FUNCTION OF THE BACKBEAT
The function of the backbeat is to get you to snap your fingers, tap your foot, maybe even dance. It creates a physical connection with music. It is usually defined as accented beats 2 and 4 in common time. A looser, asymmetrical, definition is a strong accent on one of the normally unaccented beats of the bar. Asymmetrical backbeats had been a staple of popular swing drumming, notably with Papa Joe Jones, Sid Catlett, and Gene Krupa. This percussive device has been long lost but I suggest revisiting it. Chuck Berry laid out the problem with modern jazz versus rock 'n roll, stating that the latter has "a backbeat - you can't lose it". With the evolution of bebop and the shift to it being mainly a listening experience, jazz had indeed lost it's backbeat. Each week during Dick Clark's Rate-A-Record segments on American Band Stand, studio audience members repeatedly extolled the rock 'n roll virtue: "It has a good beat and it is easy to dance to."
There was a time long ago when jazz was contemporary pop. It is difficult to have a historical perspective since most of us were born long after that. As musicians, we define jazz by the steady artistic evolution of the craft that has occurred since. The art of melodic improvisation flourished when it was part of the popular music of the '20's through the big band era. Kids who were buying records could relate to it physically through dancing. The atrophied ears of today's general public could be re-awakened to the art form if that connection is once again established. A golden opportunity was missed during the GAP commercial inspired mini swing craze of the mid to late '90's. It got young people swing dancing. The craze ended as people became bored with the music even though the players wore funny hats, twirled their instruments, and made every effort to be visually entertaining.
Quite a while back, when dance clubs still hired bands (before DJs took over completely) I had an epiphany while taking a guitar solo with my "funk" band. The dance floor was full but I realized that my solo could be good, bad, or mediocre and it really would not make much of a difference to the dancers. That was because they were dancing to the symmetrical back beats on 2 and 4 of the measure. I juxtaposed this experience with a film I once saw of the Benny Goodman band where the camera was looking down on a crowded dance floor from a balcony. As Goodman built his clarinet solo to a climax, you could see the dancers jumping higher into the air. They were driven by Gene Krupa's quarter notes on the bass drum and loud, propulsive, asymmetrical hits on the snare, but people were essentially dancing to the improvised melody. Unfortunately, none of the swing acts that achieved notoriety during the '90's (Big Bad Voodoo Daddy, Brian Setzer et al...) picked up on this. The shuffle got old real fast. Strong backbeats propel the dancers but a steady 2 and 4 disengages them from the melody.
Forget jazz and history and zoot suits and break it down to the sonic essentials of what makes people dance and there may be a glimmer of hope for a fusion with melodic improvisation. Whether people are dancing to Rihanna or Duke Ellington, we know that they like it around 120 beats per minute. What they are dancing to is the quarter note pulse. You can easily take any contemporary dance track, strip away everything but the bass drum, and superimpose Satin Doll. The only difference is that the rhythm of the modern (unimprovised) melodic content is usually defined with straight eighth and sixteenth notes instead of swing eighths. New music can be created with the feeling that connects the melodic improvisor with today's dancers but it won't swing for long unless the crutch of the symmetrical back beat is avoided.
There was a time long ago when jazz was contemporary pop. It is difficult to have a historical perspective since most of us were born long after that. As musicians, we define jazz by the steady artistic evolution of the craft that has occurred since. The art of melodic improvisation flourished when it was part of the popular music of the '20's through the big band era. Kids who were buying records could relate to it physically through dancing. The atrophied ears of today's general public could be re-awakened to the art form if that connection is once again established. A golden opportunity was missed during the GAP commercial inspired mini swing craze of the mid to late '90's. It got young people swing dancing. The craze ended as people became bored with the music even though the players wore funny hats, twirled their instruments, and made every effort to be visually entertaining.
Quite a while back, when dance clubs still hired bands (before DJs took over completely) I had an epiphany while taking a guitar solo with my "funk" band. The dance floor was full but I realized that my solo could be good, bad, or mediocre and it really would not make much of a difference to the dancers. That was because they were dancing to the symmetrical back beats on 2 and 4 of the measure. I juxtaposed this experience with a film I once saw of the Benny Goodman band where the camera was looking down on a crowded dance floor from a balcony. As Goodman built his clarinet solo to a climax, you could see the dancers jumping higher into the air. They were driven by Gene Krupa's quarter notes on the bass drum and loud, propulsive, asymmetrical hits on the snare, but people were essentially dancing to the improvised melody. Unfortunately, none of the swing acts that achieved notoriety during the '90's (Big Bad Voodoo Daddy, Brian Setzer et al...) picked up on this. The shuffle got old real fast. Strong backbeats propel the dancers but a steady 2 and 4 disengages them from the melody.
