Rhythm in Jazz

On Phrase Rhythm in Jazz
by
Stefan Love
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the
Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Supervised by
Professor Robert Wason
Department of Music Theory
Eastman School of Music
University of Rochester
Rochester, New York
2011
ii
Curriculum Vitae
Stefan Love was born in Newport, Rhode Island on April 23, 1984. He attended Brown
University from 2002 to 2006, where he was awarded the Buxtehude Premium, given to
exceptional music students, and the Mitch Baker award, given to noteworthy jazz pianists. He
graduated Magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree in music, conferred with Honors.
Upon graduation, he was admitted into the Phi Beta Kappa honors society. He began his
graduate studies in music theory (MA/PhD) at the Eastman School of Music in 2007, and was
awarded the Sproull Fellowship for his study there. Working with advisor Robert Wason, in
2010, he earned the Master of Arts degree in music theory.
iii
Acknowledgments
This project would not have been possible without the help of my committee of readers. First, I
thank Bob Wason, my advisor. The concept for this dissertation emerged from an independent
study I undertook with him in the fall of 2009. His steadfast encouragement and keen eye for
the dissertations final shape guided its development. His expertise in jazz, as both a theorist
and a musician, made him an invaluable resource. I also thank Davy Temperley, my second
reader and phrase rhythm specialist. He immersed himself in my approach and critiqued it
from within, greatly improving the final product. Finally, Dariusz Terefenko brought an
unparalleled knowledge of jazz repertoire and performance practice to the project. I knew that
if the dissertation resonated with him, I must be on the right track.
I also thank Babe O. for her constant love and support.
iv
Abstract
Phrase rhythm is the interaction of grouping structure and metrical structure. In jazz
improvisation, these structures behave in ways that theories of phrase rhythm designed for
classical music cannot accommodate. Specifically, jazz improvisation involves the
superimposition of a highly flexible grouping structure on a pre-determined and predictable
metrical-harmonic scheme. In this context, theories of phrase rhythm that depend on voiceleading or harmony neglect the subtleties of grouping structure.
In this dissertation, I present a new method for the analysis of jazz phrase rhythm. I
classify each phrase based on its relationship to the metrical hierarchy, as manifested in two
characteristics: 1) the pattern of metrical accents it overlaps (prosody), and 2) its occupation of
metrical units, from one to eight measures in length. For example, a 4-phrase occupies a four-bar
hypermeasure, and may be beginning-, end-, un-, or double-accented. The basic phrase-types
may be combined and altered in various ways.
I include detailed analyses of fifteen solos on several different forms, including AABA,
ABAC, and twelve-bar blues. Throughout an improvised solo, phrase rhythm fluctuates
between states of consonance and dissonance, as the grouping structure variously supports or
contradicts the metrical structure. Phrase rhythm thus contributes immensely to this musics
aesthetic value.
Table of Contents
Part I: Theory
Introduction: What is Jazz? What is Phrase Rhythm?
p. 1
Chapter 1: Meter and Grouping in Jazz
10
Chapter 2: The Analytical Method
36
Part II: Applications

Introduction to Part II
80
Chapter 3: Thirty-Two-Bar Schemes in AABA Form
83
Chapter 4: Thirty-Two-Bar Schemes in ABAC Form
109
Chapter 5: The Twelve-Bar Blues
143
Chapter 6: Metrically Atypical Schemes
165
Chapter 7: Some Pedagogical and Analytical Extensions
192
Works Cited
214
Index of Recordings and Transcriptions
220
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Notations
222
Appendix B: Complete Transcriptions and Analyses
226
vi
List of Figures
Introduction
I1. Parker, Dewey Square: Grouping structure of mm. 116.
p. 8
Chapter 1
11. A metrical grid in 4/4.
13
12. Metrical projection.
16
13. A projective hierarchy.
17
14. Hypermetrical analysis of Haydn's Symphony no. 104/I.
22
15. A metrical mistake.
22
16. Motive vs. hypermeter.
29
17. One phrase or two?
31
18. What are the second level groups?
31
19. Voice-leading vs. grouping.
34
Chapter 2
21. Segmentation factor 1: IOI.
38
22. Segmentation factor 2: strong beat.
39
23. Segmentation factor 4: motive.
41
24. A formula, not a motive.
42
25. A formula becomes a motive through repetition.
43
26. Conflicts among grouping factors.
44
27. The short form of prosodic notation.
47
28. Accent borrowing.
47
29. Effects characteristic of swing articulation of 8 th-notes.
48
210. No borrowed accent.
49
211. Metrical time-spans and associated phrase-types.
49
vii
212. The beginning-accented 4-phrase.
50
213. The end-accented 4-phrase.
52
214. Not a 4-phrase.
52
215. Where to place 4-phrase brackets: solid v. dotted.
53
216. Some un-accented 4-phrases.
54
217. The double-accented 4-phrase.
55
218. Comparison of 4-phrase types.
56
219. The 2-phrase.
56
220. Where to place 2-phrase brackets: solid v. dotted.
57
221. Asymmetrical 2-phrase division.
58
222. A challenging case.
59
223. The 1-phrase.
60
224. Sentence-structure, 1/1/2.
61
225. No overlapped downbeats.
62
226. The beginning-accented 8-phrase.
62
227. An 8-phrase made from four 2-phrases
63
228. Davis, Oleo, mm. 132.
64
229. A prefix.
67
230. Phrase overlap.
69
231. Grouping structure in a phrase overlap.
69
232. A 2+4 combined phrase.
70
233. Grouping structure, figure 234.
70
234. Rhyme.
72
235. A common source of ambiguity.
74
236. Combination or end-accentuation?
74
viii
237. End-accentuation that resembles combination.
76
238. Ambiguous phrase rhythm.
77
239. Phrase division without pause.
78
Chapter 3
31. An idealized AABA form.
83
32 through 36. Davis, Oleo
8790
37, 38. Parker, Moose the Mooche.
