly lead
Carter chromatically down from Eb to Dbmin7 in measure 257. By placing his accompaniment
on the beats instead of in a syncopated fashion, this movement is also meant to create contrast and
hopefully indicate to Carter what is happening. (fig. 4.14)

Figure 4.14 Bebop Style

bœ bœ bœ œ œ
b b œ . œn œb œ œ œ œ ‰ n œn œb œb œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ bœ
bœ œ œ ‰ Œ #œ
œ œ nœ bœ œ nœ œ œ
œœœ
257 258 259

Coleman Vbb
œœœ œœœ œœœ
b # # œœ .. # œœœ #œ ww
‰ # œœ Œ. œ œ œ
257

& b b ‰ #œ. J
w J Œ
F#9 B b 13
œœ œœ œœ
n n œœ .. # œœ # œœ ww
Hancock B M13
j
? bb ‰ Œ.
œ œ œ œ
b ‰ J J Œ

? b œ œ #œ œ œ
nœ
257

Carter bb œ bœ #œ nœ ¿ œ

œœ œ261b œ
b œ œ œœœ œ œ bœ nœ œ bœ bœ œ œ bœ nœ
Vbb œœ œ œ ‰ œ bœ Ó
260 3 262

‰ Œ œ bœ bœ œ.
3
Coleman

œœ œœ √
bb b œ œ #œ
‰ # # œœ Œ # œœœ # ## œœœ .. n œœœœ
260

& Œ Œ Œ Ó .
J J
Eb 9 C # m11 F#9
œœ œœ
6

# œ # œœœœ
6

# ## œœœ ...
Hancock
n n œœœœ
B9 F m9

? bb œ œ n œ
b Œ Œ ‰ # n Jœœ Œ Œ Ó
J

? b œ. œ œ œ œ œ nœ #œ nœ
œ nœ
260

Carter bb bœ nœ
 91

This seems to work, at least for the moment, and Carter outlines the new progression in measures
257-258 using prominent chord tones on the strong beats (1 and 3). This includes a-flat and d-flat
in measure 257 (suggesting Dbmin7) and f-sharp and b-natural in measure 258 (suggesting BMaj).
Despite momentarily getting a grasp, Carter’s line seems to wander away after these measures,
suggesting that although he has the capacity to recognize and react to Hancock in the moment, he
cannot grasp the logic of the new chord progression in the overall context of the phrase.

In m. 262, Hancock’s accompaniment reaches into a noticeably high register, helping to push
Coleman towards his climax in measure 263. Here, Coleman explodes into the peak of his range,
holding a high f-natural for five beats for dramatic effect. (fig. 4.15)

Figure 4.15 climax

G b7
œ̈ w> œ œ b œ3 b œ
b bœ œ œ̈ œ œ b œ b266œ œ ¿ œ #œ
œ œ bœ bœ
262 263 264 265

Coleman
V b b bœ œ. ‰ œ Ó Œ ‰ J

(√) n œœœ œœœ b œœœ

b
&bb Ó # ## œœœ .. n œœœœ œœœ ..
œ .. œœœœ Ó œ.
‰ œœ .. œœ Œ Œ. Ó œœ œœ Œ
. J œ J œ œ
J
B b 13 E b 7 (# 11)
Hancock
œ .. n œœœ œœœ b œœœ Œ .
6

# ## œœœ ... n n œœœœ œœœœ .... œœœœ Ó œœ œ

B9 F m9 G m11 F m9

? bb Ó
b ‰ nœ Œ Œ. œ œœ ‰ œJœœ
J J J J

#œ nœ nœ œ œ œ œ
? bb œ n œ œ œ ¿ œ. œ œ. œ œ bœ œ œ œ
Carter
b nœ
3 j
y y 5 y 5y y y y 5 y y y y y 5y y 5 y y y 5 y œ œ œ ‰ y y 5y y xo xo
Williams ã œ œ œ 5 5y œ ‰ œ
o
Block chords in high register Increased rhythmic activity

This note sticks out to the rhythm section because of its high range and length being held, which
is in stark contrast to the barrage of sixteenth notes that came before in measures 257-261. Just
as importantly, by holding the f-natural over the bar line into what would be Dbmin7 (a chord
that does not support f-natural), Coleman has indicated the end of the substitution chain. Wil-
liams reacts to this peak by accenting the end of the formal unit with fills in measures 264-65, and
Hancock starts the new phrase at measure 266 with Fmin7, officially ending the string of substitu-
tions. Whether or not he intended to cue the rhythm section, Coleman’s high f-natural gives them
an opportunity to transition back to the regular progression in a cohesive way. Coleman’s phrase
at measures 265-66 seems to suggest that he has not yet stopped playing over the new progression,
 92

but upon hearing the rhythm section, he deftly weaves his line into Bb13 in measure 267, and never
looks back. Here, the usefulness of the substitution pattern becomes apparent as Coleman’s Gb7 in
measure 265 works as the tri-tone going to Fmin7 in 266.

Measures 266-70
Once again, Coleman’s use of a sequence leads to enhanced opportunities for interaction with
the rhythm section. (fig. 4.16)

Figure 4.16 Sequence

13 b13 7 13 b13 9

b œ ¿ œ bœ bœ œ #œ œ267 b œ œ n œj œ ˙268 n 269

œ œ b -œ . >œ ˙270
‰ n œj œ œ œ   ‰ J J nœ J
266

Vbb œ Œ Ó
3

Coleman

b j Synchronized nœ œ œœ . œj # œj œœœ ..
œœ œœ Œ Œ. j
œœ Œ .
œœœ ‰ œœœ .. ‰ n œœ œœ œ .. œœœœ ‰ .
266

&bb Ó œ œ
Ó . œœ Œ J
B b 13 (b 9) C 13 (b 9)
Hancock F m9
œœ œœœ ... n œœœœ œœœœ ... œœ
G m11
n œœ ‰ œœ .. b œ
bœ œ œœ ..
F m9
œœ ...
? bb Œ . œ œœ œ
‰ œ œ . œ œ .. J Œ. J Ó ‰ n œ b œœ œ. ‰ œœ . ‰
b J J J J

y y y x x yy y y y yy y y y y y y yyy y y
œo ‰ œo
266

ã 5 ‰ 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5œ 5œ 5 œ 5y
Williams y y y ‰ Jyo o

The sequence in this example works not only to cue Hancock as to the voice leading of Coleman’s
phrase (13-b13-7) but also functions as a set-up for Williams. Notice the arrival note on the end of
beat 4 of measure 267. When Coleman repeats the basic rhythmic aspects of the phrase at mea-
sures 269-70, Williams correctly anticipates another accent on the end of beat 4. As well, Hancock
is once again able to anticipate Coleman’s note selection in the second half of the sequence. This is
reflected in his use of a-natural and g as the top notes in his voicings in measure 269.

