Postprint : Author's Final Peer-Reviewed Version
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This item is the archived peer-reviewed author-version of: Composing the jazz bass revolution : Duke Ellington's writing for the string bass, 1925-1941 Reference: Heyman Matthias.- Composing the jazz bass revolution : Duke Ellington's w riting for the string bass, 1925-1941 Jazz perspectives - ISSN 1749-4079 - (2019), p. 1-35 Full text (Publisher's DOI): https://doi.org/10.1080/17494060.2019.1682638 To cite this reference: https://hdl.handle.net/10067/1636600151162165141 Institutional repository IRUA Composing the Jazz Bass Revolution: Duke Ellington’s Writing for the String Bass, 1925–1941 Matthias Heyman, University of Antwerp ABSTRACT Throughout his career, Duke Ellington (1899–1974) has been partial to the deep sounds of the bass, as evidenced by records ranging from “East St. Louis Toodle-Oo” (1926) to “Portrait of Wellman Braud” (1970). He always made sure he had the finest bassists at his disposal and used them to good advantage, not merely as accompanists or soloists, but also by having them provide counterpoint, double melodic lines, add percussive effects, and so forth. It can even be argued that although he did not play the string bass, Ellington was instrumental to its development. This article discusses the compositional devices and strategies Duke used to explore new approaches to the bass function between 1925 and 1941, and reveals how he in the process helped define its role in jazz. Jazz history has often been framed as a (chrono)logical, evolutionary narrative supported by a canon of masterpieces that was created by a select few iconic figures.1 These jazz greats serve as “exemplary performer[s]” who play “better […] than anyone else and whose creative innovations influenced everyone else,” as such advancing the music by way of their singular artistic, technical, or stylistic contributions.2 In this historiographic model, the 1 I would like to thank Alexander Dhoest, Greg Gottlieb, Andrew Homzy, Steven Lasker, Ken Prouty, my fellow contributors, and the two reviewers for sharing their insights and ideas. This article is based on a paper read on May 20, 2016 at the 24th International Duke Ellington Study Group Conference hosted by the Duke Ellington Center for the Arts (New York). This project is funded by a grant from the Research Programme of the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO). 2 George Lipsitz, “Song of the Unsung: The Darby Hicks History of Jazz,” in Uptown Conversation: The New Jazz Studies, ed. Robert G. O’Meally, Brent Hayes Edwards, and Farah Jasmine Griffin (New York: Colombia University Press, 2004), 11. 1 focus lies heavily on individuals, whereas collaborative efforts go largely unnoticed. Yet, there can be little doubt that the act of creating jazz relies significantly on the cooperative process, on the joint making of a (performed or written) musical work. Musicians not only perform their music together, acting, reacting, and interacting with and against each other, they also rehearse and study together: they work out explicit and implicit performance routines, as well as music arrangements of the relevant repertoire, all the while musically and verbally sharing ideas to enhance the individual and group performance.3 Even composing, in the Western Romantic tradition perceived as a highly solitary and alienated act, often draws on real or virtual cooperation, not simply by having two writers work on the same composition or sharing their knowledge, but also by writing for specific musicians, taking their personal styles and strengths as an inspiration and guideline to one’s writing, something Duke Ellington (1899–1974) was known to do frequently. Despite such negligence for collaborative processes in dominant jazz histories, a number of highly influential studies on this subject have appeared, in particular by Ingrid Monson, who focuses on the rhythm section, or by Paul F. Berliner, who looks at the “[c]ollective aspects of improvisation.”4 Yet, it all too often remains the band leader who receives all credit for the success of an ensemble’s performance, as such downplaying the importance of the cooperative aspects that guide a jazz performance. While the members of certain key ensembles, such as Duke Ellington and His Orchestra, the “great” Miles Davis Quintets, and the classic quartets led by Dave Brubeck, Ornette Coleman, and John Coltrane, are usually acknowledged for their contribution to the music, most observers often reduce their input to a simple list of characteristics that essentializes their own performance style, once more emphasizing the creative individual. The complex, two-way processes that govern such a joint 3 See Paul F. Berliner, Thinking in Jazz: The Infinite Art of Improvisation (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), 289–386 for more on these collaborative processes. 