MUS 351 Final Essay 080177191

The authorised transcription release of Keith Jarrett’s “Köln

Concert” (1975):
What are the issues associated with transcribing Jarrett’s improvisation and how
effectively can the transcription represent the recording?

The 1975 “Köln Concert” was a significant event in the history of jazz. It came during a
climate of uncertainty regarding the many directions jazz could take off. Many artists
embarked upon a fusion with more popular styles, and experimented with electronics.
This could be explained through the genuine concern that jazz music was in danger of
being overtaken by these styles, and by fusing jazz, artists could accommodate to a
larger audience. Alongside German record producer Manfred Eicher (ECM Records),
Keith Jarrett made a decision to embark on a series of solo improvised concerts to be
recorded around various European venues. This came after the success of Jarrett’s solo
studio work, “Facing You” in 1972. Carr (1991) claims that this work was the “blueprint”
for the solo piano concerts that were to come. The album encompassed:

“the American roots such as the blues, hot gospel, country music and boogie-woogie,
and also the romantic melancholy of the European classical tradition to which, of course,
the piano is central”.

This ‘inclusivity’ of genre and merging of classical interests brought Keith Jarrett a mass
of attention. The “Köln Concert” was special in showcasing Jarrett’s live
experimentations and versatility in genre, becoming one of the most successful jazz
albums of all time (Wollheim, 2008). Although the medium of a solo improvisation was
the same as “Facing You”, the context of a live performance allowed the audience to
witness the musical process unfold. This unique approach to improvising a whole
concert from ‘scratch’, effectively established a trademark sound and style for Jarrett,
during a significant decade for the progression of jazz music.

Before analysing the transcriptions value, it’s necessary to explain the issues associated
with transcribing improvisations, and also to understand Jarrett’s musical philosophies
towards improvisation.

Jarrett’s ‘inclusivity’ of styles and genre has already been highlighted above by Carr
(1991). This is a key trait of Jarrett’s artistic practice and ideology of jazz, an important
aspect to bear in mind when considering his approach to improvisation. The solo piano
concert format gave Jarrett the freedom to express himself through a range of styles, a
freedom which would be more restricted in an ensemble. Of all the styles, Jarrett’s
classical music heritage carries the most interest. In the DVD release of, “Keith Jarrett:
The Art of Improvisation” , Jarrett (2005) explains:

“I am essentially an improviser. I learned that by playing classical music!”

1
MUS 351 Final Essay 080177191

In another interview with Grende, KL (2009) for “The Independent” Jarrett expands on
this sentiment:

"Classical is when you're just trying to control it all. It's that control which is exactly what
jazz is not necessarily asking me to do, but just speak from myself”

Improvisation is a practice that has had a strong association with jazz from the
beginning. Eldson (2006) claims that “improvisation is one of the defining aspects of
jazz” (pg 193). Pressing (2002) explains why improvisation is important to jazz:

‘The nucleus of all jazz is creative improvisational expression... a process that brings into
the music the joy of discovery, the magic of communication, and the uniqueness of both
the moment and the individual” (pg 202)

This demonstrates the central concept of jazz as an improvised genre. However, there
have been a number of different approaches from jazz musicians. Jarrett’s main
philosophy is that improvisation should essentially be about the “process”. Jarrett
expresses this viewpoint in “The Art of Improvisation” (2005) documentary:

"When I think of improvisation, I think of going from zero to zero, or to wherever it

goes...you have to allow yourself to be out of your mind"

By allowing himself to be “out of his mind”, there is a greater sense of complexity,

spontaneity, risk factor and most importantly, lack of forethought. Composing elements
such as a “head” or “motif” to base your improvisations around would be an example of
“forethought”. For some, the evidence of 'forethought’ and ‘planning’ of musical
material cannot constitute being classified in the genre of ‘jazz’. Duke Ellington as a jazz
‘composer’ is just one example of a figure whose status in the genre was challenged. By
adding a “past tense” aspect to a “present tense” practice, you make improvisation
more restricted and permanent. Similarly, improvisation can be made permanent by
adding a “future” to the present quality of improvisation, such as through transcription
after the improvisation happens. Jarrett (1991) refers to this issue in the preface of the
transcription release, listing the reasons why he initially rejected requests to authorize a
transcription:

