“call it anything”: ensemble interaction within the miles davis group’s performance at the...

Pg.1 of 11 201105583

“Call it anything”: Ensemble interaction within The Miles Davis Group’s performance at the Isle of

Wight festival 1970.

In my essay I am going to look at the ensemble interaction of the Miles Davis Group from a 1970 live

performance at the Isle of Wight (IoW) festival.1 After setting up the context of the performance I am

going to look at the process of solo and group improvisation through different models that have been

previously presented, before finally looking at the hierarchical nature of the ensemble. For any

references for times given within the performance, please consult this Youtube video where the full

length performance is recorded: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bihaL1risM0.

In 1969, Davis and his band recorded Bitches Brew, an album which took the idea of minimal material to

elicit maximum creativity from the ensemble. Some of the pieces from Bitches Brew appear within the

IoW performance, while other unknown tunes appear with a similar premise; minimal material for

maximum interaction. These pieces are never usually more than sketches; only made of a tempo, a

tonality and a ‘groove’.2

As shown in Table 1, Davis’ experimentation with ‘traditional’ ensemble roles within a jazz idiom ends up

moving the band to a more collaborative approach to playing.

Table 1. Comparison of the roles of members in a ‘traditional’ jazz ensemble and Miles Davis’ groups in 1969/1970

Instrument ‘Traditional’ Jazz Ensemble Davis’ groups

Bass Outlines the harmony and chord Holds a groove; a simple repeated

1 The Miles Davis Group for this performance consisted of: Miles Davis (trumpet), Gary Bartz (saxophones), Chick Corea (Electric Piano), Keith Jarrett (Electric Organ), Airto Moreira (Percussion), Dave Holland (Electric Bass) and Jack DeJohnette (Drums)2 ‘Groove’ “marks an understanding of rhythmic patterning that underlies its role in producing the characteristic rhythmic ‘feel’ of the piece” (Middleton, 1999 p. 143)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bihaL1risM0

Pg.2 of 11 201105583Call it anything: Ensemble interaction within The Miles Davis Groups performance at the Isle of Wight festival 1970

changes by ‘walking’. pattern over which the rest of the ensembles texture is built.

Piano/Keyboard/Guitar Provides a chordal accompaniment to the soloist by ‘comping’. Helps outline the chord changes.

‘Comping’ still exists, but it is more rhythmical and reactionary, and not necessarily directed at the soloist at the time. Sometimes playing singular lines to add to the texture.

Drums Keeps time, usually with a swing rhythm on the ride cymbal and sounding beats 2 + 4 on the hi-hat.

Along with the Bass, has a groove, from which the rest of the ensemble’s texture is built.

Rhythm section Provides a harmonic backdrop over which a soloist can improvise melodies over.

Provides a textural backdrop which the soloist can improvise and converse with.

Soloist Taken in turns, they improvise a musically coherent melody on the standard form and chord changes.

Not always clear who is the ‘true soloist’, helps to shape the texture of the performance through their playing. Improvises with reference to what the rest of the band is doing.

This shows a move from the traditional hierarchical structures of a small group jazz ensemble where a

soloist is being accompanied by a group of musicians, towards a collaborative approach where the

soloist isn’t being accompanied by a group of musicians as much as being in conversation with them.

This type of music is not constructed in a hierarchical fashion where the band supports a soloist, rather

the output of the band is a total manifestation of each individual’s own sounds; something I will call the

‘soundspace’. This indicates that each instrument occupies its own field within the music, but the sound

that is heard by the listener is a total texture.

In classical music performance the score is (usually) taken as literal, and according to Keller:

“Performance goals are established while preparing a musical piece for performance through

both individual private practice and collaborative rehearsal with other group members.” (2007, p.80)

This shows that before a piece is ever performed in public the performers have a goal as to what the

Clearly known Group Goals

Unknown/changing group goals

No Improvisation Total Improvisation

“Bach Cello Suite number 1 In G Major”

“Confirmation” – Charlie Parker

“Bitches Brew”/Live at Isle of Wight – Miles Davis festival

“Free Jazz” – Ornette Coleman


performance will sound like; there is a preconceived certainty as to how the music should sound.

