To continue the trend from my post earlier, here is a song that has heavy swing influence with a modern voice thrown on top of it. I have always been a huge fan of Ben Folds, and can still remember the first time I heard his single 'Rockin the Suburbs.' Ever since, I have loved everything I have heard done by him, and this piece is no exception.
The story behind this song, is that in the town where Ben grew up, there was this guy named Steven who came into town one day, and goes around saying that he used to work for Paul McCartney. He stayed in town a little bit, and then eventually said that it was time for him to go. So everyone threw him a big farewell party. But the next day, he came back, saying that his flight was delayed, and asked if everyone could throw him another party, so they did. Eventually, after several more times of this happening, the town was over it just ignored him.
The song starts off with a shrill note from the Clarinet, quickly joined by a swinging rhythm from the drums and a scat chorus. This repeats one more time, with the addition of a trumpet added in. Then we move into the first verse. The clarinet drops out and there is just Ben, his piano, and the drums with a standard swing rhythm. Then it catapults into the chorus, with a Clarinet solo going on underneath. They then repeat the intro and first verse, with an addition of the scat going through till the chorus again. Once the chorus rolls around again, the horns join in this time. We then go into the bridge. The bridge is interesting, because we got small solos from almost all of the instruments, first the trumpet, then piano, then the drums have a little bit of a solo until the song moves into the third verse.
The third verse is fun, is it starts out slow, then slowly starts to build with an odd addition of an oboe backing up Ben's vocals. After this, it goes straight back into the chorus again. The drums break out a bit more, and the trumpet lets loose with a mute. The outro of the song is fantastic, with the scat chorus laying the base as all of the other instruments seem to improve at the same time around them.
I thoroughly enjoy this piece, and this is not the first nor the last time Ben will use older styles in his music. Other pieces that he has done include Lost in the Supermarket, Hiro's Song, and The Secret Life of Morgan Davis.
Music is an ever changing field, constantly being redefined by each generation that comes through. Amusing to me most of all, is that each generation is adamant that they had the best music, and the up and coming generations music is just to 'raunchy' and 'risque' something that they never would have ever done. This has been true since Beethoven started expanding on what an orchestra could really do, to Lady Gaga showing up at the Grammys in an Egg. Everything has a beginning to it, and watching music, how it is connected to each other is very fascinating to me. Here are several examples that I have found throughout my life and through this class.
Free Form Jazz --> Flaming Lips
The Flaming Lips are a band out of Oklahoma that have been around since the late 70s. Wayne Coyne, the leader singer, has always stressed harmony and acceptance. In short, he is an awesome hippie musician. Earlier, back in 2009, the band released their most recent album, Embryonic. It was a dramatic shift in from their change in sound compared to their several previous albums, most notably for its experimental sound and free-flowing rhythms. Here is an example of one of their songs:
This song is called Your Bats. It is a very strange, and often confusing piece that showcases the uniqueness of this album. Upon first hearing it, my friends and I decided that Wayne was trying to do something new that had never been done before. Unfortunately, none of us were near as educated as we thought we were. Little did we know, that in fact, this concept was done long ago by someone else.
The idea of Free Form, or just breaking the mold in general so extreme that it confused and often annoyed people had already been explored by Miles Davis, most notably with Bitches Brew. When I first heard this piece in class, I realized that Wayne was most likely emulating Davis, in an attempt to break free of his old image.
Swing Songs --> Modern Rock
When I was in High School, my brother was going and taking dance lessons with a girl he was attempting to woo and discovered a band named Jimmie's Chicken Shack. When learning to Swing Dance, the instructor attempted to use more modern tunes to connect with his students, and used this song when first teaching them.
Now, on the surface, this piece is your standard 90s alternative rock. Repeating guitar riffs, repetitive lyrics, and nonsensical lyrics. However, what is interesting about it is the driving rhythm. It swings, underneath all of this modernization, there is, at its core, a continuation of the groundwork set over 50 years ago using a completely different genre. That, in my opinion, is something is a fine example of how music has evolved and changed.
Big Band --> Pop
There is a recent band that has come to light in the last several years that goes by the name of 'Fun.' Their upbeat feel and quick witted lyrics have become a large hit with today's audience, especially when the newest single 'We Are Young' really hit it big. One of the songs off of their albums is called 'One Foot' and got my attention when I got the album as being a song that borrowed several aspects from Jazz.
Several things that I notice very quickly is the use of a strong horns section and the marching rhythm. Later on in the piece, we have a variation of call and response. What I like about this piece, is that it shows that even today, we cannot deny that that influences from other time periods filter into all different kinds of genres we wouldn't even consider.
This is what I love about music today. I can always listen to a new piece, and find snippets and nods towards other styles that would not have come together any other time but now. People love to lament all the time that music today is 'so horrible' and that all of the good songs 'have been done.' No, I don't agree with that. Like everything else in life, you get out of it what you put into it. If you only listen to whats on the Top 40 stations, then yes, everything is going to sound the same. But if you break your routine, think for yourself, and look for your own type of music, I guarantee you that music is alive and well.
Sadly, Adele is a clear example of an amazing, no, brilliant singer that has become so over-hyped that she is starting to become somewhat among my group of friends as a sellout and overplayed. Yet, I also believe she is a great example of someone has has over-exposure for a reason; She's that freaking good.
If you have not heard any of her music before, this is something you must remedy very quickly. She is our generation's Billie Holiday. A woman who gets up on stage, and unapologetically spills her heart out, not caring who hears it or if they like it.
This particular number I think is a great example of a fusion of many different genres. It is pop, obviously, but with a large influence from blues and gospel, two genres that are very much intertwined with each other.
The song starts off right into the first verse, no intro needed. Her sharp call brings your attention immediately to the sound. A piano plays underneath her, providing harmony for her melody as is most cases in this song. It then leads into the chorus, 'Take it' with an addition of a female choir which gives the song its gospel feel.
After that, it leads straight into the next verse, very similar to the first, but the pianist lets go more, frantically playing to add to the rising action of the song. It then leads into the chorus again, almost exactly at the first.
We then lead into the bridge (a part of any song I always love) with Adele finding an even higher octave to sign in so effortlessly it blows the mind. As the bridge ends, the piano gets a brief solo, right before we lead into the chorus again. Which is then repeated twice, and ends with a minor chord progression from the piano and the last lines of the song 'Take it all with my love'.
A clear cut ABABCB formula, but certainly one that works very well. The bridge in my opinion is the best part of this song, as well as the very end with the minor chord progression that I never noticed until this time listening through it.
She is one singer that I can guarantee will stand the test of time, and be remembered for bringing down the house when so many other singers of our current generation see fit to blast the stage with crazy gimmicks and outrageous costumes, by just getting onstage and belting her heart out.