Measures 271-80
Fresh off of the climax of his solo, Coleman settles into the “blues style” in measures 271-80.
(fig. 4.17)
 93

Figure 4.17
ÿ - b œ. œ œ œ œ > 275œ >œ œ n œ b œ b œ
b œ. b œ œ œ œ Œ Ó ‰ œ
œ œ
Œ ‰ Jœ
V b b Œ ‰ œJ
271 272 273

Œ
274

Coleman J J
call and response
œœ œœ b œœ œœ œ
b œ j j
œ ˙ œ œ œ œ. œ . # œj œ Œ Ó
& b b œ Œ n œœ .. b œœ Ó
271

Œ Œ
#œ

B b 13 (b 9) () B b 13
œœœœ œœ
C 7 #9
œœ œœ .. œœ œœ œœ œœ œœœ F œœœ œœ œœ œœ œœ
Hancock m9

? bb
b Œ J Ó ‰ ‰œ Ó
n œ ‰ œ ‰œ œ œ ‰ œ ‰œ ‰ œ
n Œ. J Œ. J
œ

œ œ bœ œ œ. œ œ bœ. œ œ œ
? b œ nœ bœ œ œ œ œ
271

Carter bb œ bœ œ œ

call
.
b œ bœ Œ œ bœ. nœ bœ. b 278
œœ b œ œ œ œ . b -œ280.
J J ‰ Jœ œ œ.
276 279

Vbb Ó Œ Œ ˙ Œ
277

Coleman

œ œ. œ œœ
response
œœ b œœ .. œ œœ œœ √
œ œ œ. bœ. œ œ œ.
3

b j
œ. œ. j
œ œ
‰ œj n œ œœ œ b œœ œ œœ œ œ
& b b ‰. R
276
#œ
Œ Ó Œ
#œ
Œ Ó j
J
C 7(# 9) œœ F 7(# 9) œœ œœ B b 13
œœ bEœœb 9
Hancock
œ œ œ œœ œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œœ
? bb Œ . n œœ ‰ œœ ‰ œœ ‰ n œJ Œ œ ‰ Jœ Œ . n œJ ‰ œJ Œ
n Ó
œ ‰œ
J
œ ‰ J ‰‰ J ‰ J ‰
b J 3 3

? b œ œ œ œ. œ nœ œ œ œ nœ œ œ œ. œ
œ. œ
276

bb œ bœ œ œ œ nœ
Carter œ

Call and response interactions are common in the “blues style,” and we find such an exchange in
measures 273-81. As with measures 242-48, Coleman is able to establish the negative space of his
2-bar motive by ending each figure with two eighth notes on the down beats of every other bar.
This “negative space” allows Hancock to “answer” Coleman in a consistent fashion and reinforces
the impact of Coleman’s use of blues vocabulary.

Measures 282-5
Coleman’s use of a sequence in measures 282-285 transitions the rhythm section out of the
“blues style” and begins to signal the end of the solo. (fig. 4.18)
 94

Figure 4.18 Sequence

Fm11
œ œ. œ œ œ œ n œ285 # œ .
b œ nœ ˙
‰ J J J
282 283 284

Coleman Vbb Œ Œ Ó Ó

(√) diminished
œ ww
“lyrical style”
bbb œœ œ œ ‰ œœ ‰ b œœœ ... ˙
282 quality
& ∑ œœ w n ˙˙
œ œ J
B b 13 Db9 C 7 (b 9)
n b œœ œœ b œœ œœ n n œœœ www bœ.
Hancock G m11
nœ. bœ
? bb ‰ j Œ
b œ Ó ‰ Jœ w ‰ œ. nœ. J

? b œ œ nœ
282

bb œ œ nœ œ bœ œ nœ œ œ
Carter œ œ œ œ

Again, the predictable nature of the sequence gives Hancock an opportunity to prepare a logical
response to Coleman’s line. For instance, notice the prominent nature of b-flat in Coleman’s line
at measure 282 suggesting Fmin11 as the harmony. Upon reaching the second half of the phrase,
Hancock acknowledges this with Gmin11 in measure 284, anticipating that Coleman’s next gesture
will also utilize the eleventh scale degree of Gmin. Although Coleman’s subsequent c-natural is
only played in passing, this interaction adds a degree of continuity to the performance that would
otherwise be missing.

Measures 286-91
After playing the “transition motive” in measures 286-7, Coleman performs an intense passage
over the solo break. (fig. 4.19) Instead of playing EbMaj7, as would be “normal” during the final
two measures of the form, Coleman’s line outlines Abmin11-Db7. As a common substitution for
Fmin7(b5)-Bb7(b9), this line functions as an anticipation of measure 1 of the form.9 But what
is compelling about this example is not necessarily the substitution itself, which Coleman uses
frequently during the form, or the fact that he is anticipating it a full two measures early. What is
compelling is the transference that occurs when Coleman’s Db7 in measures 288-9 is transformed
into an ostinato figure in measures 290-91 that shapes Hancock’s first chorus on the form.

9 This is in direct relationship to the use of Ab minor that pervades the A sections both during the statement of the
melody and during the solo section. Ab Dorian minor relates to Db7, a common substitution used in bebop during minor
ii-V-I progressions. Here, Db7 is played as an anticipatory substitution for Fm7b5- Bb7(b9). It is also worth noting that the
Ab melodic minor scale can also be used over Fmin7(b5).
 95

Figure 4.19
Tag Motive
b œ. ˙
286 287

Coleman Vbb ‰ ˙ ˙

286
b ˙˙
& b b ww ˙ ˙
n n ˙˙
B b13b9#11
œœ œœ œœ
Hancock
˙ œœœ
F m13

? b b ˙˙ ‰ ˙˙ n œœ ..
b œ. J

? bb œ
286
œ œ nœ œ nœ b œ œ3 œ œ œ3 œ
Carter b

y j
5y
y
5y
y
5y
y
5y
y
5y
y
5y
y
5y
286 3

Williams ã ‰ 5 ‰

A b m11 D b7
bœ
b b œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ 289 œ œ œ œ bœ ˙ œ.
œ bœ œ œ bœ œ bœ œ œ
œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙
288 290 291

