Making Historical Comparisons

I love the idea of using a century's worth of recordings to make historical comparisons. This historical study is important to the development of one's individual artistic performance. I teach jazz piano lessons, and often when I assign a tune to a student I will have the student listen to several different recordings of the tune. I want the student to understand that the music has evolved since its original publishing and recording. For example, right now in my iTunes library I have "A Night in Tunisia" performed by Al Hirt in 2003, the Count Basie Big Band in 1954, the composer Dizzy Gillespie's 1947 recording, Ella Fitzgerald in 1962, and McCoy Tyner in 2000 on solo piano.

In 50 years how has the performance of the tune evolved? Many of us recognize it immediately by its bass line. But now that it has been deeply ingrained in our consciousness, all we need is to hear the Eb7 | D minor pairing. McCoy Tyner plays an "approximation" of the famous bass line, using fewer notes but maintaining the tune's recognizable rhythmic feel.

Ella Fitzgerald's performance differs from the rest of course, due to the presence of lyrics (written by Jon Hendricks in 1942). Her performance of the tune is slower, allowing the words to be more clearly understood. As piano players interpreting a melody, the resource of sung words leads us to a very different place than the resource of instrumental lines.

As we learned in class, much of the classical music of other cultures, including Indian and African cultures, has not evolved over time due to several factors. One is the definition of the music -- there is sometimes a sense that if the music were changed, it would be something different entirely. It would become separate from the people's cultural identity. Another factor is religious and spiritual significance. Like a favorite prayer, the music is "recited" the same way every time.

So, the malleability of jazz (and blues and rock) is a unique factor of this music. It makes it difficult to define, and it makes historical comparisons much more vital. In the world of jazz, the performance of a tune can be influenced by anything at all. This process of growing and gathering influences is essential to the career of a jazz musician. Of course, Dave Brubeck can play "Take Five" the same way he did fifty years ago and the audience will be thoroughly satisfied. But is he satisfied? I personally would love to hear him go different ways with it.

In the Ken Burns review by David Hajdu, he quotes the jazz historian Whitney Balliard as saying "[Jazz] music will persist as long as it radiates its unique emotional energy and catches us by surprise with an untoward phrase or sound." In other words, the growth and evolution of jazz is essential to its survival. The public has become accustomed to this element of surprise, and the audience expects it when they hear concerts. But, in some forms of Indian and African music, the music will only survive as long as it stays the same.