This is something that has always fascinated me, almost more than anything else. Music is something that is so essential to my life, and when aasked the question, 'Would you rather be blind or deaf?' I would respond with, 'Blind. Then I'd listen to music to get over it.'
Yet, what is it? How did it begin? I'm personally a fan of these two ideas.
Or this one.
But however it started, it has certainly caught on and is evidence in any culture throughout recent history. Whether or not it is a form of entertainment, or a type of communication as it is in parts of Africa, music is solidified in our society just as much as religion is. But how can one define it?
According to Phillip Dorrell's book, 'What is Music' it can be described as something called Super-Stimulus theory. Dorrell believes that music is all about a process of storing and perceiving information. He takes music and stripes it down to it's bare level, such as how the brain interprets different wave patterns and how it effects different areas of the brain's anatomy. I did not know before, but there is an entire field of philosophers and theorists out there who spend years trying to classify and analyze it's structure and simply the meaning behind the word 'music.'
Marcel Cobussen describes it as,
"Music. In the first place a word. As a word, it has meaning. As a word, it gives meaning. Take sounds for example: this sound is music. Which actually conveys: ‘we’ consider this sound as music. Music – as word – frames, delimits, opens up, encloses. To call (‘consecrate’ as Pierre Bourdieu would say) something music is a political decision-making process. As a grammatical concept, ‘music’ is useful: using this concept, we differentiate between various sounds. We divide, classify, categorize, name, delimit: not every sound is music. Although, since Cage, no single sound is by definition banned from the musical domain. The word ‘music’ brings (necessary) structure and order into the (audible) world."
But for me, personally, I think it is something much more simple than that. Music is whatever the listener wants it to be. Sure, one could spend hours upon hours, analyzing how a brain interprets signals, or how the delta wave patterns and the receptors in your ears interact according to the temperature outside and the current phase of the moon in the month of January after a blizzard, but let's be honest; we don't care. Really, because at the end of the day, we go home, turn on the radio (or nowadays an ipod dock) and just relax to whatever makes us feel good at the time. Somedays that could be Beethoven, Miles Davis, or maybe Led Zepplin.
The important aspect of music is not what it is, or why it is, but what we like. You have to know what your taste is, and when that changes, pay attention to it so you dont' get miserable.
Now, I don't say this to just casually dismiss the scientists and philosophers that have devoted massive amounts of time to this subject, but merely to put in my two cents on it that maybe, just maybe, the scientists should leave a few things to the mysteries of life. Because if we figure everything out, then what's the point?
This song is on the Collateral soundtrack, which a fantastic movie with some good songs in it, yet this one has always stood out to me.
The way that this song starts out, is very different. It has a high pitched note undulating to various pitches, going back and forth across the two channels, but underneath, we start to hear a organ beginning to pick up the melody a little bit, and as the pitch distorts, a bass comes on, accompanying the organ with a nice drum beat starting up for us.
As the first verse goes in, the beat doesn't really change, as the focus is mainly on the singer itself, but then we go into the chorus. The chorus sees the addition of an electric guitar in the left channel, emphasizing the chorus more with a little bit of improvisation. Then a little bit of...scat, if you call it happens after the chorus, leading into a repeat of the first verse.
The difference in this is he throws a little bit improv into it than otherwise noted before, but then we are right back into the chorus, with a slight change in the lyrics to 'seems to me, yesterday was left behind.' Then the guitar is distorted even more, giving us a synthetic sound as the guitar is warped. After this, there is an addition of female back up singers, singing the same phrases over and over again, leading us into the outro, with the drums dropping out and the song slowly starting to fade down to nothing.
The format of this song is AABABA, which I have gathered to be a very common form among the music industry because it works. But the real focus of this song is the hypnotic effect that it instills on the listener. It is the repeated drum line and the man's soothing voice that lulls us into a trance of just simply not moving, and the synthesizing effect makes us feel as if we are floating in water. Overall, I just love this piece to listen to and relax after a long day.
So, in the last blog, I was talking about the concept of free jazz, and speculating on whether or not I would find a new love for it by the time the past week was out, and I would say that...it has changed somewhat.
However, what has changed is what free form jazz is to me, or what one would consider to be free form jazz. You see, originally, I thought this was free form jazz:
Which, in my opinion, is still just a collaboration of sound merely thrown together for the sake of producing something that sounds completely irrelevant and devoid of any artistic prowess (now ask my opinion on so called 'modern' art).
On the other hand, I was introduced to several artists that are considered free form jazz, but I happened to find their styles more adhere and sensible.
Ornette Coleman's, 'Lonely Woman' introduced me to a form of free jazz that I had not yet encountered. I think it quite nicely encompasses the realm of emotions and feelings that Coleman is trying to portray through his music, but with a good solid foundation that the drums are providing for it. Which brings me to my conclusion about most free form jazz pieces; I am alright with them, as long as there's a beat.
The beat is something that is so basic to music, that to me it is like going through an entire week without drinking water. You just can't do it. You need hydration, just as much as music needs a beat. Now, it doesn't have to be one that is constant, or even there all of the time, but at least kick of with that. You can't jump off to something new unless you have something to jump off OF.
Even in Sun Ra's 'Space Is the Place' it at least starts off somewhat normal in the night club, then it goes all crazy and leads us into a rather strange world full of new sounds and the like, but again, it still has a starting point of familiarity. We must be reminded what is old before we can appreciate what is new. You don't just dive in to the deep end of the pool before you learn how to swim.
Yet, on the other hand, I am very happy that my knowledge and acceptance of other forms of music has been widened. But I have also found my limit to it, at the same time. Maybe in the years to come I will widen it further, but at the moment, I cam quite content as to where it is.
This woman needs no introduction. Her legend and notoriety are right up there with Ella Fitzgerald and Billie Holiday.
The song starts off with Nina singing the first verse, swinging it only as Nina can. She takes a pause after every line, letting the emptiness emphasis the song just as much as her voice does. She throws in a little bit of scat, just to give some variety to it. Then, enter the horns, drums, and a piano backing her up with a descending arpeggio in Unison for the second verse. As the second verse nears the end, the song crescendos slightly up, giving power to the next verse. After she finishes it, the band goes off on its own for a couple of measures, then we go into the third verse.
But the band lets up during this, allowing the piano to have its own solo for a verse. As the fourth verse starts, its the same as when the second verse started, but with the piano going back to an arpeggio style from the second verse as well. And as it ends, it crescendos slightly, but then Nina springs into a beautiful scat solo, ending with an even louder crescendo on 'I'm feeling good,' holding the note as the song fades out.
A song that is only 2:57, but has become a very recognizable piece, covered by, in this case most notably Nina Simone, but also bands such as Muse, and singer Bobby Darin. I say covered, because it was actually originally written for a musical 'The Roar of Greasepaint- The Smell of the Crowd' by Anthony Newley and Leslie Bricusse in 1965.
