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)