9293
39 through 312. Parker, Yardbird Suite.
9699
313, 314. Parker, Dewey Square.
100
315 through 319. Powell, Wail.
101107
Chapter 4
41. Pennies From Heaven (Johnston): Metrical-harmonic scheme.
110
42 through 412. Getz, Pennies From Heaven.
112122
413. Ornithology (Parker): Metrical-harmonic scheme.
123
414 through 425. Parker, Ornithology.
124131
426 through 435. Evans, My Romance.
133141
Chapter 5
51. Metrical-harmonic scheme of twelve-bar blues in C.
143
52 through 56. Parker, Chi Chi.
146148
57. 6/6 chorus-level phrase rhythm.
149
58, 59. Parker, Chi Chi.
150151
510 through 514. Adderley, Freddie Freeloader.
153157
515 through 520. Rollins, Tenor Madness.
159163
ix
Chapter 6
61. Airegin (Rollins): Metrical-harmonic scheme.
167
62 through 69. Rollins, Airegin.
168174
610. Midpoint of The Touch of Your Lips (Noble)
175
611. Recomposition of Airegin, section B.
176
612. Rollins, Airegin.
176
613. Witchcraft (Coleman): Metrical-harmonic scheme.
178
614 through 620. Evans, Witchcraft.
180184
621. Ill Remember April (Johnston): Metrical-harmonic scheme.
185
622 through 625. Brown, Ill Remember April.
186191
Chapter 7
71. Eight graduated exercises for practicing phrase rhythm.
194
72. The pedagogical program.
195
73. Exercise 1: 2-phrases.
196
74. Exercise 2: 1-phrases.
197
75. 4-phrases, switching types at every phrase.
199
76. A twelve-measure phrase plan, repeated cyclically.
200
77. A sentence structure, to introduce the 8-phrase level (exercise 5). 201
78. Phrase overlap, in 2/2O2/2 structure (exercise 6).
202
79. Phrase combination, in 2/2+2/2 structure (exercise 7).
202
710. Imitation of noteworthy solos (exercise 8).
203
711. Tactus shifting.
204
712 through 716. Coltrane, My Favorite Things.
208212
A Note on the Transcriptions and Recordings
Excerpts from transcribed jazz performances appear throughout this dissertation. Many of these
are based on published sources, while I transcribed several others myself. Rather than cite these
sources throughout the text, I provide a complete Index of Recordings and Transcriptions on
page 221. Each recording/transcription pair has a unique number. In the caption of all musical
excerpts, a recording/transcription index number appears in curly brackets (e.g., {14}).
I edited the published sources for accuracy and readability, typeset them with four
measures per line, and, when necessary, transposed them to concert pitch. I omitted many
ornamentsgrace notes, scoops into notes, and so forthas these had no affect on my
analyses. I advise the reader to consult the recordings if possible: these are the only
authoritative sources for this music.
For simplicity, I depart from conventional lead-sheet harmonic notation in two ways: 1) I
do not list chordal extensions beyond the chordal seventh; 2) for tonic-function harmonies, I
list only the root: C replaces Cmaj7, C6/9, and so forth; C- replaces C-maj7, C-6,
and so forth.
PART I: THEORY
What is Jazz?
Since its origins in the early 20th century, the term jazz has been applied to an incredible
range of music. No definition could capture the myriad uses of the term, nor satisfy all of jazzs
devotees. I focus on a significant subset of jazz, roughly coextensive with bebop and its close
descendants. This style predominated in the 40s and 50s, and centered on small ensembles
and improvised solos. In this dissertation, jazz refers to this subset only. The characteristics
enumerated in this section limit my theorys domain: any music that does not possess these
characteristics is not within my purview.
An important and distinctive aspect of jazz is its formal structure. The form of the jazz
performance has been compared to a theme and variations, with the themes drawn from a
collection of well-known pieces or standards. Paul Berliner (1994) describes the typical
performance: It has become the convention for musicians to perform the melody and its
accompaniment at the opening and closing of a pieces performance. In between, they take
turns improvising solos within the pieces cyclical rhythmic form (63). The repetitions of the
theme, or choruses, follow one another without pause. Frank Tirro (1967) explicitly compares
this procedure to continuous variation in classical music: after the opening chorus, musicians
maintain the structure of the piecein chaconne fashion during the middle choruses (317).
Similarly, Steve Larson (1993) says that both modern jazz variations and classical variation
sets are based onthe structure of a theme, which has rhythmic, harmonic, melodic, and
contrapuntal aspects. Variations may preserve any of these aspects at any level (300).
I understand jazz variation procedure to consist of two elements: a scheme and a realization.
(Scheme is my word for Larsons and Tirros structure.) The scheme outlines the elements
of a single chorus. In isolation, it is an abstract entity, existing most vividly in the mind of the
player or listener. (In geometry, the perfect circle is also such an entity.) The realization is one
concrete performance of the scheme.
The arrangement of a jazz performance comprises the discrete parts of the realization and
their ordering. I use the following terms for the parts of a typical arrangement:
1. The opening theme: one cycle of the scheme, including the composed melody (if
present);
2. The variations: a number of choruses that adhere less closely to the scheme: the
schematic melody may be varied or ignored and the schematic harmony may be altered
slightly, but the highest levels of the meter will be strictly maintained;
3. The closing theme: A closing cycle of the scheme, including the composed melody.
Arrangements sometimes include an introduction, coda, or interludes between choruses. These
sections make themselves known through texture and harmony, and are easily distinguished
from the familiar portions of the scheme.1
The Scheme and Realization in Jazz
In the words of Charles Mingus, You cant improvise on nothinyou gotta improvise on
somethin.2 The scheme is the something on which one improvises. It is a sequence of
harmonies occupying a fixed number of measures, which often includes a melody. The most
familiar depiction of the scheme is a lead sheet, showing a melody and chord symbols within a
metrical framework. In this section, I discuss the nature of the jazz scheme and its relationship
with the realization.