Here is my favorite rendition of it.
This one is done by a band called Muse. They are in my top three favorite bands, (Muse, Coheed and Cambria, Foo Fighters) and have done a great job covering this...in the sense that it is very different. While the beginning of this song swings, Matt Bellamy decides to to use the piano during the intro as opposed to using just his voice. Then the drums and bass come in, pounding you into the realization that while this may be a cover, it is not the Nina Simone version.
The third verse, Matt does something I had never heard of and started singing into a Megaphone. The effect made his voice flat and very distorted, but had an interesting effect in the sense that it was new and enjoyable to hear some variety in the piece. Then during the fourth verse he goes back as the other two verses were, and proceeds to end it with scat, as Nina did, but instead of letting it fades out, has the outro just as same as the intro.
It was interesting to see how these two pieces of the same name have such a vastly different interpretation of the source material, and I believe this shows the great diversity of music.
What is music? It is a question that seems, to me, rather rhetorical. Music is...music. It's something with a beat, a rhythm, a sound that gets your toes tapping, or your heart racing, and transports you beyond the realm of reality and natural thought to a place perpetrated by emotions and feelings that are as illusive as trying to catch sunlight. That, is what music is. But, that is just one man's opinion. And while I would like to feel that I have some basis to back it up, from my knowledge of various songs and symphonies, to a moderate history of being taught musical theory, but in reality, I am no more qualified to say what is or isn't art than the next man. It is all something that is subjective...yet it is still fun to debate.
Friday in class, we were introduced to a new form of Jazz. It's called a form, but that in itself is a misnomer. Form would be implying structure, and the very existence of this form is to prove that statement wrong. So while it may be called Free Form Jazz, it should just be called Free Jazz. Or Free. Or cacophony of sound and noise put together to illicit an emotional response synonymous with nails being scraped across a chalkboard. However, I am willing to admit that my judgement of this style is pre-mature, I have not fully explored this medium yet. Up to this point, from what little Free Form Jazz I had heard before Friday, I could have heard the same thing standing in front of a street construction site in New York City while an angry woman yelled in my ear that I was standing in the middle of the sidewalk. And to be perfectly honest, considering the first piece we heard on Friday, I was fully to have to deal with the same experience for the rest of this section.
But I was pleasantly surprised by the piece. It was something that was supposed to invoke an emotion of fear and uncertainty. I enjoyed it more than I expected. Though I feel that part of this was a result of the drum beat underneath, which gave it slightly more structure. I am more excited for next class now, wondering what the next piece will be. Still, it has me wondering what exactly free form jazz is.
From my research, there really seems to be no set definition of Free Form, as it has so many different facets to it. It has been created most notably by musicians Ornette Coleman and Cecil Taylor. But other Jazz musicians as composed some, such as John Coltrane and Charles Mingus. It is a form that split the jazz community right in two, with the some claiming it was a magnificent break from tradition, while others claiming it was a groundless concept that had no place among what they considered to be 'music.'
Yet, it you cannot refute the impact that Free Form had on the world of music. Here was something so blatantly different, that everyone took notice of it. You were either in, or out. And it was something that people outside of the Jazz Community noticed. Joseph Campbell, noted author of 'Hero of a Thousand Faces,' is quoted with saying that Orette Coleman was following his bliss. Which is a good example of how this new style was reaching to other mediums of art.
So I suppose consider this blog post to be part 1 of 2, as this next week will shed more light on this style, and I will be following this up, but in the mean time, I will sum up my current opinion on Free Form as of Friday: I don't get it.
Abstract art must serve a purpose. It needs a higher calling other than just trying to be abstract. There must be an ideal, a goal behind it. If it is just created to be radically different without another goal in mind, that it personally does not interest me. It will be interesting to see where this all goes.
This piece, once again by Jack White, is a shining example of the culmination of years of evolution and an example of all those tributaries of jazz and sound coming together to create a simply brilliant piece in the short span time of 2:36. I have mentioned before the brilliance that Jack White does, and now that I have seen him live, it only furthered my conviction that he is clearly a descendant of the Kings of Jazz and Blues. A combination of Ray Charles, B.B. King, with country-jazz influences.
This song, Love Interruption, starts out with a steady rhythm set down by an organ, guitar, and bass sax. When the first verse starts, the guitar starts in by itself, and then is slowly joined by the other two instruments, beginning to build the emotion as the lyrics and singing get more intense. Then we go into the Chorus.
The chorus has all parts playing hard, letting the feeling of love corrupting wash over the audience. Then it fades out to Jack and the female vocalist all by themselves, singing a duet a-capella, before the instruments come in again. The style is just the same as the first verse, but played with much more passion and drive. We then go into a refrain of the chorus, after which the outro is very similar to the intro, if not extended slightly.
So the pattern of this piece was ABAB, with an intro and outro covering both ends. What I believe to be the driving factor on this piece, other than the lyrics, is the bass sax. The repeating descending scale it has effects the listener in a way of dragging down the emotions to the recesses of their minds, as if walking down a winding staircase into the basement. It is a constant reminder that this is a dark song. But the sudden cancellation of this when the chorus comes rushing back in mirrors the breath of fresh air we get when we break the chains of poised love and escape to the freedom of revelation and epiphanies. The second A serves as a reminder though, that we always will fall again, but with the knowledge that we can found our way back out, as indeed happens when the chorus once again explodes onto the scene.
Also, the second verse is much stronger in intensity than the first one, providing us with the example of insight into love that comes from having battled its demons before. Yet, when the chorus once again comes around, saying how we will not give in to love destroying us, it proves that there is always a way back out.
Charles Mingus recorded this song for the first time in 1959. At the time, it was a huge leap forward for the Jazz Genre in being taken seriously as a form of music that can be so much more than just an easy form of entertainment. To blatantly come out and point fingers and name name's without hiding behind metaphors and long, drawn out phrases is something that our generation of song-writers could take a lesson from on occasion.
But my main focus on this piece itself is something that caught my eye, or rather ear. In the last lines of the song, Charles has written;
Name me a handful that's ridiculous, Dannie Richmond. Faubus, Rockefeller, Eisenhower Why are they so sick and ridiculous?
Now, obviously, Faubus, who was the governor of Arkansas at the time, is clearly meant to be included in that list. He sent out the National Guard to prevent the integration of Little Rock Central High School by nine Black teenagers, and was generally well known for being a racist and bigoted man. But the two others mentioned in that line make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Lets begin with Rockefeller. Now, my first thought during this was to assume that he meant John. D Rockefeller. Of course, he is well known for being the Oil Baron and there are many tales of his questionable tactics when it comes to business, but outside he is still, to this day, one of the greatest philanthropists in history. The amount of money that he donated to many causes is still held in great regard. That being sad, he also actively supported black schools in the south, according to the teachings of his Baptist upbringing, which I can only assume means to help out all people, regardless of race. It is that donation, and one other connection I can find, that could possibly make any sense of having his name in this song;
1) His donation to black schools alone was enough to target him as a bigot, because since he supported black schools, he supported segregation.