Coleman Vbb Œ

b b ˙˙ n nn œœœ ... œœ Œ ˙ œœœ

288

& b b œœ Œ Ó ∑ ˙ œ
J 3
Hancock Eb 9 D b 13 Eb 9
6 6

œ .
# œœ .
œœ
D 13

? bb œ Œ n ˙˙
b Ó ∑ J ∑

? bb ˙ .
288

Carter b Œ ∑ ∑ ∑

j
288

5 Œ y xo ‰ xo
Williams ã Ó ∑ Œ ∑

Hancock
Hancock’s tag section features two build-ups to climaxes, the first spanning measure 350 to
measure 378 and the second from m. 385 to m. 425. The following excerpts examine Hancock’s
drive to the second and more significant of these two climaxes. Along the way, Hancock creates
tension through effective use of the “polymetric style,” guiding Williams and Carter to his climax
through rhythmic and harmonic interplay.
 96

Measures 383-90
In measure 383, Hancock’s solo is in the midst of its first climax, a fact punctuated by his use
of block chords and a higher register (measure 384). Sensing that Hancock’s solo will continue to-
ward a second climax, Williams “suggests” a transition to a Latin-tinged straight eighth-note style.
(fig. 4.20)

Figure 4.20 Block chords

^œ >˙˙
383

b œ œ œ bœ œ œ 384
j œœ ˙˙ œ 385
j œœ ..
œœ .. œ œ œ
nœ œ œ
386

&bb c ‰
#œ œ ‰ J
#œ J œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
œœ .. œœ œœœœ .... œœœœ ‰ œœœ
Hancock

? bb c ‰ œ . ‰
œ œ n œœœœ œœœœ œœ
‰ œJ Œ ‰ ‰ Ó Œ ‰ œj
b J
F m9 B b 13 G min7 C9 F min7 2/4 meter B b 13
œ œ œ œ.
? bb c b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ nœ ˙ œ
J bœ
j
b J J œ. œ
Carter
Swing Feel

y 5y y 5y y 5y 5y y y y y y y y y 5y 5y 5y y y y 5y y y 5y 5y
Williams ã c 5 œ 5
Ride cymbal played with Straight 8ths Feel
straight 8ths feel “suggests”
transition in m. 386
“lyrical style”

b œ # œj œ œ œ œ œ ‰ œ
387 388 389 390

& b b œ. ˙ Œ Œ ‰ jœ
œ œ œ J œ
3

> œ. œ œ
j
œœ
Hancock
œ ˙˙ ‰ œœœœ œœœœ œ ˙ œ œ œ œœ
? bb œ
œ
b ‰ J Œ Œ Œ. n œœ œœ ‰ œJœ Œ . œ
J Œ ‰ J
œ
Ó J
E b M9 ()
C 7 #9 F min7 B b 13

? bb œ œ j œ œ nœ ˙ j j
387

b ˙ œ ˙ œ bœ œ ˙ œ bœ œ
Carter
J

y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
387

Williams ã 5 5 œ œ 5 œ 5 5 œ œ 5 5 5 œ 5 5 œ œ 5 œ

Williams carefully places his “suggestion” a full three measures before the start of the next formal
unit (measure 386), providing ample time for the other players to react. Besides switching from a
swinging eighth-note style to a straight eighth-note style, the new time feel also changes to a half-
time feel, suggesting longer note values to Hancock.
 97

Measures 391-405
After a short stay in the “lyrical style,” Hancock begins to inject blues vocabulary into his play-
ing in measure 391. (fig. 4.21)

Figure 4.21

b ‰ œ b œœœ œœœ
391 392 393 394

&bb Ó #œ
j nœ œ bœ œ œ œ bœ œ bœ œ œ bœ
∑
œ Œ
œ.
œœ .. j
œœ œœ .. b œœ œœ . n n œœ b b œœ .. œœ œœ
Hancock
? b œ.
bb J J
. œ
JŒ ‰ Jœ œ . nœ ˙ œ œ Œ ‰ Ó
Ó ‰ ‰ œ
C 7(# 9)
3

E b7
œ œ.
F min7
œ œ œ
391

? b œ ˙ œ bœ. œ. J ‰ J œ⁄ ˙ J
Carter bb ˙ J
391
y y y y y y y y y y yyy yy y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Williams ã 5 5 5 œ œ 5 œ5 5 œ œ 5 œ 5 55 œ œ 5 œ 5 55

œœ œœ j œœ
b ‰ # œj œœœ ‰ j ‰ œ b œœœ œœœ œœ j
395 396 397 398

&bb Œ Œ Ó Ó #œ œ
œ œ œ
J œ œ
œœ .. j j
b œœœ œœœ œœ œ œ
Hancock
œ œœœ œœœ ‰ œœœ ‰ j ‰
? bb ∑ Œ ‰ J ‰ ‰ nœ œ. n œœ ‰ œœ ‰ b œœœ œ œ.
b J ‰ Ó œ
B b13 sus B b7 E b7 ()
œ œ.
C 7 #9 F m9

? b œ. œ œ ˙ œ œ. œ. œ œ œ⁄ ˙ J
395

Carter bb J ‰ J œ⁄ J J

395
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Williams ã œ œ 5 5 œ œ 5 œ 5 5 5 œ œ 5 5 5

399
œ
400
œœ œœ j œœ
401
œœ
402
œ b œ œj œ œ
b œ œ œ.
j
j
œ œ. nœ
J J
&bb ˙ Ó œ Œ Œ
Figure 4.31 #œ œ

œœœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œ œ
œ ‰ n œœœœ
Hancock
œ œœ
? bb Π.
b
œ
J ‰ ‰ œ ‰ œ Œ ‰ n Jœ Œ . n œœ ‰ œœ ‰ b œœœ Œ ‰ œJœ Œ ‰ œj
J
B b7 Eb 9 C 7(# 9)
6
399 F m9

? b œ. œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ j j
bb J ‰ J œ⁄ J J J bœ œ œ bœ. œ œ nœ
Carter œ
399 Swing Feel

y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Williams ã œ œ 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 œ œy5 œ 5 5y 5œ

Despite the change in Hancock’s style, the accompaniment continues in a straight eighth-note feel.
Perhaps hoping to use blues vocabulary as a way to propel the group back into a swing-feel, Han-
 98

cock’s second motivic group is played in a higher octave (measures 398-401). This subtle method
of intensification seems to have the intended effect on Carter. In order to facilitate a cohesive
transition from the straight eighth-note style to swing style, Carter begins to “swing” a full measure
before the start of the next phrase (measures 400-2). The syncopated effect of the bass line here
provides a clear contrast with the preceding measures, giving Williams a full bar to anticipate the
upcoming shift in rhythm.