Contrast this with improvised music where the goals are less well known, and in the case of totally

improvised music the goals are constantly shifting in real time with reference to the idealisations of each

performer as to what the performance should be. The fewer the known goals and the higher the degree

of improvisation there is, the higher the level of uncertainty of how the performance should sound. This

uncertainty is an essential creative principle of improvised ensemble performance (Figueroa-Dreher,

2012).

Within the context of the Miles Davis Group’s performance, it is not total improvisation as there is

almost always a tempo, a tonality and a groove from which the improvisations operate; however there

are less known goals than a ‘traditional’ jazz ensemble, as a ‘traditional’ jazz ensemble is bound by the

form of the tune as well as the ‘traditional’ roles of the different musicians within the group. I have

plotted on the graph three jazz albums to show the contrast between ‘traditional’ jazz ensembles, total

improvisatory jazz ensembles and the concert.

Idea

Interpretation

Synthesis

Fig. 2. Hudak & Berger (1995). Simple interactions in solo improvisation


Improvised ensemble performance is predicated not on predetermined performance goals but on the

negotiation of goals in real time. For example, at 10.36 in the performance, Davis decides to push the

intensity of the soundspace further. This is indicated in the loud, high pitched phrase he plays. This is a

negotiation with the rest of the band; Davis plays a phrase to show the direction he wants the music to

move in, the band reply by raising the intensity of their own playing. The goal proposed by Davis is

successfully completed.

Hudak & Berger (1995) present a model of ensemble

interaction through a series of mutually recursive processes. I

have changed the word ‘music’ from their model to the word

‘Idea’ which I think is more accurate in its use within

improvised music. On a basic level (Figure 2.), this model

explains how once an idea is thought up it is then interpreted

and edited to fit the musical situation, before manifesting itself as sound. The analysis of the sound is

fed back to the interpretation stage, to aid in the interpretation of the next idea. This model is then

broadened with the inclusion of other musicians (Figure 3.), and shows that the interpretation stage of a

singular musicians cognitive process is made up also of the interpretation of other musicians expressions

of their own ideas. Each individuals sound then combines to form the soundspace, a label I have

included into Figure 3.

Musician 1 Musician 2 Musician 3

Fig. 3. Hudak & Berger (1995). Edited, Diagram of mutually recursive processes in ensemble interaction

Idea

Interpretation

Synthesis

Idea

Interpretation

Synthesis

SOUNDSPACE

Idea

Interpretation

Synthesis

3.1 Goal is fully completed; music evolves in a new

direction.

2.2 Accepted by an individual/a

minority.

2.1 Accepted by a majority.

3. The originally proposed material is

reciprocated by other musicians

through their own personal

material

3.2 Goal is partially completed, interaction

between band members.


Mutual Recursion is a subconscious act, and

this can be seen in the IoW performance. At

7.30 into the performance, Davis plays a

legato descending phrase in the middle

register using dotted crotchets, contrasting

this to his semiquaver based phrases from the

previous few minutes. Immediately the texture drops; the drums stop keeping time and fade to cymbal

crashes. The semiquaver accompaniment by Jarrett and Corea stops, and Jarrett imitates Davis’ phrase

2.5 seconds after he initiated it. This shows the subconscious nature of mutual recursion as the response

happens too fast to be done on the conscious level.

Figueroa-Dreher (2012) talks about music in terms of ‘material’ offered up to the band. Material is

personal to the musician and is subject to modelling in real time to fit the musical situation. Material

would fit into the ‘Interpretation’ stage of Hudak & Bergers model. This material when offered gives

performance goals for the ensemble. These goals are either accepted or rejected by the band based on

the materials that the other musicians respond with.

The problem with these models is that they apply to totally free improvisation; the music being played

by Davis’ band still has some structure to it in terms of tempo, tonality and groove. I present a model

(Figure 4.) of ensemble interaction which takes into account Hudak & Berger and Figueroa-Dreher, as

well as the real time negotiation of performance goals. I have framed this model within the boundaries

of tempo, tonality and groove; the underlying foundation to the music. This model explains best the

interaction in the IoW performance.