2) His son, John D. Rockefeller Jr. supported Colonial Williamsburg, which had a history of racial prejudice.
But that is it. In fact, the Rockefeller family has helped a great deal in advancing African Americans in this country. The Rockefeller Foundation is a huge supporting of African charity, and many other examples such as these.
Then there is Dwight D. Eisenhower (maybe he didn't like people with middle names that started with D). When the Brown V. Board of education verdict was announced, he quickly sought out to make Washington an example for the rest of the country, and sent out Nation Guard Troops down to the South to help the desegregation of schools in Little Rock, when Faubus refused. Eisenhower usurped Faubus' authority over the National Guard, which proved how serious he was. He was also key in desegregating the military. Now, whether or not his personal beliefs reflect his actions of Civil Rights, he was a man who stood by his country's decision and believed in democracy. So again, why include him?
With this research, I have come to the conclusion that the reason he made such a big deal out of those other two people was he was looking for something to be controversial. Whether or not it was true. Sure, one could argue that supporting black schools and sending troops down to Little Rock might be racist, but you'd be twisting history so far even a contortionist would break their back trying to understand it. I believe this is just an example of either an attempt at controversy, or just plain ignorance.
Either way though, a great song.
Sources:
1) Jones-Wilson, Faustine Childress (1996). Encyclopedia of African-American education. Greenwood Press. p. 184. ISBN 0-313-28931-X.
2) Colonial Williamsburg Journal, 2004
3) David Nichol, A Matter of Justice: Eisenhower and the Beginning of the Civil Rights Revolution (2007)
Okay, so this is something that is a little bit different...
Richard Cheese is a Lounge Singer from Las Vegas, that has become very famous for taking iconic songs and turning them into swing, jazz, or just downright goofy interpretations of the original source. What made me think of him, was how, yesterday in class, you were showing us some examples of Thelonius Monk taking classic songs, and changing them into bepop styles.
The song begins with a typical Richard Cheese intro, where he makes it appear that he just doesn't care about it. He then proceeds to tell the band to 'swing it.' The bass starts in with a descending scale, in quick 2/4 time. The piano accompanies it soon after, swinging into it very lightly, making a play on the guitar part from the original.
After the intro, Richard starts singing, changing the lyrics a little bit for a comedic factor, and sings the first two verses. He even adds some scat in their very quickly which is a nice little touch.
Then he goes into a repeat of the style of the first phrase, so we have ABA, with an addition of a snare and cymbal, then we roll into D where he breaks it down into an almost bridge at the beginning of the song. The snare and cymbal stay with us, adding to the rising cacophony of the song's style. After this he goes right back into A again.
Then Richard requests Bobby to 'change the road.' At which point, the song pauses, and he launches into a piano solo, with the bass and drums accompanying with the same beat. Then we're back to D from earlier before, with different lyrics that Richard is singing. He repeats D three times, before going into the ending.
The ending slowly winds down, with the piano falling into it. We have one more pause, at which point Richard begins to sing the last line of the song, emphasizing, with the help of the band using staccato notes after each word, to a comical point the high notes before pausing before the last two words, "...to heaven." After this, we have a quick comical outro from the piano.
An interesting note, as short and as goofy as this song is, it is the hardest that I have tried to analyze so far. Partially because of it's speed, and partially because of the different changes in phrases and sections. I had to pause it many times and go back and make sure everything I had typed was correct.
According to the poet and music critic Phillip Larkin, he considered Thelonius Monk nothing more than "the elephant on the keyboard." Yet, while this a very strong statement to make, Thelonius Monk clearly caught the attention of some people...considering he is the second most recorded Jazz composer of all time, right after Duke Ellington. So some might say in this instance, Philip Larkin was dead wrong.
Thelonius Monk was born on October 10, 1917, in Rocky Mount, North Carolina. He started playing the piano around age 6, and ended up dropping out of High School before he graduated. Electing instead, to tour and play the organ for an evangelist group. He eventually found his way to Minton's Playhouse in New York, from which his career blossomed.
Minton's was a club that was well known for it's improvisation and is considered one of the birth places of bebop. Monk had finally found a place where his strange, almost scattered technique could be accepted and had the necessary atmosphere to grow and polish into the fine tuned, yet strangely illusive sound that we know and love today. Mary Lou Williams, a famous Jazz singer, is noted saying that many people would come and listen to Monk play, and would frantically write down what he was doing, in an attempt to steal much of the style that Monk was attempting to make his own.
But Monk had a different side to him when it came to his personal life. He always seemed to be very strange at times, and from the few videos I've seen of him, I can understand why. He did not seem to communicate like other people, being hard to read, but still making sense, much like his music. For years, many doctors tried to diagnose him with various diseases, and it may have ended up being one of these diagnoses that caused him to suffer so much, as the drugs prescribed to him could have caused brain damage.
The later years in his life were not much better. In the last decade of his life, he rarely performed publicly. And while on tour with "The Giants of Jazz," he reportedly only said two words. Later, it was mentioned that it may have been because of issues he had with musician Art Blakey, that caused him to say so little. Eventually, Monk moved in with longtime friend Baroness Pannonica de Koenigswarter, who helped care for him in the last 6 years of his life. He reportedly didn't even play the piano during this time. He died on February 17, 1982, of a stroke.
Yet, the legacy that Monk left behind was one that has shaped music forever. Still, one does have to start to ponder the irony about artists and musicians; their suffering, is our gain.
Sources:
1. Spencer, C. (2010). In the steps of Larkin. The Spectator, Sept. 2010, London.
2. Giddins, Gary & Scott DeVeaux. Jazz (2009). New York: W.W. Norton & Co, ISBN 978-0-393-06861-0.
3. Gabbard, Krin (Autumn, 1999). "Evidence: Monk as Documentary Subject". Black Music Research Journal (Center for Black Music Research — Columbia College
While I know this song as sung by Norah Jones, I was intrigued and pleasantly surprised to find it done by Ella and Louis.
The song starts out with a piano playing an interesting little riff at the beginning. But this eventually leads to Ella singing the lyrics, with an addition of a bass walking a smooth rhythm, and brushes on a cymbils. After the first verse, we are given a little teaser of Louis on the Trumpet, which is just enough to wet our appetites. Then at the end of the second verse, Louis again teases us just slightly more. He does this again at the end of the third and fourth verse.
By the time we reach the first chorus, he plays slightly more. Up to this point, we have had AB, and now when we get to the second A we have Ella replaced with Louis singing instead, which is quite a riot considering the amazing contrast between their two very different voices. What is interesting to note, is that when Louis starts singing this part, it seems like the instruments are brought more to light, making us realize that they were muted when Ella was singing.