Measures 405-9
After the rhythm section starts swinging again in measure 402, Hancock continues in the
“blues style” for one more 4-bar phrase (402-5). In measure 405, he begins to weave the 2-bar blues
motive into a descending bebop line. (fig. 4.22)

Figure 4.22
#œ nœ œ œ nœ œ
“Blues Style” “Bebop Style”
œ
bb œ œ b œ œ œ3 œb œ œ œ nœ œ œ nœ œ nœ
405 406 407 408 409

# œ
3

œ
& b nœ œ bœ nœ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ nœ ‰
3

œ œ œ nœ bœ œ œ œ #œ
œœ # œœ # œœ œœ . œœ
œ œ ‰ n œJ Œ . n n œœœ œœœ .... b œœJ
Hancock
œœœ ‰ œœœ ‰ œœœ Ó
V of E
? bb Œ . n œ Œ œ ‰ j
b J nœ ˙ œ nœ œ. J J
√ F m(maj7)
#
b
C 7b
œ œ nœ œ. œ
9

œ œ nœ œ œ œ nœ œ nœ œ bœ
B 7 E m11

? b œ œ œ
405 9

Carter bb œ nœ
405

y y x y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
ã 5x 5 5
Williams œ 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Hancock uses bebop phrases here as part of a transitional strategy that will lead him from the
“blues style” into the “polymetric style.” However, they also function as a way for Hancock to estab-
lish a new chord substitution pattern. (fig. 4.23)

Figure 4.23
Normal Tag Harmonies
F min7 B b7 Eb C7

& bbb ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’

Hancock’s Chord Substitutions

F min7 B b7 E min7 A7

& bbb ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’
Half-step Below
 99

This kind of chord progression is frequently referred to as a “half-step below” substitution be-
cause the initial ii-V progression of the phrase (Fmin7-Bb7) is approached from a half step below
(Emin7-A7).10 By playing familiar bebop vocabulary during these measures, Hancock subtly
eases into the new progression, and prepares himself for the “polymetric style” in measure 410. He
attempts to indicate the new chord progression to Carter in measure 407 by playing notes in his
left hand that indicate the bass notes of the harmony. The first of these notes is a b-natural that is
played completely independent of his right hand line, which is expressing Bb7. Instead of actually
playing B7 in measure 407, Hancock merely seeks to imply a V-I resolution to Emin7 in measure
408, giving Carter a full measure to prepare for the coming chord substitutions.11

Measures 410-14
Like Davis, Hancock uses complicated rhythmic figures to create tension over the course of a
phrase. (fig. 4.24)

4
Figure 4.24
>œ œ3 >œ3 œ j 3 >œ
œ œ n œ3 œ 411 >œ œ œ >œ œ >œ œ 3
3

#œ œ
3

bb œ œ
3

œ
410

& b œ œ œ œ
Hancock
j œœœ œœœ œœœœ œœœœ
? bb Ó ‰ œ œ
Œ ‰
œ œ
3
b Œ. œœ ˙˙ J
J 3 3

B b 13
œ
F m13
nœ œ bœ œ nœ œ nœ
? bb
410

Carter b

y y y y y y y y y
410

Williams ã 5 5 œ 5
y
5

# >œ n œ 3 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
>œ # œ 3 >œ n œ 3 n >œ œ n œ n >œ # œ
412 413 414

œ œ
3

œ œ
3

# œ #œ œ œ
3

bb
3

‰ nœ œ # œ nœ œ œ œ ‰
& b nœ

# œœ .. œœœ œ œœ œœœ ... œœœ œœ œœœœ

œ ‰ œœœ Œ n # œœœ œœœ œœœ
Hancock
? b b n œœ .. ‰ Jœ ‰ œ œ ‰ Jœœ œ. œ ‰ œœ
b J J J J J
B b 13
bœ.
412
E m9 F m9

? bb œ b¿ œ nœ
Carter b nœ œ œ bœ œ œ œ nœ
412

y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Williams ã 5 5 5
y
5 5 5 5

10 The “half-step below” substitution pattern is most famously used in John Coltrane’s “Moment’s Notice” and “Lazy
Bird.” See: John Coltrane, Blue Train, (New York; Blue Note, 1957).
11 As will be discussed later, Carter doesn’t recognize the new chord progression until measures 420-21.
 100

During measures 410-11, Hancock superimposes a 6/4 meter over the native 4/4 meter using a
step-wise diatonic pattern. In the following 2 bars, he displaces the rhythm by starting the pattern
on the second partial of the first triplet group. With the buildup of rhythmic tension neatly parti-
tioned into a 4-bar phrase, Williams is able to anticipate an arrival at the end of measure 413.

Measures 418-21
After a brief 4-bar phrase that features rhythmic stability and bebop vocabulary, Hancock
continues his exploration of eight-note triplets. (fig. 4.25)

Figure 4..25

b œ3 œ œ3 œ œ œ3 œ œ œ3 œ œ œ3 œ œ œ3 œ œ œ3 œ œ œ3 n œ # œ n 3œ œ œ œ3 œ œ œ3 œ œ œ3 œ # œ n 3œ œ œ œ3 œ œ œ3 œ œ œ3 œ
418 419 420 421

&bb œ œ
œœœ
n # œœ
Hancock
œ œœ
œœ œ
? bb
b ∑ Ó Œ ‰ Jœ Œ Ó Ó Œ ‰ J
F m9 E m13
œ nœ œ nœ bœ œ œ
418

? bb œ œ nœ œ œ
b nœ œ bœ
nœ
Carter

418
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Williams ã œ 5 5 5œ 5 5 5 5 5 Œ 5 œ 5 5 5 5
y y y y

Increased Syncopation

During this phrase, one begins to notice some subtle reactions to Hancock’s harmonic and rhyth-
mic elaborations. After three phrases of not recognizing Hancock’s chord substitutions (measures
406-17), Carter finally expresses Emin7 in measures 420-21. Also, Williams’ accompaniment
becomes gradually more responsive to Hancock’s persistent use of triplets, a fact reflected in his
offbeat comping figures.
 101

Measures 422-6
In the following phrase, Williams’ accompaniment becomes even more active. (fig. 4.26)

