PREFACE
What you are about to read comes directly from my dissertation that I deposited in the University of Illinois's library late last Spring. I've come to realize that this work which took hundreds of hours to complete will do the most good by being in the hands of more people, not hidden away on a shelf somewhere. Regular readers of my blog will notice a difference in writing style. Although clarity is important in academic writing, entertainment and even usefullness aren't really the goal. Instead a clear and, perhaps most importantly, defensible argument is what counts. The following introduction describes the method and parameters of my research. Essentially I talked with 9 musicians about playing in a trio and then compared their answers. There is so much good stuff in the interviews that never made it into my analysis, mostly because it was too subjective to defend. For this reason I will be publishing the 230 page work as a pdf download after finishing this article series. What you will read today and over the next several weeks will be my analysis of how instead of what musicians say about trio playing.
INTRODUCTION
One of the most popular jazz ensemble formats is the piano trio consisting of piano, bass, and drums. This format has a rich history, even though it was once considered, “a refreshing novelty.[1]” It has endured, receiving lasting popularity through the trios of Ahmad Jamal, Oscar Peterson, Bill Evans, Keith Jarrett and others. A preliminary review of the relevant literature produces a number of writings focusing on either jazz history or jazz solo-analysis. Ingrid Monson calls this “…an overly narrow focus on melodic details and individuals…”[2] The analytical tools used in transcription analysis[3] are valuable if not essential to jazz scholarship, but, as Travis Jackson writes, “…such texts encourage their readers to see them as ‘objective’ renderings of musical practice, when in fact they hide as much as they highlight.[4] There are too few studies dealing directly with the artists, our best primary sources. There are even fewer studies relying on these sources to determine the thoughts and beliefs of piano trio musicians.
This study will examine in more detail the ways in which renown musicians conceptualize the jazz piano trio. How musicians articulate their performance experiences, views of other members, and perceptions of themselves is the main focus of the research. Nine musicians supply the transcribed interviews that are analyzed using a phenomenological methodology. Additionally, the appendix includes the full-length interview transcriptions. Ultimately, musicians use interesting and diverse conceptual frameworks to talk about jazz piano trio playing. These multiple frameworks provide powerful insight into both the minds of jazz musicians as well as the music they create.
[1]Gunther Schuller, The History of Jazz Volume 2. The Swing Era: The Development of Jazz 1930-1945, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989,) 806.
[2]Ingrid Monson, “Musical Interaction in Modern Jazz: An Ethnomusicological Perspective,” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1991), abstract.
[3] Transcription analysis is the study of harmonic and melodic content from a notated musical performance.
[4] Travis A. Jackson, “Jazz as Musical Practice,” in The Cambridge Companion to Jazz, ed. Mervin Cook et al. (United Kindgdom: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 90.
Research Methods
This study is well-suited to qualitative research because of the inductive analysis, the focus on subjects’ perceptions, and the concern with “practice and process rather than outcomes or products.”[1] The qualitative method that best fits the study is the phenomenological methodology—the researcher attempts to understand how one or more individuals experience a phenomenon.[2] Inherent is the multiplicity of ways to link observations and discussions as well as the lack of neat categories in which themes may fall.[3] These emerging themes are most often referred to as frameworks in this study. They are more descriptive of how the interviewees answered than what was discussed. It is important to acknowledge that these frameworks are constructed by the researcher and are not empirically self-evident. However, as Lester writes:
The development of general theories…from phenomenological findings [are] done transparently [in order] to have validity; in particular, the reader should be able to work through from the findings to the theories and see how the researcher has arrived at his or her interpretations.[4]
Data collection is achieved through semi-structured interviews. I asked interviewees eight basic questions:
1. What is the difference between the way a piano trio functions and the way a rhythm section[5] functions in a larger ensemble?
2. What trios have influenced you in the way that you have approached the piano trio?
3. Does playing in a trio provide you with any special musical opportunities which might be unavailable in other size ensembles? In other words, why do you like to play in trios?
4. What about your trio gives it its musical identity, what gives the group its unique sound, and do you think it is the band leader’s presence or a group concept?
5. When hiring a pianist, bassist, or drummer for the trio, what do you look for? What specifically do you expect from other trio members?
6. If you have a gig[6] leading a trio, what is the process that goes into playing a set[7], and does anything change if you are not the leader?
7. How does the musical material affect the way your trio performs, and do you change anything because of the genre[8] of the tune[9]?
8. How much of your trio’s music is pre-arranged, and what is the arranging process like? Do you rehearse for performances, and if so, how and when do you rehearse?
Note that question eight was initially two separate questions, but after the first initial interviews I combined the two questions into one. Interviewees seemed to unintentionally answer question nine when asked question eight and vice-versa.
