Non-musician's opinions

[gnhrtg]

mke - I waited to see what was on Doug's mind when he said metric modulation. He seems to understand it the same way as I do while you more directly relate the term polyrhythm to what we are talking about. It is metric modulation and "it may appear to sound like a tempo change but is in fact just a different way of grouping the subdivisions [or even accents]." And as Doug says, there is a subdivision, or product, that is common to both. This is the way Gavin Harrison puts it. I'm pretty sure we mean the same thing.

Displacements and accent shifts will really get one stumped, though.

[Jazzooo]

"Wouldn't that be a polymeter, as it all of you seem to be playing at the same tempo?"

I think technically what is happening IS a polymeter, but the effect becomes metric modulation. As gnhrtg points out, when you stop audibly referring to the dominant rhythmic pulse and only accent the subdivided rhythms, it creates something different than simple syncopation.

"I often do the 3-over-2 thing to pass the time on public transportation (not kidding)."

I do it too! Next time, though, try this: do your 3 over 2 thing, then stop playing the 2 altogether. See how long you can play in 3 and then come back in exactly on the 'one' of the 2 rhythm. It requires you keeping that pulse going inside your head--not terribly difficult in the case of 3 over 2, but try it with 5 over 2 some time!

Bill Stewart has many wonderful examples of this on the new Sco album EnRoute. Somehow, the band keeps swinging even when he's playing a seemingly non-connecting subdivision.

[Williams225]

I am enjoying the discussion on the metric modulations and for sure I am getting educated. As a listner and not as a performer, I am curious about this: What is the musical effect created by various modulations of the rhythm? It is too easy to consider all this as tricks of the trade that only musicians enjoy for the sheer complexity of it. But I know that is not true. So, what does that create? A certain musical tension when the drummer and the piano player plays on different sub-divisions and a resolution when they meet back together? I have experienced that. Are there any other such musical objectives?

In my listening sessions with my friends who are well versed in Indian classical music ( especially the south indian variation ), they revel in the sheer complexity of rhythms in that music. The absence of polyphony and its resulting harmony allows them for a higher degree of complexity in rhythm ( and melody ) and the expert fans seem to dig that just for that. I have had discussions similar to this with them.

I am more of a utilitarian and get it only when it does something to me at a 'non-rational' level. I am amazed at the talent and mastery of the musicans ( Jazz or otherwise ) and that they can keep all these complex things together and I hold them in high regard and wonderment. And many times, it is fun, as a fan, being part of the inprovised interplay among the band. But there has to be more than that, hasn't it?

I guess what I am getting at is, in addition to enjoying the complexity for the complexity's sake, can that technicality be explained in terms of the effects it is expected to create for the fans?

[Jazzooo]

Hey, Williams--

"What is the musical effect created by various modulations of the rhythm? It is too easy to consider all this as tricks of the trade that only musicians enjoy for the sheer complexity of it. But I know that is not true. "

I think that's part of it, for sure. Just like your East Indian musician friends--there is joy in pushing yourself to do something trhat is difficult in your performance. The audience might not know what you're doing technically, but in concert they can see everyone grinning and exchanging looks and they sense the positive energy that comes from celebrating a teammate's creative idea.

"So, what does that create? A certain musical tension when the drummer and the piano player plays on different sub-divisions and a resolution when they meet back together? I have experienced that. Are there any other such musical objectives?"

For me as a soloist, when our drummer does it it creates a sense of 'freefall,' which liberates my thinking momentarily and might even send me off on a whole new direction. Our group's improv is filled with little moments of synchronous thinking and question and answer-type stuff. The drummer listen's to my phrasing and often echoes something I just played with a variation, which in turn inspires me to throw it back at him again with something similar but different. Often it ends up with us playing something similar in unision, as if it was rehearsed ahead of time. The audience probably reads it as telepathy, and it probably is.

I confess that I don't *always* like it when he drops in some metric modulation, though. I admire technically (I'm also a drummer) but sometimes it distracts from the natural swing of the song. Most of the time, though, he has the restraint to throw in a little metric goose and then lock back in to the groove.

[Jazzooo]

Where'd everyone go? I'm not done talking about his yet!

Mainly because I just thought of the perfect visual AND audio examples of metric modulation. They happen to be related in an interesting way.

First the visual example: Consider the sketches of MC Escher. In one sketch, he can change your perspective of, say, a staircase two or three times. Is it going up, down or sideways? Metric modulation does the same thing, only with rhythm. Is it in 4, 3, or another rhythm?

Now the audio example, which I heard on the radio the other day. It's Michael Brecker's song "Escher Sketches--A Tale of Two Rhythms" from his album "Now You See It, Now You Don't." Find this album at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=music

Scroll to Now You See It, Now You Don't.

Now listen to the clip of the first song, Escher Sketches. You'll hear it start with a cymbal playing a standard swing rhythm in 4/4. However, as the rhythm section kicks in you'll hear that the song is actually in 6/4, and the swing rhythm is a counter rhythm. When the rhythm section drops out, however, the song feels as if it's in 4 again.