The model shows the cyclical process of ensemble improvisation, how it is constantly evolving. It also

shows that when any material is given, it results in one of three possible outcomes:

Firstly, when a phrase is played it is accepted and reciprocated by the whole band, moving the music in a

new direction, altering the soundspace. This usually happens in one of two ways, either increasing or

decreasing the intensity of the soundscape. Both of these possibilities can be seen from 21.46 onwards.

At this point the soundscape is very intense; Davis plays soft, legato lines at 22.11, which is then

reciprocated in the playing of the rest of the ensemble, making the soundscape softer and less intense.

At 23.25 Davis’ playing intensifies; he plays scoops in the high register as well as fast trills. Davis’ goal to

make the soundscape more intense is accepted and his material is reciprocated by the band; DeJohnette

adds more cymbal crashes, Jarrett and Corea both add increasingly intense chords and rhythms. The

general dynamic rises too. The goals proposed by Davis are successfully completed.

The second possibility is that material offered by a musician is only reciprocated by a minority of the

ensemble, usually one or two performers. This can be seen within the IoW performance at 16.20. The

material Davis is offering can be described as short, staccato phrases; and this is reciprocated by Jarrett

playing short, staccato lines. Jarrett doesn’t play the same material as Davis, rather he uses his own

material to reciprocate Davis’ musical goal for the soundscape at that time – short and staccato. Davis

plays a longer phrase, changing the material he is contributing. Jarretts response is to play more legato

phrases, before shifting to a more chordal accompaniment and lining up with the bass groove.

The third and final possibility is that the material offered is rejected. This isn’t meant in a pejorative

sense; it simply means that when a musician offers his own material it isn’t accepted as the direction

the rest of the band wants to move the soundspace to. This can be seen when Bartz comes to the front

at 12.15; a lot of the material that he is presenting is largely being rejected by the rest of ensemble,

who instead choose to focus their interactions between DeJohnette, Holland and Moreira.

DeJohnetteDrum Kit

HollandElectric Bass

DeJohnette

Drum Kit

JarrettOrgan

CoreaElectic Piano

DavisTrumpet

Fig. 5. Showing the hierarchical structure of the ensemble

BartzSaxophone


As previously stated, this ensemble interaction

can be seen as more collaborative; however

hierarchical structure is still present. This

structure is shown in Figure 5. The music is built

on a tempo, tonality and groove, as seen by

DeJohnette and Holland being on the bottom of

the hierarchy. At this level, the material is based

upon the predetermined groove of the tune,

although it is subject to personalisation during real time as can be seen at 14.30 in the performance;

Holland and DeJohnette are still playing the groove of the piece, however they aren’t following it strictly.

On the second level (Morerira, Corea, Jarrett); the material that is offered is usually given in response to

material originally given by another musician. In terms of the model previously put forward (Figure 4.),

the musicians on this level of the hierarchy function mostly in box 3. Less frequently, their material can

function as original material for the band to respond to (Jarrett at 21.16).

The top layer of the hierarchy consists of Davis and Bartz. This is reflected in the fact that during the IoW

performance they both stand at the front with their backs to the rest of the band. At this top level the

musicians function mostly in box 1 according to my model; they are the ones that offer up material for

the rest of the band to respond to. This can be seen in the IoW performance in my previous examples of

Davis at 7.30, 10.60, 22.11, 23.25 to name a few.

I have lifted Davis over Bartz in this model due to the fact that Davis actively controls the direction of the

music by his playing and on stage movements; for example at 20.30 he walks away from the microphone

and towards Jarrett motioning him to take over as the main soloist in the soundscape. Whenever Davis

comes back to the microphone we see the band refocuses on Davis’ material (22.10). We can also see


that it is always Davis who signals the move into a new section of the performance (7.30, 10.45, 17.13,

and 24.08).

To conclude, I have shown that Davis’ approach to group playing at this time was a movement away

from the traditional method of jazz ensemble performance towards a freer, more conversational way of

playing, but still retaining a few musical structures (Tempo, Tonality and Groove), as well as a

hierarchical structure to the ensemble. I have also looked at models of ensemble improvisation and

given my own model to be applied to Davis’ style of performance, based upon research by Hudak &

Berger (2009), Figueroa-Dreher (2012) and also incorporating the real time negotiation of performance

goals as an essential part of ensemble interaction. Finally I have shown that the higher a musician is on

the hierarchy, the more likely their material is to be accepted and reciprocated by the rest of band.