Follow-up questions were asked in response to the answers given. The interviews were all conducted via Skype. I was able to use video conferencing with Chuck Israels and Peter Erskine. In both instances, a more personal rapport was established. Interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed. The transcriptions were then broken apart so that relevant responses from each musician were collected and categorized according to the question being answered.
The nine musicians interviewed supply the data for this study. The three pianists interviewed are Fred Hersch, Eric Reed, and Joanne Brackeen. The three bassists interviewed are Rufus Reid, Chuck Israels, and Richard Davis. The three drummers interviewed are Jeff Hamilton, Jeff Ballard, and Peter Erskine. I approached musicians that are, in my understanding as a jazz pianist, knowledgeable and skilled in trio-playing. Therefore, the musicians selected say as much about me and my impression of piano trios as they do about the general format. Also, there was no attempt to choose participants based on race, gender, age, etc. The musicians represent a wide swath of backgrounds, subcultural associations, and stylistic approaches.
I found that I share many similar musical experiences with the interviewed musicians. This includes jazz lingo and terminology, which can either be an inclusive force or build walls between musicians and outsiders. In most instances, musicians seemed to initially perceive me as an outsider. After learning that I am a pianist, most seemed to shift their perception of me to one of a fledgling peer. Undoubtedly, the way interviewees framed their answers had much to do with their perception of me as the interviewer.
For each of the eight questions, I attempt to solve two main issues. First, I look at the reception of the question. I give my impression of the musician’s comfort level, confidence in understanding the question, and willingness to be both direct and responsive to the question.
Second, I look at what kinds of responses are given. Rather than explaining the elements in each answer with an eye toward deductive generalizations, I choose to look at how musicians frame their responses. It is important to note that these frameworks are creations of the researcher and are not necessarily the same constructs another researcher would generate. These frameworks are sometimes difficult to define, and many interviewee responses seem to blur the distinction between frameworks. Additionally, the constructs are specific to each individual question and are not universal in nature. However, there is an aim for transparency when tracing the connection between data and the corresponding frameworks. Examples are given after a brief explanation for each framework. After constructing a framework for each response, I look for emerging patterns. These competing frameworks and emerging patterns are the foundation used to make inductive inferences.
This study uses five strategies to ensure rigor: methodological coherence, appropriate sample, concurrent data collection and analysis, thinking theoretically, and theory development.[10] Methodological coherence is achieved by using the semi-structured interview script. The interviewees’ very public performing careers and discographies ensure appropriate sampling. Concurrent data collection and analysis is attained by asking follow-up questions during interviews. Analyzing responses in both intra-interview and inter-interview stages was critical in conducting meaningful conversations. It has been my goal to look at the interview responses objectively. In the process I have discarded theories that were initially exciting, but did not hold-up well to the collected data. For example, I fully intended to have an analysis of responses divided by the instruments the musicians play. The data shows there to be no observable correlation between answers and one’s chosen instrument. These five strategies, “…incrementally and interactively contribute to and build reliability and validity, thus ensuring rigor.”[11]
As per the IRB requirements, both interview request scripts and an oral consent script were written and used to inform interviewees of the nature of this study as well as participants’ rights.
There is no attempt to make deductive inferences about external objective realities as there would be in quantitative research. Sociolinguistics, piano trio history, and attempts to substantiate the views of interviewees are beyond the scope of this study. An additional limitation exists in an interviewee’s willingness or ability to speak directly to a question.
[1]Dirksen, V. (n.d.). Tutorial Sociology I Qualitative Research Methods in the Social Sciences. Retrieved July 25, 2011, from Department of Sociology, University of Constance: http://www.lib.uni-bonn.de/PhiMSAMP/Data/TutorialSociology_Dirksen.pdf
[2] “Chapter 2 Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Research,” Johnson, accessed July 25, 2011, http://www.southalabama.edu/coe/bset/johnson/lectures/lec2.htm.
[3] “An Introduction to Phenomenological Research,” Stan Lester, accessed July 25, 2011, http://www.sld.demon.co.uk/resmethy/pdf.
[4] “Phenomenological Research.”
[5] Rhythm section traditionally refers to the bassist, drummer, pianist, guitarist, and vibraphonist. It may also include auxiliary percussionist.
[6] Gig is a broadly used term for a musical performance.
[7] A set refers to a program of music, usually lasting 45 minutes to an hour. Gigs usually consist of multiple sets of music.
[8] Genre may refer to an art form’s conventional sub-categories or may represent various tune types or vehicles used for jazz improvisation with distinct stylistic characteristics, e.g., bebop, bossa nova, ballads, blues, etc.
[9] A tune is a term used synonymously with song, piece, or musical work.
[10]“Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research,” Janice M. Morse, accessed July 18, 2011, http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/1_2Final/pdf/morseetal.pdf.
[11] “Verification Strategies.”