Figure 4.26
√
Swingin 8th notes

j j
j œœ œœ œœ n œœœ œœ
3

b j œœ œœ
422 423 424 3

j j œ œ œ b œœ
&bb j œ œ
3 3

j œ œ
3 3

œ œ œ
3 3 3 3 3 3

nœ œ œ œ œ œ œ J J bœ œ œ œ œ œ J
J
˙˙ œœœ œœœ ... .
œœœœ œœœœ ... n œœœ œœ n œœœ œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ
Hancock
? b b ˙˙ ‰ œ ‰ œ œ.
J œ œ œ œ œ nœ
b J J J J
3 3
B b 13
#9 3
F m9 G 7#5

œ œ nœ œ bœ œ. œ nœ œ
422

? bb œ œ bœ
Carter b œ
422 j 3 3 3 3
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Williams ã 5 5 ‰ ‰ Œ 5 5 5 5 œ
y
(√)
œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ n n œœ œœ œœ n œœ œ œ b b œœ œœ
b œœ
425 426 427
3 Intensified Rhythmic Activity
œ bœ nœ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ bœ œ
3

œ œ
3

&bb œ œ œ J J
J
œ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œ
Hancock
œœ n œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ b b œœ œœ
? b b n œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ b n œœ œ ‰ œ œ
b J J J
#9 3 3 3
C 7#5
nœ œ. œ œ œ œ. œ œ
425 F 13 E 13

? bb œ œ œ
Carter b
425
3 3
y y y y y y y y y x y y
Williams ã 5
y
5
y
5
y
5 5
Rhythmic Tension Resolved

Here, Williams heightens the rhythmic tension by superimposing quarter-note triplets over the
quarter-notes pulse. This tension is resolved in measure 426 as Hancock reaches the primary cli-
max of his solo and Williams returns to a standard 4/4 accompaniment style.

Measures 426-9
Hancock reinforces the climax of his solo with a thickened texture and by exploiting the
higher registers of the piano. (fig. 4.27)
 102

Figure 4.27 Block Chord Textures

(√) Peak
n œ b ¨œ >œ œ  
426 427 428 429 430

œ œ œ bœ œœ b b œœ b œœ n œ œ œ b b œœ œ bœ
bb œœ œœ n œœ œ œ ‰ b b œœ œ b œ b œ bb œœ œœ ‰ n n œœœ œœœ œ b b œœ b b œœœ œ n œ œ ‰b œ bœ œ
& b œ œ J J
F # m11
# œœ œœ n œœ œœ ..
G m11 F m11
œ œ œ œ œ bœ œœ b b œœ œœ œœ œœ n œœ œœ œœ n b œœ œœ n n # œœœ œœœ n œœ œœ ‰n b b œœ œœ ..
Hancock
? b b œœ n œœ œœ œœ œœ ‰ b œœ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ œ nœ œ ‰ ‰
b
426
œ. œ œ
F 13
œ œ. œ œ bœ. œ œ
E 13
œ œ œ œ. œ œ
? bb œ bœ œ œ
Carter
b œ
426
y y y x y y xy y y y y y y y y y y y y yy y y y
Williams
ã 5 5 ‰ 5 ‰ 5 5 Ó ‰ 555

The use of block chords during the climax of Hancock’s solo suggests the influence of Davis’ former
pianists who also rely heavily on this technique.12 The thickening of the chords and homophonic
texture are evocative of “shout choruses” from typical big band arrangements.13 Hancock colors
the moment by substituting Fmin7 with F13, and the use of block chords provides an effective and
idiomatic climax to his solo.

Rhythm Section

Stylistic Modulation
Tony Williams is a master at instigating new time feels in the ensemble. His primary strategy
for changing the feel consists of playing elements of the new feel a measure or two before the end
of a 4-bar unit, implying to the other performers that a new time feel will begin in the following
4-bar phrase.

12 Red Garland’s last chorus on the form of “All of You” on the ‘Round About Midnight recording uses this tech-
nique. Block chords also appear in one way or another during Wynton Kelly’s final chorus on several recordings of
“All of You.”
13 Kernfeld, “Shout,” in New Grove Dictionary, 1116. “A ‘shout chorus’ is a loud, spirited, climactic chorus in a
performance by a big band, in which the brass section leads the whole ensemble.”
 103

Ostinato
Numerous examples of Williams instigating ostinato figures in the rhythm section can be
found during “All of You.” The first of these examples comes at the end of the B section during
Davis’ second chorus on the form. (fig. 4.28)

Figure 4.28
43
b œ œ 44
œ œ
45
œ 46
œ^
Davis &bb Ó Œ Ó Œ Ó Œ œ Ó Œ

b n œœ .. œœ n œœ .. œ.
n œœœ ... œœœ
Ostinato figure
œœ
b bb ‰ œ . Œ ‰
œ.
Œ ‰ Œ ‰ b œœœ Œ
œ.
‰ n œœ ..
&
J
Hancock
bœ. œœ œ. œœ n œ. œœœ bœ œ.
? b b ‰ n n œœ .. œ Œ ‰ n œœ .. œ Œ ‰ œœ .. Œ ‰ Jœ Œ ‰ #œ.
b
G b m (m aj7) ( )
F m m aj7 B b 13 b 9() E b 7(# 9) ()
D 7 #9

? bb œ œ œ ˙ n ˙˙
b b˙ œ ˙ ˙
˙ ˙
Carter

Williams ã 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
yo
5 5
yo
5 5
yo
5 5
yo

b -
œ œ œ bœ bœ
47 48 49

&bb œ œ. Œ Ó ∑ Œ
3
3 3

Davis bœ bœ œ œ
j œ b œœ ˙˙
b bœ œœœ ‰ b œœ .. b b œœ œ ˙
& b b ‰ n œœ Œ ‰
J
Œ œœ Œ

b œœ
Hancock
b œ .. œœ œœ œœ bœ ˙
? b b ‰ n œœ Œ ‰ J Œ ‰ œœ . œ ‰ ‰ œ ‰
b J
D b 13 (# 9) ( )
#9
C 7#5 B Maj7 E M7 #11

? b b b ˙˙ ˙˙
b b ˙˙
˙˙ nœ
b nœ
n˙
Carter

3 3

ã 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Ó
Williams
yo yo yo y >

By playing on beats 2 and 4 in measure 45, Williams subtly reminds Hancock and Carter of the
repeating motive that occurs during the first chorus of Davis’ performance.
 104