Many schemes are from a repertory known informally as the Great American Songbook,
a collection of popular songs written for the stage, screen, or home from roughly 1920 to 1960.
This collection has been the subject of at least two detailed theoretical studies (Forte 1995,
Terefenko 2004). While a scheme can be made concrete through notation (a lead sheet or
original score) and performance, in the absence of these, a scheme is best understood as a
These elementsintroduction, coda, etc.can themselves become schematic through

repetition in multiple performances. Consider, for example, the introduction to Take the A
Train (Strayhorn), which has become an expected part of the performance.
2
Quoted in Kernfeld 1995 (119).
1
mental representation of abstract features like meter and voice-leading. A listener or performer
arrives at an understanding of the scheme through the experience of many different
realizations. Knowledge of the scheme generates expectations and provides a basis for
comparison. Each realization is measured against the scheme while simultaneously modifying
it. As Henry Martin describes it, the scheme provides an anchor for musical expression: Since
the progression of the changes can be easily internalized, and the symmetry and regularity of
the strophes [choruses] felt without too much conscious attention, the player can focus on
developing the melodic and expressive essence of a solo with these built-in features taken for
granted (1996: 13). The scheme is what the player has internalized, the built-in features.
The interaction between scheme and realization is jazzs defining feature. (Arguably, it is
the defining feature of all variation procedure.) The focus of this dissertation is the interaction
between the schematic meter, which is rigidly maintained, and the realizations flexible phrase
structure. While realization often entails improvisation, I downplay this feature, because the
process of analysis works in the same way, regardless of whether the realization is improvised or
entirely composed in advance.3
The opening theme, the first instantiation of the scheme in a particular performance, can
establish certain modifications that are retained in subsequent choruses. These can include
reharmonization or metric modulation at fixed points in the schemefor example, the bridge
of each chorus might be in 3/4, the remainder in 4/4. In this way, certain modifications to the
scheme become schematic for a particular performance. In total, then, realization consists of
three distinct layers: the unmodified scheme (present only in the mind), the version of the
scheme presented in the opening theme (whose modifications to the original may be retained
throughout the performance), and the one-off elements appearing in any chorus.4 I distinguish
these three layers here only for the sake of precision. My theorys focus on meter, the most rigid
feature of the scheme, allows me to downplay these subtleties when analyzing phrase-rhythm.
The variation choruses may modify the scheme in many ways. Typically, the melody
undergoes the greatest modification, the harmony undergoes subtler changes, and the meter is
Larson (1998 and 2005) similarly argues that the line between improvisation and composition
is blurry, and of little practical consequence.
4
Complicating matters further, sometimes the variations follow a slightly different scheme
from the opening and closing themesusually, a simplified harmonic progression. In that case,
the first variation chorus can establish a modified scheme for subsequent variation choruses.
3
strictly maintained.5 The melody in the variation choruses may relate to the scheme in many
different ways. In paraphrase improvisation, the realized melody more or less follows the
schematic melody, adding elaborations, inserting fills between phrases, or omitting notes
(Kernfeld 1995: 131151). But in other cases, the realized melody may bear no obvious relation
to the schematic melody, and follows only the schematic harmony. For example, formulaic
improvisation is the combination of pre-learned melodic fragments into longer phrases based
only on harmonic context, and motivic improvisation is the systematic development of short
motives, which may have no relation to the scheme (ibid.).6 All of these types can appear within
a single solo, but only in the case of paraphrase improvisation does the improvised melody refer
to the theme.
In jazz pedagogy, perhaps the most common method of teaching melodic improvisation is
chord-scale theory. The improviser draws melodic material from scales that are appropriate
for each type of chord.7 For example, one might employ a minor scale with flat seventh and
natural sixth (Dorian) over a minor-seventh chord. Melodies constructed through this process
need not have any connection to the schematic melody, only the schematic harmony. To
counteract this tendency, students may be told to imagine the schematic melody as they play;
but it is certainly possible to produce satisfying jazz melodies that relate only to the schematic
harmony, not the melody.
Schenkerian analysis presents a richer picture of jazz melody. Analyses peel away surface
diminutions to reveal how the improvised melody preserves both melodic and harmonic
aspects of the scheme, especially the underlying voice-leading.8 The intricacy of this analytical
method highlights the distance between the realized melody and the schematic melody: if the
melody always related to the schemes original melody in an obvious way, such methods would
not be necessary. And the resulting connections between the improvised melody and the theme
are sometimes obscure (not to say dubious); the clearest consistent relationship remains that
Chapter 3 of Berliner 1994 discusses in depth the many methods by which musicians alter
the scheme, from subtle variation of the schematic melody to the invention of entirely new
melodies.
6
Owens 1974 and Kenny 1999 exemplify formulaic analysis, while Schuller 1958 includes
paraphrase and motivic analysis.
7
Two examples of this approach are Mehegan 1959 and Reeves 1989.
8
See, for example, Martin (1996), or anything by Larson.
5
between the improvised melody and the schematic harmony, specifically, the voice-leading
strands implied by the harmony. Therefore, it appears that the variation choruses are under no
obligation to preserve the schemes melody.
Schematic harmony may be modified in the realization (reharmonization) but is seldom
disregarded altogether. There are two common types of modification: substitution and
interpolation.9 In substitution, one harmony replaces another of the same function. For
example, in tritone substitution, a chord, usually a dominant-seventh chord, is replaced with
the chord whose root is a tritone away.10(E.g., D-7G7C becomes D-7Db7C.) In
interpolation, an extra chord or group of chords increases the harmonic rhythm without
changing the harmonic middleground. For example, one can precede any dominant-seventh
chord with its ii7 chord, borrowing metrical time from the dominant chord (so that there are
no extra beats). The bridge of I Got Rhythm (Gershwin) normally features two measures each
of D7, G7, C7, and F7. By the preceding method, the following progression may be
substituted, with one chord per measure: A-7D7D-7G7G-7C7C-7F7. Such
modifications may be planned in advance, or applied spontaneously by the soloist or rhythm
section. (Both of these examples involve modification of unstable harmonies, not functional
tonics. This is typical.)
