Pg.

1 of 11

201105583

Call it anything: Ensemble interaction within The Miles Davis Groups 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.

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)

Pg.2 of 11

201105583

Call it anything: Ensemble interaction within The Miles Davis Groups performance at the Isle of Wight festival 1970

Table 1. Comparison of the roles of members in a traditional jazz ensemble and Miles Davis groups in 1969/1970 Instrument Bass Traditional Jazz Ensemble Outlines the harmony and chord changes by walking. Davis groups Holds a groove; a simple repeated pattern over which the rest of the ensembles texture is built. 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. Along with the Bass, has a groove, from which the rest of the ensembles texture is built. Provides a textural backdrop which the soloist can improvise and converse with. 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.

Piano/Keyboard/Guitar

Provides a chordal accompaniment to the soloist by comping. Helps outline the chord changes.

Drums

Keeps time, usually with a swing rhythm on the ride cymbal and sounding beats 2 + 4 on the hihat. Provides a harmonic backdrop over which a soloist can improvise melodies over. Taken in turns, they improvise a musically coherent melody on the standard form and chord changes.

Rhythm section

Soloist

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 isnt 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 individuals 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.

Pg.3 of 11

201105583

Call it anything: Ensemble interaction within The Miles Davis Groups performance at the Isle of Wight festival 1970

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 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 Groups 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.

Pg.4 of 11

201105583

Call it anything: Ensemble interaction within The Miles Davis Groups performance at the Isle of Wight festival 1970

Unknown/changing group goals

Free Jazz Ornette Coleman Bitches Brew/Live at Isle of Wight Miles Davis festival

Bach Cello Suite number 1 In G Major

Confirmation Charlie Parker

Clearly known Group Goals No Improvisation Total Improvisation

Fig. 1 Graph showing where different pieces of music are in relation to each other in terms of known goals and amount of improvisation. The line plotted shows the level of uncertainty of the outcome of the performance.

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

Pg.5 of 11

201105583

Call it anything: Ensemble interaction within The Miles Davis Groups performance at the Isle of Wight festival 1970

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
Musician 1 Musician 2
Idea

Musician 3
Idea

interpretation stage of a singular musicians cognitive process is made up also of the interpretation of other musicians expressions of their own ideas. Each

Idea

Interpretation

Interpretation

Interpretation

Synthesis

Synthesis

Synthesis

individuals sound then combines to form the soundspace, a label I have included into SOUNDSPACE Figure 3. 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 Fig. 3. Hudak & Berger (1995). Edited, Diagram of mutually recursive processes in ensemble interaction

Pg.6 of 11 the materials that the other musicians respond with.

201105583

Call it anything: Ensemble interaction within The Miles Davis Groups performance at the Isle of Wight festival 1970

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.

3.1 Goal is fully completed; music evolves in a new direction.

3.2 Goal is partially

completed, interaction between band members.

3. The originally proposed material is reciprocated by other musicians through their own personal material

2.1 Accepted by a majority.

2.2 Accepted by an individual/a minority.

Soundspace

1. A new goal for the music is proposed through the material offered by a musician. 2.3 Rejected outright.

Framed within the boundaries of the music - Tempo, Tonality and Groove.

Fig. 4. A model of ensemble interaction for the Miles Davis Groups recording of Bitches Brew and performance at the Isle of Wight Festival 1970.

Pg.7 of 11

201105583

Call it anything: Ensemble interaction within The Miles Davis Groups performance at the Isle of Wight festival 1970

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 doesnt 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 isnt meant in a pejorative sense; it simply means that when a musician offers his own material it isnt 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.

Pg.8 of 11 As previously stated, this ensemble interaction can be seen as more collaborative; however hierarchical structure is still present. This
Moreira Jarrett Organ

201105583

Call it anything: Ensemble interaction within The Miles Davis Groups performance at the Isle of Wight festival 1970

Davis Trumpet Bartz Saxophone Corea Electic Piano

structure is shown in Figure 5. The music is built

Percussion

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,

DeJohnette Drum KitDeJohnette

Holland Electric Bass

Drum Kit

Fig. 5. Showing the hierarchical structure of the ensemble

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 arent 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

Pg.9 of 11

201105583

Call it anything: Ensemble interaction within The Miles Davis Groups performance at the Isle of Wight festival 1970

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 doesnt 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 couldnt 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.

Pg.10 of 11

201105583

Call it anything: Ensemble interaction within The Miles Davis Groups performance at the Isle of Wight festival 1970

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/improvisati on_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.huberlin.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. 541548). 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.,

Pg.11 of 11

201105583

Call it anything: Ensemble interaction within The Miles Davis Groups performance at the Isle of Wight festival 1970

Chen, J., and Stevens, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the Inaugural International Conference on Music Communication Science (ICoMCS), pp. 8083. 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.