But after Louis is done singing the second A, we are lead into an amazing trumpet solo, that Louis just eats up, playing a variation on the first verse. And as Louis continues, Ella comes back in with more gusto than before, as if she was missing the vocal spotlight, and hits us with the the Chorus again. At this point, the pattern is now ABACB, with C being the solo by Louis.
It ends with Louis with a solemn note on his trumpet, and Ella holding the final note of 'you.' While this was a lot of fun to listen to, and clearly was a great duet, I must say I was rather unimpressed in terms of the breakdown of the piece. Very simple, not much out of the ordinary. I really would have expected with these two amazing musicians thrown together, that something much more interesting would have come out of it.
Not a bad piece by any means, but not really one that I would consider to be a masterpiece at all. Still, a nice one I enjoyed greatly, simply for the listening pleasure. Which, come to think of it, may have been the entire purpose of it in the first place.
This amazing musician is one that, I am sad to say, I do not know that much about. All I really knew of him was that he was a fantastic piano player and wrote 'The Maple Leaf Rag' which was named after the bar that he worked at in Missouri.
But I have decided to take the time to learn a little bit more about him.
Joplin was born in Northeast Texas, right outside of Texerana, in 1867. He was the second child born to Giles Joplin and Florence Givens. They were poor, but his father moved them to Texerana proper to work on the railroad and provide for his family. Unfortunately, however, Giles was not a man of principles and left Florence for another women around 1880, leaving her to provide for the rest of the family. It has been speculated that one of his causes for leaving was because of Scott's mother insisting on his musical education, and his father claiming that it was taking away from his opportunities of getting a real job.
But all was not lost, for Scott had a flourishing talent that was helped by the local music professor, Julius Weiss, a Jewish man who had immigrated from Germany some years before. He trained Scott from ages 11-16, helping him to realize that music was more than just entertainment, it was an art form. Reportedly, Scott never forgot Weiss, even once his reputation took of and his fame was achieved. He would send Weiss money in an attempt to pay him back for all the help he had given Scott over the years.
Eventually, Scott saw that it was time to move on from Texerana. But at the time, there was not much work for black pianists, save for churches and brothels, and Scott jumped from city to city, trying to find work. He finally found himself in Sedalia, Missouri, in 1894. This is where he found work at the 'Maple Leaf Queen,' of which is famous piece is named after. However, this is another instance where not much is known on his activities at that time. It was true, that he did not have a recorded residence in the town until ten years later, in 1904. He also found love in the form of Belle Hayden, whom he married in 1899. The two of them would have a baby together, but it would die after only a few short months, and after that the two of them divorced in early 1900. Scott would again find love in 1904 when he went down to Arkansas and married Freddie Alexander, but she would die ten weeks after the marriage. But her death inspired one of the most beautiful ragtime waltzes, Bethena. Strange, how an artists tragedy becomes our gains, isn't it?
After moving to New York in 1907 and trying to produce his Opera that he had written, Scott descended into poverty, trying to produce 'art' as opposed to 'entertainment' and this did not work out in his favor. Eventually, he contracted tertiary syphilis, which sadly, would lead to him losing his mind and falling into madness. He was admitted to Manhattan State Hospital, and died on April 1, 1917. He was only 49 years old.
But what he left behind, was an amazing legacy of fantastic music, pioneering rhythm, and a tune that would make him the most recognizable faces of Ragtime.
In my opinion, there is no finer Sinatra song out there, and I'd like to think I know a lot of them. This song holds a very special place in my heart, pertaining to a dance at a wedding I attended with a very lovely woman I was seeing at the time.
The 8 bar intro of the brushes on the snare drum that lead into the first verse are so iconic, I know after the first two hits what the song is. From this, the snare makes a little jump, answered by the piano with two notes, right into Frankie just sliding into the verse. He's backed up by a walking bass, with a flute playing harmony behind him as the snare continues the beat. Right near the end of this verse, we are graced with the presence of some alto-saxes joining into the party with an answer to the flute's harmony, right before the snare drum gets hit hard, and the horn section comes roaring in to add to the rising cacophony of this piece.
This leads right into the second verse, with the horns providing a backup to Frankie's voice, amping up the energy. This verse is much more accented, building in intensity. After this verse, everything comes to a point and the horn section explodes, with the alto's getting the spotlight for a second, carrying the tune, and the flute getting a tiny quick solo to slow things down for a sec.
But the snare answers with a building of a quick beat, catapulting the band right back into the Chorus with Frankie belting out his notes with more intensity, repeating the second verse. This plays up to a point, with a rising crescendo as Frank holds 'in other words,' for the climax of the song. Then the piano answers with 3 slow notes by itself, and Frankie ending the song with 'you' with an accent from the Bass.
Overall, in a short period of time, Frank takes us from a simple melody, to a rising, exciting climax in less than 3 minutes, but he never leaves you dissatisfied at the end. Simply put, this is one of the best jazz arrangements.
PS: Thought you might get a kick out of this link, as we are starting to near this age in Jazz development. In this, Spongebob is trying to become a grown man. This is the final step.
What I consider to be a rather tragic life, Charlie Parker was first brought to my attention when doing the play, "Crumbs From the Table of Joy." One of the characters, Lily, mentioned that, while she never cared for the Pledge of Allegiance, she just "can't get enough of that Charlie Parker, 'salt peanut, salt peanut." That next week, while watching the Ken Burns Jazz series, Charlie Parker was brought up and I just wanted to know a little bit more about him. Sadly, the truth of the man nowhere reflects the grandeur and splendor of his music.
Charlie Parker was born in Kansas City, on August 29th, 1920. His father, according to the Ken Burns series, bailed on him before he was 10. But not before he helped influence Charlie, for he also shared a love of music and had some of the talent required to play them. But his father left, and Charlie was not one to stay for school, knowing what he wanted to do with his life, and dropped out in 1935, before joining the Musicians Union.
He started playing in a lot of other bands, mainly Kansas City, New York, and Chicago, and made his first Jazz recording with Jay McShann's territory band in 1938. He was only a higher level of musicianship at this point, saying at one point in an interview that he was practicing 15 hours a day.
However, as amazing a musician as he was, no man is without his faults. After an early childhood automobile accident, he become addicted to morphine, which ultimately caused him to move on to Heroin. Charlie would remain addicted to Heroin for most of his life, causing him to be broke many a time, and sometimes resorting to busking on the streets for cash to buy drugs. When he stayed in California after his band left (cashing in his return ticket to by Heroin), he had to switch over to alcohol to compensate for the loss of Heroin out West. But this proved to be a major issue too, as it would spill over into his recording times in the studio. Reportedly, one time he become so intoxicated that his producer had to come out and hold him up, just so he could continue to play. After he moved back to New York, he picked right back up where he left off with Heroin, and this would ultimately lead to his downfall.
