Out of Notes, Into Art

Robert Walser Offers Perspective on the Jazz Medium

Alexander S. Goodhart


The most shocking aspect of Robert Walsers article, Out of Notes: Signification,
Interpretation, and the Problem of Miles Davis, was his thesis architectural support built upon a
text named The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of African-American Literary Criticism.
Thankfully, in spite of the acutely racist overtones in its title, the author of this workHenry
Louis Gates, Jr.is a respectable member of the postmodern literary community, and an
African-American himself. Certainly, in an attempt to highlight the flaws of the modern
perspective on jazz and its star, Miles Davis, it would do well to distance ones self from the
staunch elitism represented by some circles of Western music academia. In fact, the
signifying monkey Gates invokes is a popular figure from African-American folklore, born
out of Yoruba mythology. From this perspective, Walser is actually choosing a very credible
source through which to reinterpret our contemporary understanding of the jazz medium
for Gates literary analysis seeks to trace the genesis African-American literature and art
through their cultural origins.
Preconceived notions aside, Walser does not actually invoke race in his musical
analysis. He does not even seek to understand jazzs traditional roots through the music
indigenous to regions of the African continenta move that might be too risky for anyone
not thoroughly educated in African culture. The chief example Walser pulls from Gates text
is the concept of signifyin. Signifyin is an artistic process present in many cultures, but
acutely articulated in jazz. It is the antithesis to signification: while one is rational and
relying on logical construction, signifyin is referentialexisting only through dialogue and
shifting in meaning through its context and gesture. Most importantly, art through