In contrast with melody and harmony, the realization must strictly follow the schematic
meter. Descriptions of the scheme-realization relationship tend to focus on melody and
harmony and ignore meter. Berliner (1994) observes that composed pieces or tunes, consisting
of a melody and an accompanying harmonic progression, have provided the structure of
improvisations throughout most of the history of jazz (63). Similarly, Tirro (1974) describes
improvisation as the simultaneous acts of composition and performance of a new work based
on a traditionally established schemaa chordal framework known as the changes (286287).
These authors ignore meter not because it is unimportant, but because it is rigid and taken for
granted.
Strunk (1979) and Terefenko (2008) describe many modifications in detail.

Tritone substitution is based on the functional tritone held in common between tritonerelated dominant chords (in equal temperament). For example, the tritone in both G7 and
Db7 is between B/Cb and F.
9
10
I refine this description in chapter 1. For now, to illustrate the profound rigidity of jazz
meter, I offer a hypothetical example. Assume a thirty-two-bar scheme: after a 96measure
(three-chorus) drum solo, in which the drummer employs wild syncopations and cross-rhythms,
the remainder of the ensemble, tacet for the duration of the solo, will enter in unison on the
downbeat of the 97th measure. If someone enters a beat or bar early or late, a savvy listener
recognizes this as a mistake.
According to David Temperley (2001), Relative freedom in one [musical] ruletends to
be balanced by relative strictness in another (296). Jazzs melodic freedom and metrical
strictness help define the style. Jazz musicians have great freedom to modify or replace the
schematic melody and harmony, but they must maintain the meter. This serves a practical
purpose. As Tirro puts it, The educated and sensitive listener is at all times oriented with
regard to the temporal progress of the piece (1974: 287). It similarly aids the performer:
according to Martin, Since the two-, four-, and eight-bar subdivisions are easily internalized,
the soloist is free to create complexities that play off against the large-scale regularity of the
form (1996: 41). The meters consistency allows the musicians and listeners to stay together in
an environment of unplanned melodies and harmonies.
What is Phrase Rhythm?
Phrase rhythm is the interaction of two musical structures: grouping and meter. Temperley
describes these structures conceptual independence: Meter is a hierarchical framework of
beatswhich in itself implies no segmentation. Grouping is a hierarchical structure of
segments, which in itself implies no accentuation. In principlemeter and grouping are
independent structures, which may be aligned with one another in a variety of different ways
(2003: 125). In the next two chapters, I explain that although these structures are conceptually
independent, they are not independent in practice.
Grouping structure is the hierarchical organization of melody into motives, sub-phrases,
phrases, and sections on the basis of such features as rests, rhythm, harmony, and repetition. A
complete solo consists of many groups, in which still smaller groups are embedded. Fred
Lerdahl and Ray Jackendoff call grouping structure the most basic component of musical
understanding (1983: 13). According to one view, grouping structure arises in the listeners
mind through the unconscious application of rules to the musical surface, rules based on the
features listed above (see especially Lerdahl and Jackendoff 1983 and Temperley 2001). Maury
Yeston (1974) lists several criteria by which musical events may be grouped together. These
include temporal proximity of attack point, timbre, dynamics, event density, and pattern
recurrence (pp. 5268). Yeston views the grouping process as pre-metrical. That is, if the analyst
begins with as few assumptions as possible, grouping criteria are the best means for
immediately organizing the musical surface, before determining metrical structure.
Meter is a regular pattern of strong and weak beats, superimposed on the musical surface
by the listener on the basis of informed expectation. It is often depicted as a hierarchy of beats
at various levels. Hypermeter refers to metrical levels above the notated measure; a hypermeasure
contains some whole number of measures, usually between two and four.11 (I allow larger
hypermeasures as well.) Meter refers to the entire metrical hierarchy, including any
hypermetrical levels.
In jazz, the contrast between meters inflexibility and grouping structures freedom makes
it easy to perceive their relationship. Figure I1 shows the first sixteen measures of Charlie
Parkers solo on Dewey Square. At one level, the grouping structure is clear. Rests in
measures 3, 7, 910, and 1314 suggest division into the segments A, B, C, D, and E. But
other levels of grouping structure are not so obvious. Do these segments combine to form
larger groups? B and C might be grouped together because of their temporal proximity. The
small melodic interval between the end of C and the beginning of D might suggest a
connection between these segments. It is even harder to determine sub-groups within each
segment. Within segment A, the tied eighth notes in measure 2 might suggest an internal
division, but there is a clear voice-leading strand across this point from the Cb to the Bb on
beat 4. Indeed, clear points of division are hard to find within any of the segments.
On the other hand, the metrical structure of figure I1 is entirely obvious. Measures 1 and
9 begin eight-bar hypermeasures, 5 and 13 begin four-bar hypermeasures, and 3, 7, 11, and 15
begin two-bar hypermeasures. Notice how the five segments relate to the downbeats. Segments
C and D both end a little after strong downbeatsthey are end-accented. Segment E has a
metrically weak ending in the fourth bar of a hypermeasure, the only such phrase in the
11
The term first appears in Cone 1968: 79.
example. At the one-measure level, every segment begins during the first two beats of a
measure. Only segment A ends on a downbeat.