4 Ingrid Monson, Saying Something: Jazz Improvisation and Interaction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996). Berliner, Thinking in Jazz, viii. 2 performance are rarely revealed, although some exemplary works have been written that tackle this hiatus to some extent, as in some of the volumes in the Oxford Studies in Recorded Jazz series, or in Nathan Bakkum’s exploration of the 1964 collaborations of bassist Richard Davis and drummer Tony Williams.5 When the relationship involves a (number of) performer(s) and a composer, the literature becomes even more sparse.6 As noted, Ellington is usually singled out as a collaborative composer, not only by teaming up with William “Billy” Strayhorn (1915–1967), but, more importantly in this context, also by writing music for and with the (wo)men in his band.7 It is known that the bandleader regularly used musical ideas, exercises, and excerpts provided by his sidemen, some consciously, as they sold Ellington their material, who subsequently worked it out for his orchestra, some unconsciously during a rehearsal or performance, only to find their idea transformed into a full-fledged arrangement some time later.8 But these discussions offer a unilateral perspective, only taking into account how Ellington built upon his sidemen’s contributions while mostly remaining silent about what and how his so-called “Ellingtonians” in turn gained from the maestro (save a financial compensation for their services, compositional or performance-wise). Naturally, certain benefits hardly need mentioning. Through their association with Ellington, many of Duke’s men became established names in the jazz community, respected by peers, critics, and fans alike. Such (inter)national fame enabled some of them to pursue their own artistic or financial 5 The Oxford volumes in this series that most extensively cover the cooperative nature of the performance are those dedicated to Benny Goodman and His Orchestra (Catherine Tackley, 2013), the Thelonious Monk Quartet (Gabriel Solis, 2014), and the ‘second’ Miles Davis Quintet (Keith Waters, 2011). Bakkum, “Point of Departure: Recording and the Jazz Event,” Jazz Perspectives 8, no. 1 (2014): 73–91. 6 Jeffrey Magee’s essay on the collaborative creation process of Fletcher Henderson’s “Copenhagen” is a notable exception (“Revisiting Fletcher Henderson’s Copenhagen,” Journal of the American Musicological Society 48, no. 1 (1995): 42–66). 7 The longstanding perception of Ellington and Strayhorn collaborating on the very same musical work has been properly addressed by Walter van de Leur in his Strayhorn study (Something to Live for: The Music of Billy Strayhorn (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002)). While a few isolated examples of this practice are known, mainly in early pieces such as “Pussy Willow” or “Grievin’,” since the 1950s both men mostly worked on individual compositions, some of which were compiled into a suite (van de Leur, Strayhorn, 47). 8 For a more detailed description of Ellington’s collaborative compositional approach (and some critique thereof), see Berliner, Thinking in Jazz, 305, and Terry Teachout, Duke: A Life of Duke Ellington (New York: Gotham Books, 2013), 112–5. 3 aspirations, notable examples being trumpeter Cootie Williams, who in November 1940 departed for the higher-paid band of Benny Goodman, or alto saxophonist Johnny Hodges, who in January 1951 left to lead his own combo, taking trombonist Lawrence Brown and drummer Sonny Greer with him.9 (With the exception of Greer, all of these men eventually returned to Ellington, Hodges in 1955, Brown in 1960, and Williams in 1962.) Moreover, when a sideman was co-credited for his compositional contribution (which wasn’t always the case), he reaped the monetary benefits from the shared royalties. Yet, the impact Ellington and his music might have had his band members’ musicianship, in particular from a technical or creative perspective, is somewhat neglected. In at least one case the contrary happens as well, with Ellington largely being written out of the narrative and most attention going to the sideman. String bass player James “Jimmie” Blanton, Jr. (1918–1942), best known for his tenure with Ellington between 1939 and 1941, is generally seen as one of the most influential bassists in jazz history, a true pioneer who “revolutionized” jazz string bass playing, in particular in how he developed it as a solo instrument.10 Since Blanton’s joining of the Ellington organization on November 3, 1939, and his subsequent emergence on the national jazz scene, a number of his recorded solos have been widely transcribed, several studies have been dedicated to his (mainly solo) style, and he has been entered into virtually all reference works and textbooks on jazz.11 Given this, it is clear that Blanton is framed as one of jazz bass’s “exemplary performer[s],” as such emphasizing the individualistic nature of this iconic status.12 Certainly, Ellington is at times credited for giving his bass player (inter)national exposure, but his compositional role in 9 Unless indicated otherwise, all dates pertaining Ellington stem from David Palmquist, The Duke – Where and When: A Chronicle of Duke Ellington’s Working Life and Travels, last modified September 23, 2019, http://tdwaw.ca.