Charlie Parker died on March 12, 1955. The cause of death officially was lobar pneumonia and a bleeding ulcer, however, Parker also had an advanced case of cirrhosis and had suffered a heart attack. Yet everyone knew the real cause of death was the drugs and alcohol. The coroner who performed the autopsy reported that his body was that of a 50-60 year old man.
He was only 34.
Yet while the man died, his music lives on. Charlie Parker's influence upon Bebop is equivalent only to Dizzy Gillespie. Many said that Jazz today would be so different if he was never around.
"Don't play the Saxophone. Let it play you."
-Charlie Parker
Sources:
1) Woideck, Carl (October 1998). Charlie Parker: His Music and Life
2) Salamone, Frank A. (2009). The Culture of Jazz: Jazz as Critical Culture
3) Gitler, Ira (2001). The Masters of Bebop: A Listener's Guide
An artist that I must confess, I do not know much of past this song, but she has an amazing voice that always captivates me and lifts my spirits every time I need it. The song I have selected by her is titled 'God Will.' One that evokes the heart and soul to be wrenched back to a long lost love in your past.
It starts out with a piano, swinging with the melody playing on its keys for 8 bars. Repeating the same phrase, then calming down and entering into a call and response with Miss Holly Cole. The first verse after this continues and is joined by a walking bass underneath everything, do a nice job of keeping the beat.
After this it goes into the chorus, re-iterating the same lines twice. Quickly after, the piano goes into its own solo, ripping up the piece with a quick romp through the keys, enticing Holly to come back with the Bridge, which causes another call and response between her and the piano. After this, we are lead back to the chorus, with the bass becoming more apparent everyone vamping up to a crescendo, before Holly ends it on a high note, and the piano winds down with a mournful chord, slowly fading out.
To be honest, its not a terribly complicated blues piece, and one that does not require much thought, but has a power behind it that I find to be exhilarating, deriving its style out of sheer simplicity. There is something to be said for a song that can have so little, but mean so much.
A man that needs no introduction. A man that single handedly reshaped the music and film industry. A man that was the epitome of cool...and still never seemed to care about it. A man investigated by the FBI for almost 5 decades, and no convictions made.
Frank Sinatra.
I first heard Frank Sinatra when my parents had me watch a small movie called 'When Harry Met Sally.' Little did I know, that this movie was going to completely change my life. Not only did it introduce me to Billy Crystal and all the wonderful roles he has done, but for the first time in my life, I heard a song that made me turn to my father and ask, "Who is this?"
Of course, I received a look of pure horror when he realized I didn't know this man. Since then, my love for Frankie has only grown. Tales of his sauve demeanor delighted me, giving me something to emulate that was surely lacking from my list of idols; class.
But who was this man? What dark and magical place did this God among men come from? Evidently, where devils come from, New Jersey. Frank was born on December 12, 1915 in Hoboken, New Jersey. He was an only child, and when born, was thought to be stillborn. But after putting him under a cold faucet, he burbled to life. This baby, not even 15 minutes old, was already showing the extraordinary resilience that would catapult him to fame and legend.
With humble beginnings, including an arrest in 1938, he caught his big break in 1943 when he signed with Columbia Records and started producing hit after hit. his film career also took off when he starred in From Here to Eternity, for which he won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in 1953.
At this point, his reputation never faltered a bit. He didn't stop until he had his first heart attack in 1997, and stopped all public appearances. He died on May 14, 1998. According to his wife Barbara, his last words, after she had encouraged him to fight were, "I'm losing." His death caused a huge gapping hole in the hearts of many, that will not be easily filled. Sir Elton John was quoted with saying, "He was simply the best. No one even came close."
Yet he left behind a legacy of amazing music, films, and dedication to his craft that is not seen enough today in my opinion, and may never be seen again.
Sources:
1) Summers, Antony and Swan, Robbyn. Sinatra: The Life. Doubleday, 2005
2) Ingham, Chris. The Rough Guide to Frank Sinatra. Rough Guides Ltd. 30 Jun 2005
3) "Frank Sinatra". Hollywood.com. Retrieved May 15, 2008
It was suggested to me that I should take a look at Daniel Levitin's "This Is Your Brain on Music." After finding it, I sat down and read the introduction of it, and from just those few pages, I have gleaned some very fascinating information that I would like to share here now.
First, Daniel makes a very good point about the difference between science and music. Is there actually much of a difference between it? "Most artists describe there work as experiments (Levitin, 4)." This is a very true statement that Levitin brings up. There's even a process that seems to be similar to scientists and musicians alike. They both have an idea, they do research on it, then a trial run, and if it actually works, they proceed to produce something out of it. If people could actually see this connection, then the mathematically inclined and artistic minded could somehow find an easier common ground.
Second, he talks about how the perception of music in Western Society has changed over the past several hundred years. It used to be that everyone participated in creating music. Before radio, families would sit around and create music for themselves as just a mere form of entertainment. Just by simply playing and singing did not mean that you were a professional or were trying to be. You were just having fun. What is truly fascinating about this is the example that Levitin pointed out with a friend of his, Jim Ferguson.
"For his doctoral degree at Harvard, he performed fieldwork in Lesotho, a small nation completely surrounded by South Africa. There, studying and interacting with local villagers, Jim pa- tiently earned their trust until one day he was asked to join in one of their songs. So, typically, when asked to sing with these Sotho villagers, Jim said in a soft voice, “I don’t sing,” and it was true: We had been in high school band together and although he was an excellent oboe player, he couldn’t carry a tune in a bucket. The villagers found his objection puzzling and inexplicable. The Sotho consider singing an ordinary, everyday activity performed by everyone, young and old, men and women, not an activity reserved for a special few." (6)
How interesting is that? I had never considered that to even be a possibility, that somewhere in the world, you could simply break out into song and no one would judge you as bad or good, you were just expressing yourself. However, as amazing as that sounds, I am not sure I would want to live there. I enjoy knowing what is good and what is bad to me. It gives what I love a special significance. But how much should we really know?
The third aspect I brought out of reading the introductory, was his addressing of a concern that I have had in the past as well. What if I learn so much about musical theory and history, that it loses that special meaning it has to me? But apparently, Levitin's students have also expressed the same concern that it will, "Steal away many of life's simple pleasures (10)." But Daniel has said that in his experience, it can't. Science raises just as many questions as it answers, and so does music. If anything, it will deepen your appreciation of it, because it broadens your knowledge of what to look for, and therefore, what you appreciate and enjoy.
From jut reading this introduction, I am inclined to read the rest of it and see what all he has to say. Now I just have to find the time to do it. There is never enough time. Even Darth Vader agrees.