A similar event occurs during the first chorus of Hancock’s solo, again at the end of the
B section. (fig. 4.29)

Figure 4.29
œ >œ œ œ œ œ^ 3
b j 3 ‰ J ‰ # œ œ œJ œ Œ œ œ3 œ Œ
299 300 301 302

&bb #œ
j nœ nœ ‰#œ œ œ œ bœ nœ œ Œ Œ

œ ‰ œœœ œœ .. œœ n œœ
Hancock
? b n ˙˙˙ œ b œœ ˙˙
‰ œœ ‰ œœ ˙˙
œœ
‰ œJœ Œ
œœœ ... œ. œ Œ ‰ J
bb ‰ ‰ J
Bb9 Eb 9
6
G m9 F m9 D9

? b œ bœ œ nœ œ œ nœ œ nœ bœ œ
Carter bb œ ‰ œ. ‰ œ.

y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Williams ã 5 5 Œ 5 5 5 Œ 5 Œ
y y

Synchronized

b 3œ œ
b œ n œ3 œ b œ b œ3 œ Œ ‰ œ bœ bœ œ œ bœ bœ œ bœ
303 304 3 305

bœ bœ œ Ó
3

&bb Œ Œ
3 3

nœ b œœ
Hancock
? b b ‰ # œœ Œ Ó ‰ œJ Œ Ó Ó ‰ n # # œœœ ...
b J
Db B B M13 ( )
E M7 #11

? bb ‰ œ . œ œ
b ‰ bœ. ‰ œ. ‰ J nœ
n˙.
Carter

y y y
ã 5 Œ 5 ‰ 5 5 5 Ó ∑
Williams
y y yo

In this example, instead of Williams playing cues on beats 2 and 4, he accents the end of beat 3
(measures 299-300). The direct result is a transformation of Carter’s approach to the by now fa-
miliar ostinato figure. Carter follows Williams’ example and plays on the upbeats of 1 and 3 of the
following phrase instead of the downbeats as in the first example (measures 46-49).14

14 Carter also plays this ostinato motive on the upbeats of 1 and 3 during the first chorus of Coleman’s solo. It is
possible that Williams’ “suggestion” to play upbeats derives from here. (measures 186-89)
 105

Straight Eighth-Note Styles

As discussed earlier in the chapter, Williams deftly guides the ensemble out of the first peak of
Hancock’s solo into a relaxed straight-eighths feel in measures 386-405. (see figure 4.20) A similar
episode occurs towards the end of Hancock’s solo. (fig. 4.30)

Figure 4.30
b
432 433 434

Davis &bb ∑ ∑ ∑
Begin “Transition Motive”

b œ œ œ j
&bb œ nœ œ ˙. œœ œœ œ ˙w œ œ.
Œ Œ #œ
J
#9

œ œœ
Hancock C 7#5
n œœœ œ
www
G m11 F m9
œ
? bb ‰
b ‰ œ Œ ‰ J ‰ n œœ œ Œ
3

? bb œ . œ
œ nœ. œ
œ
œ œ bœ œ. œ œ œ. œ œ.
Carter b J J

y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Williams 㠌
Straight 8th note feel on ride cymbal

b œ bœ
435 436 437

Davis &bb ∑ ∑ Œ ‰ j
œ œ œ œ œ

b ˙. œœ
& b b ˙˙ .. ‰ œ
J œ Œ ‰ j œ w
œ
B b 13
˙˙ Eb 9
œ
Hancock 6

? b b ˙˙ œ. j œœ Œ Ó ∑
b œ

? bb œ œ nœ œ œ œ œ œ
Carter
b J J Œ Ó ∑

y y y y y y y y
ã Ó ‰ Ó
y ‰ y
Williams 5 5 5
Straigtht 8th notes

In this example, Williams begins playing in a straight-eighths style over Hancock’s “transition
motive.” With Davis’ impending entrance in measure 438, and a return to the ostinato figure that
characterizes the A sections of the melodic statements, a transition to the straight-eighths style
must wait until measure 446 when Davis cues a departure from the ostinato. Davis’ use of rhyth-
mic tension in measure 444 cues the departure from the ostinato figure, but it’s Williams’ stylistic
suggestion from measures 434-35 that guides the ensemble into the straight-eighths feel.
 106

Summary
The analysis in Chapter Four reveals numerous interactive techniques at work. Most notable
is the wide variety of ways in which the ensemble members are able to create a sense of expecta-
tion. The use of sequences, call and response exchanges, phrase rhyming, and calculated stylistic
contrasts allow the rhythm section to anticipate what the soloist will play next. From there, the
rhythm section is able to prepare thoughtful and cohesive accompaniments that elevate the music
to a higher level.
 107

Chapter Five

Future Research Directions

Like the music itself, jazz research is still relatively young when compared to classical music
studies. And although the study of interaction in jazz has gained momentum in recent years,
additional research is required in the future if we are to gain a comprehensive understanding of
the subject.

The Evolution of the “Living Framework”

The evolution in recent decades of well-known, popular songs in ensembles provides a prom-
ising topic for future research. Groups like the Charles Lloyd Quartet of the 1960s, the Keith Jarrett
Trio of the early 1980s, the Wynton Marsalis Quartet of the late 1980s, the Jacky Terrasson Trio of
the 1990s and Brad Mehldau Trio of the 2000s have explored these popular songs in a manner that
demonstrates an enduring debt to the legacy of the Miles Davis Quintet of the 1960s.1 As dis-
cussed in Chapter Two, the recordings made by these and other groups represent the continuation
of the “living framework” of dozens of songs recorded over the last half-century. Unlike “original”
compositions, which are often recorded only once by one artist, common popular songs provide a
comparative model by which we may be able to assess the historically important developments of a
particular era.

Contemporary Styles
Although Chapter Three of this study presents an archetype of one of the most common forms
of the “jazz aesthetic,” there are certainly many more to be explored. The emergence of free-jazz
styles and a move away from tonality into modality and atonality creates the need for new aesthetic
models that are designed around a different set of parameters. Additionally, new styles of improvi-
sation have emerged to navigate this wider range of harmonic and rhythmic possibilities. Beyond
the need for further studies of styles from the first half of the twentieth century (“bebop,” “blues,”
etc…), efforts should be made to provide a more concise categorization of contemporary styles.