“ (1) this was a totally improvised concert on a certain night and should go as quickly as
it comes.” (pg 3)

This point acknowledges the issues of “permanence” , established above. However,

Jarrett (1991) explains that:

“since this improvisation already exists in one permanent format (recording), and the
transcription only represents the music, I finally decided to publish this authorized
edition” (pg 3)

With the “Koln Concert”, and some of the other solo concerts, the boundaries to which
the music can be considered jazz or classical tend to overlap. This provokes the matter
of whether Jarrett’s improvisations become compositional works in their own right.

2
MUS 351 Final Essay 080177191

Jarrett claims that he realised after some of the solo concerts, that he was in effect,
being commissioned to writing new material each time he’d play. Furthermore, the
choice to record was down to the fact they never knew when the “magic was going to
happen” (Keith Jarrett, 2005, The Art of Improvisation Documentary, DVD). Carr (2001)
refers to these links between improvisation and composition:

“The advent of recording afforded the possible aural permanence of both improvised
and pre-composed music, thus levelling their importance as durable art... Improvisation,
at its best, is composition in motion with all the fittingness and inevitability of pre-
composition, and composition at its best has something of the immediacy and
dynamism of improvisation” (pg 1)

Recording has long been the accepted form to allow the survival of jazz music, just as
notation was (and remains today) the chosen form for classical music.

What makes the concert in Cologne so fitting as to warrant a transcription release, is this
‘blurred’ notion of classical and jazz stylistics, resulting in questions whether “Koln”
represents a random improvisation or a compositional product. Before analysing the
content of the transcription for evidence of where these boundaries overlap, an
important question needs to be established. “Why Koln?” What is it about Koln which
resulted in a different approach?

There is an argument that the context of events leading up to the concert were
significant in influencing Jarrett’s particular approach to improvising on the night. This
relates to the ‘story’ of the ‘concert that almost didn’t happen’. Jarrett had gone twenty
four hours without any sleep from travelling. He was supplied with the wrong piano, a
piano which lacked the tonal range he desired. Furthermore, he only managed to be
served in an “overheated Italian restaurant”, fifteen minutes before the concert was
scheduled to start (Carr, 1991, pg 71)

So what significance does this bear on the music? First of all, Jarrett had to adapt to a
piano which was limited in the middle and lower registers. Jarrett therefore had to find a
way of adapting to the piano’s limitations, effectively working around the problem.
(Carr, 1991, pg 72). In relation to Jarrett’s mindset, Carr (1991) suggests:

“there is none of the struggle and stress which exhilarates and disturbs on Jarrett’s
greatest solo albums. The struggle and stress had taken place immediately before the
Koln concert which thus became a refuge from that struggle and stress, an escape” (pg
73)

In both cases, there is certainly an argument that Koln presented considerable

challenges to Jarrett, thus influencing his approach. Jarrett notes significant differences
in his approach at “Koln”:

“There’s a logic to the music in that concert – it sounds free, but it also sounds like it’s
moving from one thought to another without any separation...Yet reality is more a series
of jumps than that steady stream of thought being nice and smooth...I think of that

3
MUS 351 Final Essay 080177191

album as being full of really rich ideas but describing not as much of the process as I’m
interested in describing.” (Carr, 1991, pg 73)

Whether from a result of Jarrett’s classical upbringing, his adjustment to the piano or his
eclectic style, a classical element to Jarrett’s improvisation tends to come to the
forefront at Cologne. This would lean towards the improvisation creating a durable
“compositional product”, which can therefore be effectively represented through
transcription. I will now provide analytical examples which highlight this aspect, and also
aspects of the recording which cannot be notated effectively.