Areas for further research.

It is worth stating that a lot of the current literature on improvisation that currently exists on

improvising ensembles either focuses on the cognitive processes of a singular performers solo in a

‘traditional’ jazz ensemble (Johnson-Laird 1991, 2002), or on a totally improvising ensemble (Mazzola &

Cherlin 2009), and hence doesn’t deal with improvisation on this level, which is situated somewhere

between the two. It would be useful to look towards the work of Johnstone (1979) to apply his

methodologies for looking at group improvisation within theatre to jazz ensembles. An area that I

wanted to explore but couldn’t due to the length of this essay is the effect of ‘flow’ as presented by

Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi (2009) on the ability of musicians to act and react in this context.


Bibliography

Dean, R. and Smith, H. (1997) ‘Improvisation Hypermedia and the Arts Since 194’. Amsterdam: Harwood

Academic Publishers

Dean, R. T. and Bailes, F. (2010) ‘Cognitive Processes in Musical Improvisation: Some Prospects and

Implications’. Improvisation Community and Social Practice. URL (Accessed December, 2012):

http://www.improvcommunity.ca/sites/improvcommunity.ca/files/research_collection/639/

improvisation_cognition_implications.pdf

Figueroa-Dreher, S.K.(2012) ‘Uncertainty as a Creative Principle in Free Jazz Improvising’,

kunsttexte.de/auditive_perspektiven Nr.2. URL (accessed December,2012) :

http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/kunsttexte/2012-2/figueroa-dreher-silvana-k.-2/PDF/figueroa-dreher.pdf

Hodson, R. D. (2007) ‘Interaction, Improvisation, and Interplay in Jazz’ New York: Routledge.

Hudak, P. and Berger, J. (1995) ‘A Model of Performance, Interaction and Improvisation’ in Michie. E.

(ed.), Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference at Banff, Alberta, Canada (pp. 541-

548). San Francisco: International Computer Music Association

Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1991) ‘Jazz Improvisation: A Theory at a Computational Level’. In Howell, P., West,

R., and Cross, I. (eds.). Representing Musical Structure, pp. 291-325. Academic Press.

Johnson-Laird, P.N. (2002) ‘How Jazz Musicians Improvise’, Music Perception vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 415-442.

Keller, P. E.(2007) ‘Musical Ensemble Synchronisation’ In Schubert, E., Buckley, K,. Eliott, R., Koboroff, B.,

http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/kunsttexte/2012-2/figueroa-dreher-silvana-k.-2/PDF/figueroa-dreher.pdf

http://www.improvcommunity.ca/sites/improvcommunity.ca/files/research_collection/639/improvisation_cognition_implications.pdf

http://www.improvcommunity.ca/sites/improvcommunity.ca/files/research_collection/639/improvisation_cognition_implications.pdf


Chen, J., and Stevens, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the Inaugural International Conference on Music

Communication Science (ICoMCS), pp. 80–83. University of Western Sydney: ARC Research Network in

Human Communication Science (HCSNet)

Mazzola, G.B. and Cherlin, P.B.(2009) ‘Flow, Gesture and Spaces In Free Jazz: Towards a Theory of

Collaboration’. Berlin: Springer Publishing Company.

Middleton, R. (1999) ‘Form’ in Horner, B. And Swiss, T. (eds.) ‘Key Terms in Popular Music and Culture’

pp. 141 – 155. Malden, MS: Blackwell

Nakamura J & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009) ‘Flow Theory and Research’. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.).

Handbook of positive psychology (pp 195-206), Oxford: Oxford University Press

Pressing, J. (1987) ‘Improvisation: Methods And Models’ in Sloboda, J. (ed.) ‘Generative Processes In

Music: The Psychology of Performance, Improvisation and Composition’, pp.129-178. Oxford: Claredon

Press.

“call it anything”: ensemble interaction within the miles davis group’s performance at the...

Documents