1 For examples, see: Charles Lloyd Quartet, Dreamweaver, (Atlantic, SD 1459, 1966). LP; Keith Jarrett Trio, Stan-
dards, Vol. 1, (ECM, 1255, 1983). CD; Wynton Marsalis Quartet, Marsalis Standard Time Vol. 1, (New York, N.Y.: Columbia,
CK 40461,1987). CD; Jacky Terrasson, Jacky Terrasson, (Hollywood, Calif.: Blue Note, CDP 7243 8 29351 2 4, 1995). CD;
Brad Mehldau, The Art of the Trio. Volume One, (Burbank, CA: Warner Bros. 9 46260-2, 1997). CD.
 108

Jazz Research in the Digital Age

Many of the diagrams used in Chapter Three are constructed using digital technology that has
only become commonly available in recent years. Although these diagrams are somewhat unique,
other researchers are also using digital technologies in other areas of jazz research. For example,
researchers like Fernando Benadon, Matthew Butterfield and Vijay Iyer have recently explored a
subject called “expressive microtiming.”2 Using digital recording technology, they quantify ele-
ments of “groove” in a way that would not have been possible in the past. With these and other
studies in mind, advances in digital technology and its wide availability suggest opportunities for
new discoveries.

Research into ensemble interaction in jazz is hindered by a dearth of available full-score

transcriptions. The emergence of studies such as this one and many others like it suggest the need
for a large database of transcriptions, particularly ones that include scores of the comping instru-
ments. Again, advances in the digital world may provide a solution to this need. The development
of a website where qualified users can upload, download, and edit transcriptions would be a step in
the right direction. Until steps like these are taken, research that relies on comparative analyses of
multiple sources will remain difficult.

The Role of Expectation in Interaction

Chapter Four reveals that successful interaction in jazz largely depends on the creation of ex-
pectation. The use of sequences, call and response exchanges, phrase rhyming, and calculated sty-
listic contrasts are some of the most common techniques used by the soloists to create expectation
in Davis’ quintet. However, further research into this concept may well demonstrate the existence
of many other techniques, providing additional information to performers and educators who seek
to enhance the interactive capabilities of their respective ensembles.

2 Vijay Iyer, “Embodied Mind, Situated Cognition, and Expressive Microtiming in African-American Music,”
Music Perception 19.3 (2002): 387-414; Benadon, Fernando. 2006. “Slicing the Beat: Jazz Eighth-Notes as Expressive Micro-
rhythm.” Ethnomusicology 50 (1): 73–98; Matthew Butterfield, “The Power of Anacrusis: Engendered Feeling in Groove-
Based Musics,” Music Theory Online 12/4, 2006.
 109

Summary
Until recently, developments in jazz pedagogy have focused largely on individual achievement.
Since the mid-1990s, texts by authors like Berliner, Monson and others have raised awareness to
the central importance of interaction in jazz, leading to a shifting emphasis in jazz education.3 It
is hoped that the present writer’s work will contribute to this shift in emphasis and to gain a greater
understanding of the basic principles that have informed and continue to inform ensemble interac-
tions in jazz.

3 Berliner, Thinking in Jazz; Monson, Saying Something.

 110

Selected Bibliography

Scores
Hancock, Herbie. Classic Jazz Compositions and Piano Solos/ Herbie Hancock; Transcribed by
Bill Dobbins. Germany: Advance Music, 1992.

Recordings
Ahmad Jamal Trio. Chamber Music of the New Jazz. New York: Verve, 1955, CD.
Astaire, Fred. “All of You,” Silk Stockings: Original M-G-M Picture Soundtrack Recording. Los
Angeles: Turner Entertainment/Rhino Movie Music, 1956-57, CD.
Brad Mehldau Trio. The Art of the Trio. Volume One. Burbank, CA: Warner Bros. 9 46260-2,
1997, CD.
Charles Lloyd Quartet. Dreamweaver. Atlantic, SD 1459, 1966, LP.
Keith Jarrett Trio. Standards, Vol. 1. ECM, 1255, 1983, CD.
Coltrane, John. Blue Train. New York: Blue Note, 1957.
Fitzgerald, Ella. “All of You,” Ella Fitzgerald Sings the Cole Porter Song Book. New York: Verve,
1956, CD.
Jacky Terrasson Trio. Jacky Terrasson. Hollywood, CA: Blue Note, CDP 7243 8 29351 2 4, 1995,
CD.
Miles Davis Quintet (4 recordings). Cookin’, Relaxin’, Steamin’, and Workin’. Miles Davis, trum-
pet, John Coltrane, tenor saxophone, Red Garland, piano, Paul Chambers, bass, Philly
Joe Jones, drums. Prestige, PR7094, 7129, 7166, 7200 1956, LP.
Miles Davis Quintet (2 recordings) My Funny Valentine and Four and More. Miles Davis,
trumpet. George Coleman, tenor saxophone. Herbie Hancock, piano. Ron Carter, bass.
Tony Williams, drums. Columbia, CL 2306, 1964, CD.
Miles Davis Quintet. ‘Round About Midnight. Columbia, CL 949, 1956, LP.
Miles Davis Quintet (7 CD set). Complete Live at the Plugged Nickel. Miles Davis, trumpet.
Wayne Shorter, tenor saxophone. Herbie Hancock, piano. Ron Carter, bass. Tony Wil-
liams, drums. Columbia, CL 66955, 1965, CD.
Miles Davis Quintet (2 CD set). Miles Davis In Person: Friday and Saturday Night at the
Blackhawk. Miles Davis, trumpet. Hank Mobley, tenor saxophone. Wynton Kelly, piano.
Paul Chambers, bass. Jimmy Cobb, drums. Columbia, CL 87106, 1961, CD.
Wynton Marsalis Quartet. Marsalis Standard Time Vol. 1. New York, NY: Columbia, CK 40461,
1987, CD.
 111