Analysis:

There seems to be an overall underlining structure to the four different tracks. The
concert has been divided into four parts for the recording (Parts I, IIa, IIb and IIc). Part
‘IIa’ and ‘IIb’ have no gap between, which opens a query concerning the decision to
separate their parts. Jurek (n.d) explains the reason is “largely because it had to be
divided for a double-LP” (all music guide). If this is the case, you could argue this is an
example of the recording format (and limitations of vinyl at the time) adding
permanence to the concert, in a way that wasn’t intended, by dividing what should be a
continuous piece. However, this division is further highlighted in the notation. There is a
clear ending (albeit through an interrupted cadence of V 7b – VI13) to “Part IIa”, (fig 1).
and the notation of “Part IIb” omits three descending quavers (fig 1.1) from the
recording which act as an anacrusis to “Part IIb”. It’s difficult to understand the logic of
separating something which wasn’t existent in the recording, if the sole reason was due
to practical reasons (as suggested above). One possible explanation could be that Jarrett
wanted there to be a distinction between the parts, to give a sense of separate
“movements”, and that the continuity was to stop the possibility of applause in
between. This could be plausible, as Jarrett authorized both the transcription and
recording to separate these parts, yet still under the collective entity of “Part II”. Blume
(2003) explains that “Part I' is a complete self-contained piece, not an excerpt” (pg 141).
This would explain the decision to label it separately from the other three parts. There
does appear however to be unifying elements to the three parts in terms of tonality.
“Part I” is largely in A minor, a key which is established in the beginning and ends in the
tonic major (A major). “A major” is then pivotal to both “IIa” and “IIb”. “Part IIa” begins
in D major (subdominant of A major), and “Part IIb” is in F# minor (relative minor). “Part
IIc” was the encore, therefore it’s debatable whether it should be labelled under “Part
II”. This begins in A minor, effectively creating a full cycle from “Part I”. Whilst in these
keys, Jarrett improvises a large proportion diatonically, an aspect I will demonstrate
further on.

Each part tends to have a series of unifying elements which create structural clarity and
logic. This is certainly a practice associated with classical music, and one that could be
effectively highlighted through notation. A significant starting point is the first five notes

4
MUS 351 Final Essay 080177191

of the concert (fig 2). This is a quotation of the Cologne Opera House intermission bell,
and explains the subtle laughter heard after the statement (Wollheim, 2008). This is
noteworthy for a number of reasons. First of all, the idea of stating ‘bells’ (such as
church bells) has been a cultural reference featured in particular classical works (for
instance, the beginning of Stravinsky’s “Les Noces” has a “bell like” quality). A more
significant factor however, is the argument that this motif surely was pre-conceived. If
that is the case, it sets the tone for the whole concert and questions Jarrett’s own
scrutiny towards “forethought”. Perhaps Jarrett used this motif in an attempt to gain the
same psychological purpose of an intermission bell, in grabbing the audience’s attention
for them to “take their seat” and “listen” (audience behaviour has proven to be a
sensitive issue with Jarrett’s solo concerts). The motif is developed sequentially
throughout the beginning of “Part I”, achieved through both a melodic and rhythmic
sense (demonstrated with fig 2.1 & 2.2). Notice that the melody is further embellished in
figure 2.2, and that a semi quaver rest varies the rhythm. These techniques create a
‘motivic unity’ through variation, more associated with compositional techniques than
improvisation. Figures 2.3 and 2.4 demonstrates the same idea in Part IIc.

Further elements which unify the work include exchanges of dialogue (figs 3 & 4.2),
ostinato patterns (figs 4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3) and the ‘vamping’ approach over left hand groove
patterns (figs 5, 5.1, 5.2, for parts “I”, “IIa” and “IIb” respectively). Both the ‘vamping’
and ‘ostinato’ patterns tend to be repeated for long stretches of the music. In doing so,
new melodies and motifs have added significance when they arrive, allowing the
repetition to create effect. Another function for the use of ostinato, is to end a section,
as shown with figure 4. This is yet another example of material used for structural
significance.