Figure I1. Parker, Dewey Square: Grouping structure of mm. 116 {21}
It should be clear from figure I1 that melodic groups can stand in many relationships to
the schematic meter and to each other. Other jazz theorists seem aware of these issues, but have
never tackled them directly. For example, Martin (1996), who applies Schenkerian techniques
to the music of Charlie Parker, offers some suggestive generalizations, but no analytical
method:
Parkers [melodic] line is further enhanced through irregular phrasing and through
its large-scale syncopation with respect to the eight-bar symmetries and customary
harmonic rhythms of the song forms. His phrasing and accents will sometimes cut
across these symmetries, but as often as not, he is content to conform to the song
form by generally not phrasing across sectional divisions. (112)
This description appears in the final chapter, on non-Schenkerian aspects of Parkers style. No
doubt Martin makes this assessment based on deep knowledge of Parkers work, but the lack of
empirical support contrasts with the rest of the books rigor. Keith Waters also appreciates
these issues (1996). He even invokes the concept of hypermeter and its unconscious
internalization by performers: The notion [of hypermeter] represents clearly the larger formal
divisions within the thirty-two-bar standard tune form and the twelve-bar blues. It is also a
principle intuited by improvisers who articulate longer musical spans by providing a release
point which gives stronger metrical weight to the larger divisions of the formal structure (23).
Even more suggestively, he observes, While jazz pedagogy and the critical literature normally
focus upon the harmonic dimensionoften harmonic substitutionperhaps equally crucial for
extended improvisations are the rhythmic techniques that obscure the barline, as well as fourbar, eight-bar, and other formal divisions (19). The striking contrast between metrical rigidity
and melodic freedomespecially the freedom to create diverse grouping structuresinvites
deeper exploration.
Why Phrase Rhythm Matters
By definition, phrase rhythm is a part of every jazz solo, whether or not the performer or
audience is aware of it. This is because every solo necessarily involves the superimposition of a
grouping structure on a metrical structure. One goal of this dissertation is to shed light on this
under-recognized aspect of jazz.
Phrase rhythm also contributes a great deal to the aesthetic value of many jazz solos. In the
following chapters, I explain how grouping structure can support or contradict meter, creating
a state of phrase rhythm consonance or dissonance. Pure consonance and dissonance occupy
opposing ends of a spectrum, within which the two components of phrase rhythm may agree or
disagree in various ways. For the sensitive listener, the fluctuation of these states throughout a
solo creates powerful sensations of tension and resolution. Phrase rhythm shares this power
with every other aspect of music to which theorists devote attention. Therefore, the other goal
of this dissertation is to awaken our sensitivity to these fluctuations.
In chapter 1, I describe the two components of phrase rhythm in more detail, with special
attention to their behavior in jazz. In chapter 2, I present my method of phrase-rhythm analysis.
In Part II, I apply the method to performances by a variety of musicians, in schemes of various
types. Performances in chapter 3 follow thirty-two-bar AABA form; in chapter 4, thirty-two-bar
ABAC form; in chapter 5, twelve-bar blues; chapter 6 covers some schemes that depart from
these norms.
10
Chapter 1: Meter and Grouping in Jazz

In jazz, even more so than in classical music, meter and grouping coexist in a state of creative
tension (Rothstein 1989: 28). The meter presents a predictable background on which diverse
grouping structures may be superimposed. Meter consists of a hierarchy of temporal unitsthe
choruses and their constituent hypermeasuresthat the grouping structure can never alter.
Grouping structure is free to imply its own hierarchy, whose units may or may not be
coextensive with metrical units. In this chapter, I explore meter and grouping in detail.
Meter
I approach meter from two angles. Chiefly, I consider it as an abstract hierarchy, based on a
view of meter that dominated until the 1990s. Secondarily, I consider how recent theories of
meter grounded in perception temper the hierarchical perspective.
The metrical hierarchy is a collection of embedded layers or levels of regular rhythmic
activity. Clear antecedents of this modern concept emerged in the late 18th century.12 Johann
Kirnbergers starting point for meter is a stream of undifferentiated tones (Mirka 2009: 4).
From this stream, for meter to arise, a second-order regularity must be superimposed on the
otherwise undifferentiated beats, in the form of accents (ibid.). Heinrich Christoph Koch
espouses a similar view. Kirnberger is equivocal with regard to whether or not the meterdefining accents are phenomenaldependent on features of the musicor generated in the
mind of the listenerthe modern concept of the metrical accent (Mirka 2009: 5). In fact,
both phenomenal and metrical accent are involved in metrical perception, as I explain below.
Koch extends the hierarchy in both directions. Taktteile (beats) group together into Takte
(measures), and may be divided into Taktglieder (beat divisions), which may be further divided
into Taktnoten (subdivisions) (Mirka 2009: 8). Koch considers all layers in relation to the stream
of pulses: The eighteenth-century metrical hierarchy is centered around the level of Taktteile
(ibid.). The level of Taktteile is thus similar to the modern concept of the tactus, discussed
below. Kirnberger anticipates modern theory by positing three classes of accent, which roughly
12
In the following summary I rely on Caplin 2002 and chapter 1 of Mirka 2009.
Chapter 1: Meter and Grouping in Jazz 11
correspond to the modern concepts of metrical accent, phenomenal accent, and dynamic stress
(Caplin 2002: 670). So-called Akzenttheorie became somewhat jumbled in the 19th century, with
Marx notoriously suggesting that the performer apply stress to notes falling on the strong beats
of the measure (1854). Nevertheless, two components of late 18th-century metrical theorya
hierarchy based on the Taktteil and distinct types of accentanticipate modern views.
Almost two hundred years later, Grosvenor Cooper and Leonard Meyer presented a
new theory of meter (1960). Though they do not refer to 18th-century theory, their
description of meter as architectonic resembles earlier views: meter is the measurement of
pulses between more or less regularly occurring accents (4). 18th-century theorists emphasize
notation, especially bar lines and the time signature. Cooper and Meyer recognize that these
markings depict only two or three levels of the metrical hierarchy, observing that architectonic
organization continues above and below these levels. Their theory falls short in its description
of accent: they apply accents not only to events but also entire groups, and they do not classify
accents into distinct types, although they do offer the memorable (but vague) definition of
accent as a stimulus which is marked for consciousness in some way (8).