Books
Bergerot, Frank. Miles Davis: An Introduction For Modern Jazz Listening. Paris: Seuil, 1996.
Berliner, Paul F. Thinking in Jazz: The Infinite Art of Improvisation. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1994.
Campbell, Jeffrey. “Two Profiles in the Development of Jazz Bass Playing: A Study of Jimmy
Blanton and Ron Carter.” DMA dissertation, Eastman School of Music, Rochester, NY
2002.
Chambers, Jack. Milestones: The Music and Times of Miles Davis. New York: Quill William
Morrow, 1983.
Collingwood, R. G. The Principles of Art. New York: Oxford University Press, 1938.
Coolman, Todd. “The Miles Davis Quintet of the Mid-1960s: Synthesis of Improvisational and
Compositional Elements.” Ph. D dissertation, New York University, 1997.
Davis, Miles. Miles, the Autobiography/ Miles Davis with Quincy Troupe. New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1990.
Dewey, John. Art as Experience. New York: Minton, Balch & Company, 1934.
Early, Gerald, ed. Miles Davis and American Culture. St. Louis, MO: Missouri Historical Soci-
ety Press: Distributed by University of Missouri Press, 2001.
Forte, Allen. The American Popular Ballad of the Golden Era, 1924-1950. Princeton, NJ: Princ-
eton University Press, 1995.
Galper, Hal. Jazz Piano Voicings by Hal Galper. Indiana: Jamey Aebersold, Date Unknown.
Gioia, Ted. The History of Jazz. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Kernfeld, Barry ed. The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994.
Martin, Henry. Charlie Parker and Thematic Improvisation. Newark, NJ; Institute of Jazz Stud-
ies, Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey; Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1996.
Harris, William J. The Poetry and Poetics of Amiri Baraka: The Jazz Aesthetic. Columbia: Uni-
versiy of Missouri Press, 1985.
Hodson, Robert. Interaction, Improvisation, and Interplay in Jazz. New York: Routledge, Taylor
and Francis Group, 2007.
Johnstone, Keith. Improv: Improvisation and the Theatre. Theatre Arts Book; 1 edition.
January 7, 1987.
Laitz, Stephen. The Complete Musician. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2009).
 112

Monson, Ingrid. Saying Something: Jazz Improvisation and Interaction. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1996.
The New Real Book, Volume 2. Petaluma, CA: Sher Music, 1991.
Ratner, Leonard. Classic Music: Expression, Form and Style. New York: Schirmer Books,
1980.
Sawyer, Keith. Group Creativity: Music, Theatre, Collaboration. Mahwah, NJ; London: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates, 2003.
Silver, Horace. The Art of Small Jazz Combo Playing. New York: Hal Leonard Corporation,
1995.
Stravinsky, Igor. The Poetics of Music. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1942.
Such, David. Avant-garde Jazz Musicians: Performing “Out There.” Iowa City: University of
Iowa Press, 1993.

Articles
Benadon, Fernando. “Slicing the Beat: Jazz Eighth-Notes as Expressive Microrhythm,” Ethno-
musicology, vol. 50, no. 1 (2006): 73–98.
Berliner, Paul F. “Adding to Arrangements,” Jazz Changes: The Magazine of the International
Association of Schools of Jazz, vol. 1, no. 2 (1994): 20-27.
Bragalini, Luca. “My Funny Valentine: The Disintegration of the Standard,” Italy: Musica
Jazz, vol. 53, no. 8/9 (August/September, 1997).
Butterfield, Matthew. “The Power of Anacrusis: Engendered Feeling in Groove-Based Mu-
sics,” Music Theory Online, vol. 12, no. 4 (2006).
Brofsky, Howard “Miles Davis and ‘My Funny Valentine:’ The Evolution of a Solo,” Black
Music Research Journal, vol. 3 (1983): 23-45.
Cronbach, Lee. “Structural Polytonality in Contemporary Afro-American Music,” Black
Music Research Journal, vol. 2 (1981): 15-33.
Dobbins, Bill. “Improvisation: An Essential Element of Musical Proficiency,” Music Educators
Journal, vol. 66, no. 5 (Jan. 1980): 36-41.
Forte, Allen. “Secrets of Melody: Line and Design in the Songs of Cole Porter,” The Musical
Quarterly, vol. 77, no. 4 (Winter, 1993): 607-647.
Harker, Brian. “Telling a Story: Louis Armstrong and Coherence in Early Jazz,” Current Mu-
sicology, vol. 63 (1999).
Heidegger, Martin. “Bauen Wohnen Denken,” Vorträge und Aufsätze, Frankfurt am Main: V.
Klostermann, (2000).
 113

Iyer, Vijay. “Embodied Mind, Situated Cognition, and Expressive Microtiming in African-
American Music,” Music Perception, vol. 19, no. 3 (2002): 387-414.
Larson, Robert. “An Analysis of Bill Evans’ Early Piano Style as Seen in the Portrait in Jazz Ver-
sion of ‘Blue in Green,” Jazz Research Papers, vol. 9 (1989): 140-65.
Larson, Steve “Schenkerian Analysis of Modern Jazz: Questions about Method,” Music Theory
Spectrum, vol. 20, no. 2 (Autumn, 1998): 209-241.
Larson, Steve. “The Art of Charlie Parker’s Rhetoric,” Annual Review of Jazz Studies, vol. 8
(1996): 141-66.
Lindeman, Stephan D. “Miles’ Stella: A Comparison in the Light of the Two Quintets,” Annual
Review of Jazz Studies, vol. 9 (1997): 57-76.
Meadows, Eddie. “The Miles Davis-Wayne Shorter Connection: Continuity and Change,” Jazz-
forschung/Jazz Research, vol. 20 (1988): 55-63.
Porter, Lewis. “A Love Supreme: Jazz Improvisation as Composition,” Journal of the American
Musicological Society, vol. 38, no. 3 (Autumn, 1985): 593-621.
Reyman, Randall. “An Analysis of Melodic Improvisational Practices of Miles Davis,” Jazz
Research Papers, vol. 7 (1987): 116-54.
Richter, Stephan. “The Beauty of Building, Dwelling, and Monk: Aesthetics, Religion, and the
Architectural Qualities of Jazz,” African American Review, vol. 29, no. 2 (1995).
Rinzler, Paul E. “Preliminary Thoughts on Analyzing Musical Interaction Among Jazz Per-
formers,” Annual Review of Jazz Studies, vol. 4, (1988).
Schuller, Gunther. “Sonny Rollins and the Challenge of Thematic Improvisation,” The Jazz
Review, vol. 1, no. 1 (November 1958): 6-11; reprinted in Musings: The Musical Worlds of
Gunther Schuller, 86-97. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
Smith, Christopher. “A Sense of the Possible: Miles Davis and the Semiotics of Improvised
Performance,” TDR (1988-), vol. 39, no. 3 (Autumn, 1995): 41-55.
Walser, Robert. “Out of Notes: Signification, Interpretation, and the Problem of Miles Davis,”
The Musical Quarterly, vol. 77, no. 2 (Summer, 1993), 343-365.
Waters, Keith. “Blurring the Barline: Metric Displacement in the Piano Solos of Herbie
Hancock,” Annual Review of Jazz Studies, vol. 8 (1996): 19-37.