With “Part I”, many phrases end with the notes of the particular triad, for example ‘C
natural’ during the vamping over Am, and “B” over the G major resolution (fig 5 ). This
happens throughout the concert. These notes are central to the diatonic key, and give a
clear phrase direction which can be effectively notated.

Harmonic progressions and the changing of tonal areas are some of Jarrett’s techniques
to develop the music to a new direction (fig 4.2 to 4.3 gives an example). This isn’t too
dissimilar to the technique used by classical composers, in forms such as the ‘sonata’
form, where a development section may cycle through a number of weird and
wonderful tonal areas. “Part IIb” in particular ends with a drone of Db major for three
minutes (approximately 15:00 to 18:13). This development often follows the long
sections of vamping over static left hand grooves (as shown in figures 5, 5.1, 5.2).
Another technique Jarrett uses to propel out of the stagnation of the repeated grooves,
is his eclectic range of stylistic riffs and motifs. Jarrett especially uses blues and gospel
type riffs to create interest and ideas for development. This manipulation of genre is
evident through all of the parts. You could argue the vamping over the Am-G chords
becomes almost ‘rhapsodic’. Overall, Jarrett’s versatility in being able to play a range of
styles, seems to help him churn up new ideas and inspiration. This could act as a “safety
net” to his improvisations, especially in the context of Koln, where he would
understandably have lacked a strong sense of inspiration. These stylistic elements can be

5
MUS 351 Final Essay 080177191

effectively transmitted through the score. Despite all of these compositional elements,
there are elements of the recording that are difficult to transcribe. An interesting
observation is the lack of articulation and dynamics on the score. Performance
directions however are occasionally used. One example already mentioned is the
example of holding the important notes, shown in figure 2.2. This is an example of an
alternative method in showing how the piece should be played, as it is on the recording.
Markings such as “rubato”, “flowing” and “rit” are all used. However there are no
accents throughout the whole of the sheet music. This seems strange during lyrical
sections, however there are certainly some sections where to pin down the articulation
of Jarrett’s playing would be a mammoth task. Jarrett’s playing prides itself on being
expressive, and as the recording came first, articulation would have to be transcribed
and not composed. Jarrett (1991) states:

“we decided that notation would actually work against accuracy, since none of the
notation methods of which we were aware were correct for much of the piece. It would
almost need notation on every note”(pg 3)

This quote highlights the impossibility of the task. Jarrett’s technique is geared towards
finding certain sonorities and colours. This detail is typical of classical music, however
elements such as the overtones and harmonics of his chords cannot be transcribed.
Furthermore, as they were adapted to be played on that specific “Borsendorfer” piano,
the essence is impossible to re-create. Nevertheless, two performances can never be the
‘same’ in any context.

The energy and intensity of Jarrett’s expression, is evident through his performance
gestures. These range from hums, singing, groaning, and expressions of delight. In the
case of figure 5, the note ‘c’ that begins the phrase, is also sung by Jarrett. This has an
extremely dramatic effect, which is not evident in the notation. Furthermore, they help
the audience understand the feeling in the music. You could question why this detail is
left out, when other details such as a “stamp” and bracketed notes are included (see fig
4.2). Moreno (1999) quotes:

“His sounds and gestures are unquestionably part of the music, so much so that one
could describe these sounds and gestures not as a translation or mechanisms in service
of music, or an addition to the music, but the music itself” (pg 88)

If this is the case, to transcribe his sounds as a performance direction, you would be
treating them as an “addition to the music”. In relation to his bodily gestures, they are
one of the most significant features of the concert which have not been made
permanent.