Edward Cones Musical Form and Musical Performance (1968) discusses the metrical aspects
of the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic styles, and vividly juxtaposes each styles treatment of
the metrical hierarchy (chapter 3). According to Cone, each style-period focuses on a different
level: in the Baroque, the beat is primary, in the Classical, the measure, and in the Romantic,
the four-bar hypermeasure (79). This demonstrates his awareness that meter, understood
broadly, goes beyond notation. His description of Baroque meter also points towards the
concept of the metrical accent: The beats seem to form a pre-existing framework that is
independent of the musical events that it controls (70). This should sound familiar based on my
preliminary description of the schematic meter in jazz. In jazz, the pre-existing framework
goes much deeper than in Baroque music.
Arthur Komar (1971) describes the metrical hierarchy in more precise terms. To him, each
level of the hierarchy has the same properties, further minimizing the role of notation. He
writes, Strong beats at a given metrical level are those that coincide with beats at a higher
metrical level (53). In other words, the property of strength within a level is nothing more
than the presence of a beat at the next highest level. While Koch formulated the hierarchy in
terms of accents on the level of Taktteile, Komar argues that the very existence of regular accents
within a metrical level depends on the presence of a higher level. The difference is in causal
orientation: for Koch, the accents on the level of Taktteile create the level of Takte; for Komar,
one level of beats creates the accents in the level below, a top-down view heavily influenced by
the late work of Heinrich Schenker. He believes the entire metrical hierarchy flows from its
highest level: The interrelations of strong and weak beats at higher metrical levels carry down
into lower metrical levels, so that in the foreground, beats are typically both strong and weak
relative to different time-spans (53). Though Komars top-down perspective on meter has not
been taken up by others, his conception of the metrical hierarchy has been influential.
Maury Yeston (1974) approaches the hierarchy from the other endthe lowest levelsbut
arrives at a similar formalism to Komar. He writes, The fundamental logical requirement for
meter isthat there be a constant rate within a constant rateat least two rates of events of
which one is faster and another is slower (90). In other words, like Komar, he explains regular
accents within a level as originating in a higher level. He says that meter appears on neither
the faster nor the slower level alone: There is apparently, then, no such thing as a level of
meter or a level on which meter may appear; but rather, meter is an outgrowth of the
interaction of two levels (90). Like Komar, Yeston develops his metrical theory on
Schenkerian lines, equating the different levels of the metrical hierarchy with different levels of
tonal events. He also uses his theory of rhythmic strata to model metrical consonance and
dissonance, in a manner adapted by Harald Krebs (1999).
Building on Yeston, Fred Lerdahl and Ray Jackendoff present the clearest picture of the
metrical hierarchy (1983). For them, it is the interaction of different levels of beats (or the
regular alternation of strong and weak beats) that produces the sensation of meter (68). In
other words, they equate regular accents on a single level with the presence of multiple levels:
these are simply two ways of looking at the same thing. Following Yeston, they note that all
strong beats at one level carry over to the next-higher level, and that beats at any given level are
strong beats at all smaller levels (1920). They also develop the familiar dot notation for the
metrical hierarchy. Figure 11 shows a hypothetical metrical grid using dots. Metrical levels
are labeled on the left, and a dot indicates the presence and location of a beat on that level.
Figure 11. A metrical grid in 4/4.
2Bar
4Bar
Lerdahl and Jackendoffs greatest innovation is in their presentation of the metrical

hierarchy as a perceptual entity: a model of how listeners comprehend meter. They distinguish
three types of accent: 1) phenomenal, resulting from any event at the musical surface that gives
emphasis or stress to a moment in the musical flow (something marked for consciousness);
2) structural, caused by the melodic/harmonic points of gravity; and 3) metrical, any beat
that is relatively strong in its metrical context (17). Of these types, the first, phenomenal
accent, acts as a perceptual input to meter (ibid.). The listener unconsciously applies a series
of rules to determine the most logical meter based on the musics attributes (72101). These
rules capture our intuitions about meter. For example, their fifth Metrical Preference Rule
(MPR5) expresses the intuition that relatively long rhythmic values tend to occur on relatively
strong beats (8087). Beats in the hierarchy represent metrical accents, which are inferred
from the unconscious processing of phenomenal accents. Their theory represents the final
state of listeners understanding. Though their explanation of the metrical hierarchy moves
beyond previous theories, Danuta Mirka observes that it is unrepresentative of real-time
metrical processing (2009: 16 ff). Below, I present her refinement of their theory. For now, I
pursue the concept of the metrical hierarchy a bit more deeply.
Justin London writes, One may characterize meters in terms of their hierarchic depth
(2004: 25). Jazzs metrical hierarchy is extremely deep. In a medium-tempo thirty-two-bar
scheme, it includes a quarter-note, half-note, measure, two-measure, four-measure, eight-
measure, sixteen-measure, and thirty-two-measure level. Carl Schachter provides a vivid account
of metrical accent, germane to this account of jazzs metrical hierarchy:
Once the listener becomes aware of recurrent durational unitsbeats, measures, and
larger periodicitiesthat awareness, in and of itself, adds another layer of
accentuation to the musical image. The accents thus produced are true metrical
accentsmetrical because they arise directly out of the listeners awareness of the equal
divisions of time that measure the musics flow. (1987: 5)
In jazz, these recurrent durational units are determined by the scheme and known in advance
by the performer, and by any listener familiar with the particular scheme. When hearing a
performance, a listener sensitive to the metrical hierarchy has an entirely different experience
from a nave listener. The savvy listener anticipates each passing beat, from the lowest to the
highest levels.
Performance conventions also highlight the schemes largest metrical units. Transitions
between soloists nearly always occur within a measure or two of the boundary between
chorusesthe chorus being the largest metrical unit. This transition can also occur at the
midpoint of each chorus, highlighting the second-largest metrical unit. Consider also the
common practice of trading fours, in which soloists take turns improvising during four-bar
hypermeasures, and the related practices of trading eights and trading twos. (No one ever
trades threes, only metrical time-spans.)