(Sadly, the youtube link with the picture would not work because of copyright issues, but the link above will get you to the video all the same if you just copy and paste)
What can be said about Jack White that isn't good? If you have never heard of him before, he is the closest to what I believe is the modern day Buddy Holly. He's our generation's Jimi Hendrix. This man is working single-handedly to revitalize music. And I did not add industry to that for a reason. His influence from Jazz and Blues are so evident in all of his music that it is a great example of the rivers of Jazz that have been discussed in class.
This particular piece is from one of his bands, called The Dead Weather. Also in the band is the singer Alison Mosshart from The Kills, another alternative band with a great sound.
The piece starts of simply, with a cool beat from a snare drum being played with brushes, which you can tell by the sliding sound on the drum. It is then accompanied with a piano, playing the same four chords over and over again. A guitar (played by Jack) is added in, laying down some sweet notes, walking over the guitar like he's strolling down the sidewalk.
The lyrics come in, with the addition of a cymbal underneath the vocals. They don't last for very long, going straight back to the intro style. So far we have ABAB, because then we go right back to the lyrics, same style.
Then we come to C as the song starts to build, with everything rising slightly in intensity, but still keeping that sliding smooth jazz sound to it. Never leaving that realm of cool that only Jack and Alison can bring to a song. After that we're back to A, with the guitar going on a slight solo.
Then we're back to B again, with the piano now starting to get more intense. After this, we go into section D, with everything really starting to amp up, with the addition of the bass drum on the drum kit, and the piano having his chance to finally join into the fray, improvising a little bit, then relinquishing back to his chord progression as Jack takes over with his guitar again, lightly strumming over the strings.
Once back again to B, repeating the phrase, "Will there be enough water, when my ship comes in." After this, it builds up again in D, with the piano taking off a little bit, adding a second hand playing its on melody.
But after this, everything slows down into the finale, finally coming to a rest rather quickly, with the guitar playing a dying tune in the background, until absolute silence is heard (with a nice cricket chirping in the background for an ambience effect). The final tally of the style being ABABCABDBD. It is nice to see how the song slowly starts to build, finishing off strong, then fading into nothing.
Jack's influence from Jazz is so evident, yet he seems to take it and molds it into something new for a different generation. Just when it seems that all originality has been done, I was so rewarded when I discovered him about 5 years ago, and I have been a fan ever since.
Norah Jone's album, Come Away With Me, is one of my personal favorites and in my opinion, one of the best ever made. Sadly, the rest of her career did not fellow the beautiful, melodic and jazz style that this album so wonderfully showcased, but that's a rant for another blog.
Regardless, the track off of this album that I picked, 'One Flight Down,' is not a very complicated song. It has an AABABA format. It starts of fairly simple, with a bass and drum set keeping the tempo, while the piano plays an instrumental version of the melody. After this is done, it goes into the actual lyrics, mirroring the intro, with the bass and drums keeping the same slow, melodic tempo.
Then the song goes into the chorus, which has a beautiful jazz chord progression by the piano which is one that I have heard many times before, but I can't exactly tell what it is. After this, it goes back into the same style as before, back to A. Except this time, after about 2 bars, an organ comes in and adds a nice little variation from the first verse. We then have a reprise of the chorus, B, with not much variation to it at all.
It then goes back into A, with Norah's lyrics being a bit more wild and varied to add some needed emphasis to the lyrics themselves. As I said before, while this is not a very complicated piece to listen to or analyze, it is one that seems to thrive off of its simplicity. The main focus of the piece is not the instrumental, but Norah's sensual and beautiful voice. That is what draws you in and makes you listen to it over and over again.
For the past two weeks, I skimmed the surface of what the power of music can have on all of us, both good and bad. This week, I have decided to delve a little bit further into one of those aspects, and where better to start than musical therapy. This idea of musical therapy first came to my mind when a friend of mine mentioned that she wanted to major in it. My first thought was, really? I mean, music is great but what good could it really be for therapy? Apparently, a lot.
According to www.musictherapy.org;
"Music Therapy is the clinical and evidence-based use of music interventions to accomplish individualized goals within a therapeutic relationship by a credentialed professional who has completed an approved music therapy program."
Now, that is just a big, fancy way of saying a doctor can help you with your problems by listening to music. Either by listening, singing, or playing music, a person can heal themselves in just the same way as drugs can. It has helped people in more ways than anyone could have imagined.
Who Does Music Therapy Help?
But what good is a new method of treatment, if you don't know who it's going to help. Music therapy is helping cancer patients, children with ADD, and hospitals are using it to help people who are having issues with extreme pain [2]. It is a way for dealign with high levels of stress, allowing you catharsis, but is also a way for you to feel excitement in your daily life. Matthew Lee, the acting Director at the Rusk Institute (a leading rehabiliation center in New York) said,
"Music therapy has been an invaluable tool with many of our rehabilitation patients. There is no question that the relationship of music and medicine will blossom because of the advent of previously unavailable techniques that can now show the effects of music [1]."
If one of the leading director's at a world-class rehabilitation center says that this is a concept that really works, it is certainly something that I am willing to put my money behind.
How Does It Work?
While I don't claim to be a bioligist or chemist, there is an easier way of explaining how this miraculous method works. Studies have shown that the brain reacts differently to certain styles of music. When exposed to fast tempo pieces, the brain becomes more attentive, and faster thinking. But when it is exposed to a slow tempo, it becomes more cathartic, calm and relaxed [2]. This is simply a good way for someone to calm down or get out of a depression. So with changes in the way our brain functions, also comes changes to how our body reacts to it;
"Those governed by the autonomic nervous system, such as breathing and heart rate can also be altered by the changes music can bring. This can mean slower breathing, slower heart rate, and an activation of the relaxation response, among other things. This is why music and music therapy can help counteract or prevent the damaging effects of chronic stress, greatly promoting not only relaxation, but health."
Simply put, the more relaxed you feel, the better that your body is going to feel. Everyone knows that stress is a bad thing, and music is one great way to deal with it.
Pretty Great, Huh?
This new method of therapy is one that has many different types of potential. But it has been recognized by congress as a legitimate form of therapy, and has been proven time and time again to be helping massive amounts of people [1]. Wouldn't it be great if somehow music was proven to help people so much, that government's support for the arts would rise? This is something that certainly gives me hope and more motivation to continue striving to find better ways to get good music to the masses. Cause who knows, it might save their life.
A very good song that I first discovered when watching the movie 'The Whole Nine Yards.' It was always a piece that has stuck with me as being one of those occasions where the melody and beat itself are happy, but the lyrics are rather dark and depressing. So its a toe-tapping good time all the way to the graveyard.
It begins with a rather punchy intro, vocals, piano, and a drum set. The vocals come first, with the piano and drums coming in one the last 2 beats for four bars. A very fine way to catch the attentinon of any listener. After that, it settles into the first verse.
As the first verse begins, an Upright Bass is added into the mix, creating a steady beat with the drums. Mose plays the piano, adding in a nice harmony for his own vocals (which, I will admit, I always thought for the longest time were female).