In terms of a ‘metrical’ discussion, it’s nigh on impossible to be ‘robotically’ in time. In

this sense, transcribing the concert cannot efficiently represent time, with large sections
considerably lacking a pulse. Dean (1992) explains:

6
MUS 351 Final Essay 080177191

“transcriptions of notated rhythms indicate considerable performance imprecisions; and

measurement of the timing of onset of sounds in performances, improvised or
otherwise, reveal major imprecisions (or complexities) of rhythm and tempo” (pg 192)

The fact Jarrett tends to play out of metronomic time makes notation even more
difficult, and inaccuracies are therefore bound to be evident in the score.

In conclusion, the transcription of the “Koln Concert” can represent musical ideas such
as motifs, ostinato and harmonic progressions, due to the significant structural clarity
and logic of Jarrett’s improvisation on this particular occasion. In this sense, the notation
is effective in representing the recording. However, this is only one aspect of the
concert, and the notation cannot represent other issues, such as metrical complexities,
rhythmic action, the performance gestures, sounds and harmonic overtones. Dean
(1992) further explains this problem:

“Just as musical scores are a gross simplification of the content of a resulting musical
performance (lacking, for example, any indications of overtone content), so
transcriptions of improvised performances necessarily involve comparable or usually
greater simplifications” (pg 192).

Therefore in answer to the question, “how effectively can the transcription represent
the recording?”, the notation on its own is an effective representation, however it is of a
limited nature. The recording certainly gives the last word to important aspects of the
performance, such as articulation and expression. Therefore the notation is of greater
use when combined with the recording, and not as a single entity.

Words: 3,150

7
MUS 351 Final Essay 080177191

Figures:

All figures come from transcription release (Jarrett, 1991)

Fig 1: Excerpt from ‘Part IIa’, at 14:49 minutes of performance time.

(Jarrett, 1991, pg 57)

 Interrupted cadence and bar line indicates the end of Part IIa

Fig 1.1: Excerpt from “Part II”, at 0:00-0:04 minutes of performance time

(Jarrett, 1991, pg 58)

 The three notes (descending quavers) not included in the score, and existent at
the beginning of ‘Part IIb’, leading into the initial material.
 Also notice the diatonic melody which initiates ‘Part IIb’ in F# minor.

8
MUS 351 Final Essay 080177191

Fig 2: Excerpt from “Part I”, at 0:00-0:04 minutes of performance time.

(Jarrett, 1991, pg 8)

Fig 2.1: Excerpt from “Part I”, at 0:11 minutes of performance time

(Jarrett, 1991, pg 8)

 Melodic contour the same as shown in fig 2, however the opening interval of a
perfect 5th is varied with a perfect 4 th

Fig 2.2: Excerpt from “Part I”, at 0:25 minutes of performance time

(Jarrett, 1991, pg 8)

 Further example of thematic unity and variation of the theme stating in figure 2.

9
MUS 351 Final Essay 080177191

 “Hold G” performance direction

Fig 2.3: Excerpt from “Part IIc” at 1:00-1:03 minutes of performance time

(Jarrett, 1991, pg 83)

Fig 2.4: Excerpt from “Part IIc” at 4:10-4:25 of performance time

(Jarrett, 1991, pg 87)

 In both cases, the E7 quality chord is used

 Both have instances of anticipation and metrical modulation
 Both have the interval of a perfect 5 th, but varied rhythmically

10
MUS 351 Final Essay 080177191

Fig 3: Excerpt from “Part I” at 0:58 of performance time

(Jarrett, 1991, pg 9)

 Example of dialogue, melody swapping from the treble clef to bass clef (right to
left)

Fig 4: Excerpt from “Part I” at 21:32 of performance time

(Jarrett, 1991, pg 32)

 The semi quaver ostinato pattern

Fig 4.1: Excerpt from “Part I” at 25:01 of performance time

(Jarrett, 1991, pg 36)

 The ostinato which was established in the left hand (fig 4) provides the ending
material in the treble clef (right hand)

11
MUS 351 Final Essay 080177191

Fig 4.2: Excerpt from “Part IIa” at 8:10 of performance time

(Jarrett, 1991, pg 52)