Jazzs treatment of the lowest metrical level is also distinctive. The tactus is a primary
metrical level, the level of beats that is conducted and with which one most naturally
coordinates foot-tapping and dance steps (Lerdahl and Jackendoff 1983: 71). The standard jazz
tactus is the quarter-note; at very fast tempos, the half-note takes over. While the tactus is often
almost metronomic, establishing a groove, division of the tactus is characteristically loose.
(Consider the incredible variety in swing articulation of eighth-notes.) Duple, triple, and even
quadruple division of the tactus are all common, and may be freely mixed and inflected.
London (2004) details the perceptual limitations on the tactus. He claims that the range of
ideal tactithose judged by a listener to be neither too long nor too shortis between 80 and
120 beats per minute (bpm). Beat frequencies below 30 bpm or above 240 bpm are too slow or
fast to be heard as tacti (2930). Jazzs characteristic treatment of the tactus as the fastest regular
level of beats combines with this wide perceptual range to explain the phenomenon of tactus-
shifting, commonly called double-time or double-time feel. This occurs at tempos in the
lower end of Londons range, at which the tactuss frequency can double without exceeding the
possible range. (For example, a tactus-tempo of 60 bpm can double to 120 bpm while
remaining within the ideal range.) In this situation, the perceived tactus shifts from the quarternote to the eighth-note. Kernfeld describes the effect: Double-time involves a doubling of
tempo in the rhythm section, a doubling of the general speed of the melody line, or both"
(1995: 8). This description (and the term double-time) is misleading, however, because the
tempo only seems to double as a result of a shift in tactus. Under such a shift, the number of
tacti per chorus doubles; each chorus contains twice as many tactus-beats, but the same amount
of quarter-note beats as before. Because the listener is inclined to interpret the lowest regular
level as the tactus, musicians bring about the tactus-shift simply by playing the eighth-note level
strictly, and swinging the eighth-note divisions in the same way that eighth-notes are normally
swung. At times, one member of an ensemble may imply a shifted tactus while others do not,
creating tension between competing interpretations.
Refining this View: Metrical Projection and Perception
Christopher Hasty (1997) challenges the hierarchical view of meter described above. His theory
attempts to model the real-time experience of meter. It is based on the notion of projection in
time. According to Hasty, Projective potential is the potential for a present events duration to
be reproduced for a successor. This potential is realized if and when there is a new beginning
whose durational potential is determined by the now past first event (84). Example 12 shows
the projective process. The labels A and B respectively designate an eventa sounding note,
for exampleand the silence that follows. The onset of a second event, A, demarcates the end
of the first duration, C, comprising the event A and silence B. At the onset of A, the actual
duration C creates the potential duration C, which is not yet past. The solid arrow
indicates a completed duration, while the dotted line indicates only a potential duration, yet
to be realized. In simple terms, the experience of the duration C creates an expectation of
parallelism for the duration of C'.
Figure 12. Metrical projection. (Hasty 1997: fig. 7.1, p. 84)
C
A
C
B
Hastys theory influences the recent work of Danuta Mirka (2009), which combines
projective theory with Lerdahl and Jackendoffs hierarchical view. Echoing London (2004),
Mirka divides the act of metrical perception into finding and monitoring meter. She uses
projection to depict the initial determination of meter and the negotiation of metrically
challenging passages, and uses the metrical grid to depict an established meter. On this basis,
she claims, All of the analyses presented in [Hasty 1997] are designed to reveal intermediary
stages of [metrical] processing by bringing to light the projections of which it consists (29; my
emphasis).13 In other words, Hasty shows only one portion of the act of metrical processing:
finding, not monitoring meter.
Based on a synthesis of research into metrical cognition, London also argues for dividing
metrical processing into two stages (2004). He depicts the perception of meter as a process of
entrainment. Meter is the anticipatory schema that is the result of our inherent abilities to
entrain to periodic stimuli in our environment (12). Listeners have an innate sensitivity to
regularity, and learn to anticipate future events on the basis of past regularity. The second
phase of metrical processing, monitoring meter, is marked by the perception of metrical
accents, a consequence of entrained anticipation: A metrical accent occurs when a metrically
entrained listener projects a sense of both temporal location and relatively greater salience onto
a musical event (London: 23). The expectation of accent creates an accent in the listeners
mind, no matter the event that ultimately coincides with the accenta self-fulfilling prophecy.
This is why metrical accents can fall on rests. Metrical accents arise only in the phase of
monitoring meter, the phase that London, like Mirka, thinks Hasty overlooks. This view
accounts for the perception of metrical accent even on the first hearing of a piece, going
beyond Lerdahl and Jackendoffs claims (1983).
This echoes an earlier critique in London 1999: Hastys analysescan be readily understood
as fine-grained explanations of metric recognition, i.e. the early part of processing meter (265
266).
13
According to Mirka, the initial events of a piece enter a parallel multiple-choice

processor, which unconsciously compares possible interpretations of the meter.14 A potential
metrical analysis enters consciousness only after it has passed a certain threshold of regularity,
which varies depending on the context (19). The end result is a projective hierarchy, as
reproduced in figure 13, and the comparatively easy task of monitoring meter, in which
metrical accents arise from the expectation of continued confirmation of projections (ibid.).
Figure 13 combines aspects of figures 11 and 12. When meter departs from expectations,
the parallel processor wake[s] up and compares possible analyses once again (23).
Figure 13. A projective hierarchy. (Mirka 2009: fig. 1.12, p. 19)
The experienced jazz listener assumes a priori that a fixed metrical hierarchy, up to the level
of the chorus, will persist throughout a performance. The first chorus establishes this structure.