[SEJ]

Absolutely, being a musician will help you appreciate jazz. Is it necessary? No.

Even a non-musician has an implicit understanding of music and musical structure, and that understanding grows through exposure. Everyone here has presumably had the experience of not having "heard" a piece the first time, but some time later coming to appreciate it. And by the same token appreciating less the things they formerly thought highly of. Over time, ones taste should grow in the direction of increased sophistication, despite the fact that one cannot say exactly what the musicians are doing.

But at the end of the day it isn't the technical aspects of the music that make it most compelling. (Leaving aside a musician's admiration for anothers purely technical excellence.) Even musicians simply like some music for that je ne sais quois that makes it whole, magical, right. This despite the fact that they are best equipped to evaluate the music technically, to exhaust it leaving no remainder. We won't all agree on these things, but you can usually find broad agreement on what music has these qualities.

I love reading interviews and such where great musicians express a kind of awe and reverence for music. That's the beating heart of their inspiration, their drive to pursue that great performance where everything clicks. It's like pornography: I can't say exactly what it is, but you'll know it when you see it.

That doesn't mean we can't talk about it and try to discover and articulate some of these elements of great music. For my part, I really appreciate music which is a collective achievement; we use words like "intuitive" and "telepathic" or some such to describe these performances. When this collective production occurs at heights of technical sophistication and the product seems retrospectively immutable, perfect even, you have jazz of the highest order.

Technical sophistication or excellence isn't really even necessary. Lots of people can sing, but Ray Charles had "it". There are plenty of trumpeters who have better chops than Miles Davis, but Miles had "it". Often it is the intuitive artist who, despite technical deficiencies, brings magic into the world with music. The fact is that people often seem to agree on these things whether they're musicians or not.

I know people who don't like jazz: they hear nothing in improvisations but random noodling, and don't recognize the beauty of collective discovery. I think some basic, not-too-technical education in music appreciation would open them up. But I would hate to think jazz is just an insiders game. If you ask me, jazz is becoming simply music itself, living music. (Jean-Jacques Avenel, in an interview, said that Steve Lacy didn't care what he played, as long as he didn't let the music die.) It's that life in the music that makes jazz what it is, and why I love it.

[Jazzooo]

Nicely put, SEJ. Welcome to JC!

[AtlantaDave]

Originally Posted by SEJ

Absolutely, being a musician will help you appreciate jazz. Is it necessary? No.

Even a non-musician has an implicit understanding of music and musical structure, and that understanding grows through exposure.

Couldn't have said it better myself. In another thread, the question was asked "Do you consider yourself a musician?" Personally, I don't because my keyboard playing at present consists for the most part of simple major and minor and 7th chords with some simple melodies. In spite of the fact that I wouldn't know an augmented chord from a diminished one or just precisely how the saxophone/trumpet/piano makes that sound that I enjoy, I can still appreciate jazz as much as the person who knows all of the "terms" and "theory".

This is not to say that I am content with my present status of "knowing enough about music to be dangerous but not enough to be good". I plan to get better, practice more, and learn more of the musical "theory" so that I can actually perform what I now find myself only admiring. But I never want that to get in the way of simply enjoying a song or a melody for its own sake.

[Jazzooo]

"In spite of the fact that I wouldn't know an augmented chord from a diminished one or just precisely how the saxophone/trumpet/piano makes that sound that I enjoy, I can still appreciate jazz as much as the person who knows all of the "terms" and "theory". "

Well, you might be right, but you're still just guessing until you get some more of that knowledge. I think you can enjoy parts of it more, and parts less than a guy who is totally into tracing how the music was made and what is happening technically.

My wife and I both love great food. There is a reason that she remembers in great detail the way things tasted a year later and all I can recall is that I enjoyed it. Being a great cook herself, she knows (studies, in fact) what goes into food to make it taste that way. I just savor the results. I envy her the ability to appreciate it on other levels than I can. On the other hand, I'm more apt to completely and unabashedly enjoy an In and Out Burger than she is! So...we both win.

[Williams225]

I like your food analogy. The more I think about it, it applies at many levels.

We only talked about musicians and non-musicians. How about professional music critics? Alright, now we can all unite in bashing them It is a bit hard for me to imagine that they can get back to enjoying music at the 'In and Out Burger' level. May be it is the same with food critics.

[Williams225]

Jazoo wrote: Now listen to the clip of the first song, Escher Sketches. You'll hear it start with a cymbal playing a standard swing rhythm in 4/4. However, as the rhythm section kicks in you'll hear that the song is actually in 6/4, and the swing rhythm is a counter rhythm. When the rhythm section drops out, however, the song feels as if it's in 4 again.