signification relies on objective tropes: the indisputable beauty of moonlight on a placid lake,
for instance. Signifyin art is more difficult to pigeonhole, for its existence is more alive and
temporal. An illuminating example highlighted by Walser is the tendency for jazz performers
to extrapolate on music they've only performed a moment earlierin the articles case, a
cracked note performed by Miles Davis with several subsequent iterations. The author
claims the reiterations may have been intentional references to the original flub, wherein the
artist is signifyin with himself: infusing meaning into a gesture with no inherent connotation
or beauty.
Such a convention is not alien to classical music. Thinking of Debussys Prelude
laprs-midi dun faun, is the harmonic architectures revolution around the tritone relation not
made more meaningful through the melodic tritone outlined in the flutes opening
statement? However, motivic unity is not the authors chief concern in the article, being a
well-established commonality between the artistry of classical composition and jazz
improvisation. As the title Out of Notes implies, Walser is interested, instead, in what
standard conventions do not translate well from European art to that with African-American
roots. For this, he departs from a stylistic description of solo lines and theoretical jargon to a
philosophical discussion of the performance medium.
The chief example used is Miles Davis. The problem the author points to is the
performers indisputable reputation and influence when juxtaposed with the critical
allegations of non-masterful technicality, artistic derivation, and impure lifestyle. For Walser,
the key to contextualizing these idiosyncrasies is, again, signifyin. What he finds is that
placing focus on the imperfections of Miles performance or the fact that his evolutionary
style was heavily indebted to his peers is to miss the point of jazz entirely. Jazz is not a one-
man show, it is a living dialogue: a highly multifaceted one, existing between the individual
performers on stage, between their interpretation of any given standards and the countless
other historical performances of that same foundation, between their music and the
audiences experiences with it and all other music they know. For Miles Davis, imperfections
are a highlight of his individual soul, his stylistic evolution a living homage to the continuum
he was born into. Walser asserts that Miles propensity for flubbed notes is a deliberate risk
taken in order to push his trumpet beyond standard classical conventionsinvoking a frailer,
more human tone, perhaps one that allows for such facile reception of his musical voice
through the audience. It shouldnt surprise that dialogue is a key factor to the jazz medium
audience participation through applause to a given set or solo is always present, serving not
just as a token of appreciation for technical skill, but also a voice through which the
performer can discern the received affect of their music.
Demonstrative of Miles signifyin relationship with his music and its audience is his
solo from the standard Summertime (see attached transcription). Originally from George
Gershwins African-American opera, Porgy and Bess, the song is one of its most notable and
recapitulated movements. Miles performed the standard frequently in live shows, and it is
included in his studio recording Porgy and Bess. Under orchestration of Gil Evans, Miles stars
in the album along with sextet members which included Cannonball Adderley and Paul
Chambers.
The context of Miles Summertime, as Walser would suggest, is as important as the
notes themselves. Recorded in 1958, this was the beginning of Miles divergence from the
bebop genre, in favor of a more minimalistic and modal approach. Five years before recording,
Miles was introduced to the idea of modal jazz from George Russels publication Lydian
Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization. Miles remarks that Evans arrangements of Porgy
did not include chord changes as a jazz artist would expect, but instead would write a scale
before a piece to offer the artist more freedom and space to hear things. He also added that
classical composers have been writing this way for years, but jazz musicians seldom had.
Despite this seemingly drastic deviation, the layout of Miles Summertime isnt jarring
to the listener. The atmosphere is cool, and up-tempo in comparison to Gerhswins original.
In the beginning of the track, Miles plays the original sung melody with only slightly
deviation for the first stanza of text. After that, there is only one direct quoting of Gershwins
melody. Miles instead, follows the contour of not only the music, but also the text, in his
reinterpretation. Assuming that his opening head consisted of the first lyrical stanza, Miles
solo enters at the words Your daddys rich, and your mammas good lookin. As seen in the
first four measures of the transcription, Miles preserves the antecedent/consequent nature of
these lyrics by leaping upwards for the first half of the phrase, and descending down in the
secondlower than his first note, just as in Gershwins setting. In addition to contour, Miles
is also signifyin on the melodic nature he is borrowing from: Gershwins melody moves by
interval of thirds for Your daddys rich, and then adds stepwise motion to the leaps for
And your mammas good lookin. Miles solo works similarly, beginning with leaps of thirds
and a fifth, and bringing in stepwise motion in the consequent phrase.
Despite its up-tempo setting, Miles solo preserves the forlorn nature of Gershwins
lullaby. Interspersed through his predominantly diatonic and lyrical solo are occasional
tritone descents, such as in measures 34 and 50. He also works to blur Summertimes original
harmonic layout, by concluding a phrase on a note belonging to the dominant, even as his
orchestra continues to play out the tonic. This is not only signifyin on Gershwins work, but
his ownwherein the opening head Miles plays would imply a tonic of B
b
minor while the
orchestra opens and continues in F minor. Perhaps to accentuate the statement of humble
blues, Miles concludes the movement on a mid-high range E
b
, a departure from the soaring
high note coveted by so many sopranos singing the original setting.
In these ways, signifyin is a contextually dependent force: what is and is not present
in Miles solo is made more interesting and more meaningful when given context in the
continuum of art. These contexts and associations can be a sort of rabbit hole into the
meaning of jazzWalsers article doesnt even comment on historical traditions bleeding into
mid-century jazz, and that subject alone could saturate countless standards and performance
practices with extra-musical meaning. This approach is antithetical to modernist critique that
seeks to deconstruct music to its fundamental units. Deconstruction is a diluting exercise for
the music of jazz, which is rendered meaningless when separated into fundamentals. Walser
concludes that Miles Davis is decidedly postmoderna musical force not bound to a
particular genre, not even bound to purely musical connotations. Understanding Miles and
the jazz medium in this way is not only justifiable for giving credit to their collaborative core,
but also for recognizing thier place in an evolving society, the democratization of art.
For the critic, or composer, this realization may be a sad one. Those born out of
deconstructive modernism thrive in the ability to understand meaning through its essential
identity. Without one, the road to meaning and genuine expression may seem far more
ambiguous. Whats more, it feels almost like a loss to recognize the beauty of jazz as a
temporalityevaporating once the musicians and crowds depart. However, it is important to
remember that signifyina force of dialogue and juxtapositioncan only exist with
signification, and that the two are, indeed, simultaneously present in jazz music. If the
meaning of a jazz set is not preserved in its transcription, it may be in its recording, its
reaction, and influence on the soloists and ensembles that follow. Distinguishing the inherent
values and uses of signification and signifyin empowers the artist to define more deeply their
own meaning and medium.








Out of Notes: Signification, Interpretation, and the Problem of Miles Davis
Robert Walser, The Musical Quarterly (Summer, 1993)


Nearly a century has passed since the emergence of the new
American art form, and academic circles still struggle to find an analytical
voice applicable to jazz. By reserving European classical vocabulary only
for the sake of delineating specific musical gestures and, instead, relying
on the multifaceted stylistic explanation provided by Henry Louis Gates,
Jr.s text, The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of African-American Literary
Criticism, Walser makes a strong case for analyzing jazz on its own terms.
The author asserts that Gates theory of signification vs. signifyin
(the contrast between objectivity and subjectivity, inherent beauty versus
context dependency) is valuable in reckoning the chasm between classical
and jazz academia which seems to so vex scholars. This chasm is
illustrated with the case of Miles Davis; one of the most influential figures
in 20
th
century musica famous performerwho is simultaneously unable
to withstand the scrutiny placed on him by standard critical conventions.
The conventions, themselves, are unable to demonstrate the value of his
music, and critics of high academic esteem even find themselves at
diametric odds over the same passage of Davis improvisation. Instead of
tackling the technical attributes of Davis performance, he subjects the
trumpeters 1964 rendition of My Funny Valentine to a multifaceted
analysis, pulling reference not only from the soloists unique performance
style, but also previous iterations of the work and its recorded audience.
While subjective opinions are to be expected in all the arts, Walser
argues that continuing to apply the same Western conventions of classical
music will only result in a continued misrepresentation of how jazz
functions, and what it means.