Forget jazz and history and zoot suits and break it down to the sonic essentials of what makes people dance and there may be a glimmer of hope for a fusion with melodic improvisation. Whether people are dancing to Rihanna or Duke Ellington, we know that they like it around 120 beats per minute. What they are dancing to is the quarter note pulse. You can easily take any contemporary dance track, strip away everything but the bass drum, and superimpose Satin Doll. The only difference is that the rhythm of the modern (unimprovised) melodic content is usually defined with straight eighth and sixteenth notes instead of swing eighths. New music can be created with the feeling that connects the melodic improvisor with today's dancers but it won't swing for long unless the crutch of the symmetrical back beat is avoided.
VOLUME BALANCE WITHIN THE GUITAR/BASS/DRUMS TRIO - THE SEVEN STRING ORCHESTRA
Performing in a trio format frequently, I am grateful for getting to work with some of the finest rhythm section players in my area. However, I am often dissatisfied with the volume balance, with the tone of my strings going from singing and rich to plunking and thin as the rhythm section volume increases. This is a general problem that I have been whining about for years with dozens of different personnel so I am not singling anyone out. I just haven't written about it until now. I would guess that other guitarists might share this particular frustration. Carrying around a dedicated master volume pedal would solve it, but is balancing to the soloist really too much to ask of the rhythm section? Of course, you can ask musicians to turn down but, if you have to ask more than twice, they are obviously hearing the ensemble differently. I offer this perspective with the hope of slightly changing the way we listen to each other.
Most of the time, the melody and harmony of the trio is provided by no more than 7 strings - six on the guitar and one on the bass. Occasionally, the bass might play 10ths or chords but most of the time it is playing a single note: the bass line. For each voice in the orchestra to be able to sing out, each string, along with the 3 or 4 voices of the drums and cymbals, should balance equally with each other. That's my opinion and I think it differs from just balancing 3 monolithic elements: bass, guitar, and drums.
Performing in a trio format frequently, I am grateful for getting to work with some of the finest rhythm section players in my area. However, I am often dissatisfied with the volume balance, with the tone of my strings going from singing and rich to plunking and thin as the rhythm section volume increases. This is a general problem that I have been whining about for years with dozens of different personnel so I am not singling anyone out. I just haven't written about it until now. I would guess that other guitarists might share this particular frustration. Carrying around a dedicated master volume pedal would solve it, but is balancing to the soloist really too much to ask of the rhythm section? Of course, you can ask musicians to turn down but, if you have to ask more than twice, they are obviously hearing the ensemble differently. I offer this perspective with the hope of slightly changing the way we listen to each other.
Most of the time, the melody and harmony of the trio is provided by no more than 7 strings - six on the guitar and one on the bass. Occasionally, the bass might play 10ths or chords but most of the time it is playing a single note: the bass line. For each voice in the orchestra to be able to sing out, each string, along with the 3 or 4 voices of the drums and cymbals, should balance equally with each other. That's my opinion and I think it differs from just balancing 3 monolithic elements: bass, guitar, and drums.
The Ten Monophthongs - Signposts To Resonance
Voice exercises work with different vowel sounds. A monophthong is a single sound, as opposed to a diphthong which is a combination of two monophthongs. Traditional voice teaching works with 5 "pure" vowels - ee, eh, ah, oh, and oo. There are only 5 other (impure?) monophthongs: aa, ih, uh, aw, and u as in push, that I have ever come across in English and four other languages. Since there is such a small and finite number of these basic sounds, all ten should be methodically utilized in vocal exercises as students are taught to hear them within lyrics. With English especially, spelling can be distracting and the r consonant is notorious for behaving like a vowel and throwing people's ears off.
What surprises me is the lack of any sort of consensus among voice teachers about this fundamental concept. Everyone teaches the 5 "pure" vowels but material on the other 5 is inconsistent and vague. This is a gaping pedagogic hole - 50% of vocal resonance!