Beware, this is a very obscure reference to a related work and for all I know I may be connecting things that don't connect.... Anyway,

(I have not given the clip a listen yet but ) Your mentioning Escher in the musical context brings back thoughts of the wonderful book 'Godel, Escher, Bach'. The common theme in that intense book is one of 'Self Reference'. That book brings together Bach's compositions, Godel's incompleteness Theorem and Escher's paintings into that common framework.
I forgot how the author connected Bach with self reference ( something related to Bach's Fugues ), the proof of Godel's incompletness theorem uses self-reference ( as in the Russell's Barber Paradox ) and Escher's genius to a large extent is in the creative use of self referential themes.

If I am correct in my long shot attempt at characterizing the musical effect created in your metric modulation example clip as 'self reference', then I guess another title for that book can be 'Godel, Escher Jazz'

?

[AtlantaDave]

Originally Posted by Jazzooo

"Well, you might be right, but you're still just guessing until you get some more of that knowledge. I think you can enjoy parts of it more, and parts less than a guy who is totally into tracing how the music was made and what is happening technically.

Depends entirely on what the goal is, in my opinion. To reiterate, I personally plan to improve my own musicianship and technical knowledge. However, I never want that to override the emotional "feelings" that I have for a song and certainly have no desire to over-intellectualize something that for me at least is a "matter of the heart."

That being said, as a fusion listener I must admit that sometimes I have an undue awe of technique over "heartfelt performance." I guess I'm somehow fearful that once I've "unlocked the secret" by learning the techniques used by some musicians that my respect might be replaced with indifference or perhaps even outright criticism. I would just as soon keep my naivete about some things musically and leave the cynicism to the critics or to musicians far more advanced than myself.

Regarding the food analogy, I guess I don't need to know every spice that goes into the lasagna I choose to eat to know that I like its taste. Now, should I decide to actually cook that lasagna myself, it would be very helpful to know the ingredients and perhaps the complete recipe--at least as a starting point. Again, depends on the goal.

[GoodSpeak]

I have no viable opinions.

Just ask any avant-garde/free jazz fan.



I don't know from Shinola about Jazz.

[Williams225]

Regarding the food analogy, I guess I don't need to know every spice that goes into the lasagna I choose to eat to know that I like its taste. Now, should I decide to actually cook that lasagna myself, it would be very helpful to know the ingredients and perhaps the complete recipe--at least as a starting point. Again, depends on the goal.

Exactly. That is one level. That is what I liked about Jazzooo's food analogy and that it works at many levels. The ingredients are very important to produce the desirable effect, namely taste, texture etc. That helps me relate to how technical wizardry that may make clear sense to musicians can translate to non-rational musical effects on the lay listener.

In other words, the goals may be different but the goal at one level helps create the goal at the other level.

[Jazzooo]

"That being said, as a fusion listener I must admit that sometimes I have an undue awe of technique over "heartfelt performance." I guess I'm somehow fearful that once I've "unlocked the secret" by learning the techniques used by some musicians that my respect might be replaced with indifference or perhaps even outright criticism. I would just as soon keep my naivete about some things musically and leave the cynicism to the critics or to musicians far more advanced than myself."

What you're describing doesn't sound like cynicism to me, if I'm hearing you properly. First let me say that I completely agree with you because I'm the same way: I too get swept away by innovation and technique at times, even when the music doesn't quite achieve emotional nirvana for me. And yes, the truth is that the more you learn about how it is done, the less impressed you will probably be by the technique alone, even breathtaking technique. Your appreciation doesn't necessarily vanish, but it's like anything else: hearing some speak Spanish might seem impressive till you learn how to speak it yourself. You've seen behind the curtain, so to speak.

So if retaining your current level of awe is important, and I can understand why it might be, enjoy it. I will add that one great thing that has happened to me since becoming a little harder to be blown away by the merely 'impressive' stuff is that the deeper stuff still blows me away, and there's plenty of it out there!

[Il Anto]

Where's DEEP when we truly need him?

[mogambo]

I know it’s not exactly the same, but I feel about this questions the same as when asked if it’s necesary to know who plays the music when you hear it… I suposse you don’t need the “data” to enjoy, to feel, to admire the music; it gets to your heart, so go ahead and don’t worry about anything else. But, for me (and I don’t mean that everybody who loves jazz must feel the same, of course), it’s an “extra” pleasure to know who is doing exactly what, when it was done, where, any given circumstances surrounding the recording…

I’m not expressing it well. It’s always important, when you have a little interest in music, to know who is the musician. But sometimes you hear a recording, may be a Fletcher Henderson from the thirties, and unless you are really “into” that music you don’t really NEED to know if the tenor was Don Byas that day, or perhaps Hawkins… it doesn’t really matter so much since he doesn’t “solo” in the recording. In theory. The fact is that I am anxious to look for the answers (books, magazines, internet…). It’s an extra pleasure, perhaps not necesary, surely not disturbing the feeling of the music, but a big one.

I’m trying to study harmony (well, I’m just starting) and musical theory. I have the impression that if I could identify the chords, the changes, the structure of the music I so much love, the pleasure would improve (if posible!).