We then have a repeat of the intro, same style and beat, but with different lyrics. After that, he goes into the second verse, very similar to the first verse with just a different change in lyrics. But then, instead of repeating the intro, it goes into a solo for the piano. I will not pretend that I know exactly how many bars it goes on, but I would be inclined to guess either 16 or 32? But it is a wonderful solo, showcasing Mose's talent and making it seem like the piano itself just doesn't care what keys he hits next. A loose style that I believe is lost today with my generation feeling the urge to make everything 'gritty' and 'intense.'
After that, we have the repeat of the intro style, into the third verse. It ends with all of the instruments coming to a short crescendo, before going out on a final note from the piano. What I find very interesting about this piece, is that the chorus, in reality, is at the beginning. But the chorus is not in the lyrics, but the way that the music is played. Now, I am sure that this is not unusual in Jazz, but it is honestly nothing that I have come across before. Then again, I do not usually listen to music intensely like this trying to analyze it, unless I am playing it myself.
Overall, an excellent piece that I hope you enjoy.
As a result of my last post, I feel like I should do something slightly more along the lines of something that I believe, and that is the positive effects on music. As cliche and trite as it sounds, I truly think that music has the ability to change the world and make it a better place. Some of the concerts that I attend, I have not seen a more tight-knit group of people, coming together for a single purpose.
Okay, well yes, maybe in this instance.
But other than that, you have to admit, it does look strikingly similar to this.
Still, my point stands. Both are events that bring people together for a common purpose. Yet other than being a gathering event for humans from all walks of life, there are scientific benefits to listening to music.
1. Music Can Reduce Pain
Now, as hold a statement as that is to make, it is one that is quite founded in evidence. In fact, some hospitals have even taken so far as to use it as a method to help with postoperative pain and ease the discomfort from childbirth, along with the use of drugs [1]. Imagine the possibilites that this could open up. People that are allergi to certain types of painkillers, or have moral objections to them, can still receive some kind of treatment and feel better.
2. Makes you Smarter
There have been studies that have shown that listening to music makes you more intelligent. Indeed, there was a whole series of music aimed at new borns, mostly mozart, that was supposed to make your child smarter. This has been come to be known as the 'Mozart Effect.' However, recent research has shown that while the study done in 1993 by researcher Frances Rauscher did prove that Mozart helped children in reasoning tests, it has now been concluded that just listening to anything stimulates the brain better than a child sitting in a quiet room. Though I would not recommend blasting Metallica while your 2 month old tries to sleep [2].
3. Makes you Work Better
Perhaps one of the most argued effects on music, is does it make you work better? While one study at Witchita University proved that, when choosing between listening to different kinds of music when working, Classical was the best, it has still been disproved in other tests as well [3]. My personal opinion on this, is that it all depends on the person. Myself, when studying German for the last 4 semesters, did find it easier to concentrate when I was listening to Beethoven. However, I would say the opposite for when I was working on Autocad (a rendering program) when I needed absolute silence. This is one effect, that will continue to be studied.
But whatever your opinion on this is, there is no way one can deny that music has good effects. It is so ingrained into our society, that it will always hold a fascination to everyone.
1. Nilsson U, Unosson M, Rawal, N. Stress reduction and analgesia in patients exposed to calming music postoperatively: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005 February; 22(2):96-102.
After a long hard day, no voice is more soothing and sympathetic to listen to than Dinah Washington. Combining her beautiful voice with the song of Bessie Smith is the equivalent of a soul-massage. And if you are lucky enough to have it on Vinyl, you just feel yourself slipping away into the old days of smoky bars and quiet rooms just hoping for a taste of release as the band wails away a mournful tune.
But lets break it down for a second, taking us away from the comfort and solace that this music brings, to see what is going on behind the scenes.
It begins with the piano and snare coming in together, playing a nice, brief intro of 4 bars before Dinah starts doing her thing. After that, we have three verses of Dinah singing, with the snare beat not changing that much, keeping up a constant rhythm, and the piano supporting the changing notes of Dinah. After the third verse, however, there is a break and Dinah sings by herself before we go into the Chorus. The chorus comes a little under halfway through the song, which seems a little unusual considering that most choruses will come in a lot sooner.
Now when the chorus starts, we are introduced to another instrument. The trumpet begins, creating almost a second melody, answering Dinah's voice. It uses a mute to give us that real whiney sound. Then the music amps up just a little bit, rising slightly in intensity into the fourth verse.
When the fifth verse starts, another instrument is added, which I believe to be the trombone, playing a somber bass note to help the trumpet out. After that, we get a reprise of the Chorus, which will lead us into the end, with Dinah going up in volume and pitch to end on a beautiful high note.
What I love so much about this song is how much it builds, much like emotions will build when you start thinking about someone you used to love. As more and more emotions and memories rush in, the feelings build. The song does a fantastic job of mirroring this with the addition of new instruments, strategically placed at the beginning of new verses, building up to a crescendo at the very end of the peace. And instead of coming back down, like as what happens in some pieces, it leaves you in a state of suspense and want, as so does many personal relationships when they end.
Throughout the ages, music has affected mankind. From the rising crescendo of a symphony, to a thumping beat at a dance club, this form of expression drives us and moves us in a way that will never fully be understood. It is just a part of that mystery that we all call life. But one thing we can determine from it, is how it drives our behavior. Influencing so many different aspects of our everyday life, that some we may never even have considered before. Whether its calming us down in traffic, or amping us up for the big game, no day is complete without even just the tiniest bit of a beat.
Even from an early age in human history, people new its negative effect. Take some of the great philosophers of old. Plato is quoted with saying "Any musical innovation is full of danger to the whole state, and ought to be prohibited." [1] And Aristotle said,
"Music directly imitates the passions or states of the soul...when one listens to music that imitates a certain passion, he becomes imbued with the same passion; and if over a long time he habitually listens to music that rouses ignoble passions, his whole character will be shaped to an ignoble form"[2]
Now, what are these two quotes saying? Essentially, they are implying that music's influence upon man's behavior is a negative one. What is a really interesting thought to ponder about, how would these great men have reacted to the music of say...Eminem. An artist who has been repeatedly connected with acts of violence, suicide, rape, murder, and any crime they can on him. His lyrics themselves, are just chock full of inappropriate.
The link above is one example of his songs, that young kids listen to all of the time. If you can even make it through the first verse, it continues on in the same fashion, promoting immoral and often violent sexual encounters with women. However, some people chose to make light of this behavior, such as with an article from the humor website Cracked.com. In it, the article states several humorous facts.
However, I would like to make this statement before I appear to be something that I am not. I believe that music has a very positive influence on everyone, and this will be something that I shall be exploring next week. But as to not end on such a negative note, I would like to leave with a link to a much happier song.