Harmonic progression of:

Dm7 – Em7 – Fmaj 13sus 4 – Bbmaj13 sus4 – Dm7 – Ebmaj13 - G7sus4 - Dmin9sus4
-Emin9sus4 - F#min9sus4 - Gmaj7 - C9sus4 - Dm7

 Progression pushes ideas forward, rises in semitones, chain of sus4 chords vs

13th chords
 Dmin7 returns
 Semi quaver motif develops (*)
 F# (circled) changes tonality to prepare for G major 7 th chord
 ‘Stamp’ added to score
 Note in brackets

12
MUS 351 Final Essay 080177191

Fig 4.3: Excerpt from “Part IIa” at 13:07 of performance time

(Jarrett, 1991, pg 56)

 Ostinato appears five minutes later, in a higher register, new key of Ab major,
and more lyrical

Fig 5: Excerpt from “Part I” at 5:04 minutes of performance time

(Jarrett, 1991, pg 14)

 The first ‘c’ is a key note in A minor, and sung by Jarrett in unison
 Vamp of Am-G (left hand)

13
MUS 351 Final Essay 080177191

Fig 5.1: Excerpt from “Part IIa” at 0:00-0:05 of performance time

(Jarrett, 1991, pg 37)

 Vamp in D major
 Left hand semi quaver pattern

Fig 5.2: Excerpt from “Part IIb” at 4:37 minutes of performance time

(Jarrett, 1991, pg 65)

 Vamp in F# minor
 Left hand semi quaver pattern, similar to fig 5.1

14
MUS 351 Final Essay 080177191

Bibliography:

Books:

Carr, I. (1991). Keith Jarrett: the man and his music.London:De Capo Press

Dean, RT. (1992). New structures in jazz and improvised music since 1960. Milton Keynes: Open
University Press

Elsdon, P. (2006). Listening in the gaze: the body in keith jarrett’s solo piano improvisations. In
Gritten, A. & King, E. (eds) Music and Gesture. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing. Ch.11.

Pressing, J. (2002). Free jazz and the avant-garde. In Cooke, M. & Horn, D. (eds) The cambridge
companion to jazz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ch.11.

Electronic journals:

Carr, I. (2001). Improvisation and composition. Body, space and technology journal, [online]. 1 (2).
Available at: http://people.brunel.ac.uk/bst/vol0102/index.html (hitting the ‘papers’ link then
‘improvisation and composition’ link) [Accessed 9 May 2010]

Blume, G. (2003). Blurred affinities: tracing the influence of north Indian classical music in keith
jarrett’s solo piano improvisations. Popular music, [online]. 22 (2). Available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3877606. [Accessed 29 April 2010]

Moreno, J. (1999). Body 'n’ soul?: voice and movement in keith jarrett's pianism.The musical quarterly.
[online]. 83 (1). Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/742261 [Accessed 10 May 2010]

Electronic newspapers:

Grende, KL (2009). The fine art of extra sensory improvisation.The Independant, [internet], 27 Nov.
Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/keith-jarrett--the-fine-
art-of-extrasensory-improvisation-1828331.htm

Wollheim, CDF (2009) . A one-of-a-kind artist prepares for his solo. The Wall Street Journal,
[internet], 29 Jan. Available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123319724806127435.html

Websites:

Jurek, T. (n.d). The Koln Concert:Review [online]. Available at http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?

p=amg&sql=10:6ad5vwvta9yk [Accessed 14 May 2010]

DVD:

Keith Jarret: The Art of Improvisation.(2005).[DVD] America : Euroarts

Musical Score:

15
MUS 351 Final Essay 080177191

Jarrett, K (1991). Keith jarret: the koln concert (original piano transcription). Transcription
authorized by Keith Jarrett. Germany:Schott

Discography:

Jarrett, K.(1999).The Koln Concert. Keith Jarrett. Compact disc. ECM Records. ECM 1064/65.

16