Metrical processing then involves the weighing of perceptual input against prior knowledge of
jazz metrical convention.15 This knowledge operates at two levels: familiarity with specific
schemes and scheme-types, and familiarity with the broader demand of metrical regularity. All
performances will fall into one of the following categories (listed in order of increasing
cognitive demand):
1. A familiar scheme, realized
a.
without additions (intro, interludes, etc.) or revisions;
b. with additions, but no revisions;

c.
with revisions, which are introduced in the opening theme and retained in
the variations;
Mirka 1718; the parallel multiple-analysis model is first posited in Jackendoff 1991.
Knowledge of metrical convention informs the perception of many styles besides jazz; but the
conventions of jazz meter are unusually powerful.
14
15
d. with two metrical schemes, one for the theme and one for the variations,
requiring that the listener use the first variation chorus as a metrical scheme
for the others;
2. An unfamiliar scheme
a.
with the same scheme in theme and variations, and no additions;
b. with the same scheme in theme and variations, and additions;

c.
with a different scheme in theme and variations (see 1d).
The cognitive demands of an unfamiliar scheme are significantly lower if it conforms to a

common form, like thirty-two-bar AABA or ABAC (or its common variants), or twelve-bar
blues. Experienced listeners recognize these easily.
Consideration of metrical perception refines the account of jazzs highest metrical levels. I
have grouped the chorus-level in the same category as other metrical levels: the chorus is a
recurring temporal unit, as are the sixteen- and eight-bar hypermeasures of thirty-two-bar
schemes. But cognitive limits on beat perception suggest that meter is not perceived in the
same way at all levels: as metrical units grow larger, meter blurs into form. According to
London, Metric entrainment can only occur with respect to periodicities in a range from
about 100 ms to about 5 or 6 seconds (2004: 46). At a tempo of 120 beats per minute, a fourbar hypermeasure lasts eight seconds. I speculate that one perceives the regularity of large timespans through the unconscious accumulation of smaller spans, a learned skill.16 Metrical
accents at higher levels still feel stronger than those at lower levels; however, the eight-bar
downbeat (the first quarter-note beat of an eight-bar unit) receives its metrical accent not via a
projection originating from the previous eight-bar downbeat, but from the aggregation of lowerlevel beats and foreknowledge of the scheme.
Gridley (2006) writes, Each musician is silently counting the beats and thinking of the
chords that are progressing while he is not playing (14). This may describe the experience of
beginning players, but experienced musicians only bother to count consciously when realizing a
scheme with an unusual meter; for most schemes one simply feels the hypermetrical units.
16
Challenges to the Meter
I divide meter-disturbing events into three categories: expressive variation, dissonance, and
alteration. London defines expressive variation as subtle nuances involving compressions and
extensions of otherwise deadpan rhythms (2004: 28); it is as much a part of jazz as classical
music. Benadon (2009) interprets jazz soloists microrhythmic accelerations, decelerations, and
fluctuations as transformations of underlying rhythms, by tracking how certain passages
depart from regularity. These variations challenge the metrical hierarchy from the outside:
they involve clock time and could not be shown on a conventional metrical grid (see fig. 11
above).
Yeston 1974 contains the first detailed discussion of metrical dissonance (chapter 4),
which arises from a conflict among metrical levels. Harald Krebs (1999) divides dissonances
into grouping and displacement. Hemiola exemplifies the former, persistent syncopation
the latter. In a jazz context, metrical dissonance might be considered the superimposition on
the schematic meter of any conflicting, regular layer of accents. For example, in a 4/4 scheme, a
pianist might play accompanying chords on every third quarter-note beat, creating a layer of
regular rhythmic activity that contradicts the scheme. The schematic meter need not be literally
present in the realization for metrical dissonance to take place. Subliminal dissonance
describes a dissonance that takes place against an implied metrical layer (Krebs 1999: 46).
Subliminal dissonance is very common in jazz, aided by the power of metrical convention to
bolster the memory of the schematic meter during extended digressions.
The prevalence of metrical dissonance in jazz has made it a popular topic of theoretical
research (recently, Downs 2000/2001, Folio 1995, Hodson & Buehrer 2004, Larson 1997 &
2006, and Waters 1996). Each author uses a slightly different set of terms, but their collective
focus is on dissonances at or near the tactus-level. Steve Larson and Keith Waters devote some
attention to hypermeter. Larson suggests that episodes of grouping dissonance often begin and
end on hypermetrical downbeats (2006: 117). Waters (1996) defines a dissonant effect called a
2-shift: a phrase that begins in the second measure of a four-bar hypermeasure. Hodson and
Buehrer (2004) even apply Krebss methodology to jazz. In general, these articles adapt classical
theory to the jazz repertoire, rather than introducing approaches uniquely suited to jazz.
Metrical alteration is the replacement of one metrical level with another. I already
mentioned that a realization can incorporate into every chorus certain pre-planned alterations
to a familiar scheme. For example, there might be metrical modulations at certain points in
each chorus, or the addition of beats or measures. Such alterations become part of the scheme
for that performance, even if known in advance only to the performers. I distinguish these
cases from spontaneous metrical alterations, those that occur with no prior planning or
discussion, and that require only non-verbal communication to coordinate.17
All spontaneous metrical alterations must be comprehensible as subliminal grouping
dissonances that preserve some higher metrical level. Typical examples involve the replacement
of duple with triple division at some level, with the next-highest level held constant.18 Consider
a measure-preserving metrical modulation from 4/4 to 6/8 ( = .).19 This replaces duple
division of the half-measure with triple division. But the flow of half-measures and measures
continues uninterrupted through the modulation, as do all higher levels; no matter how long
the modulation persists, it could be understood and heard as a subliminal dissonance against
the schematic 4/4.20 To suggest this alteration to the rhythm section, a soloist only need
persistently employ triple division of the half-measure; a skilled rhythm section will quickly
recognize the change. Even if they do not acknowledge the change, or if several measures pass
before they perceive it, the ensemble will continue their parallel progress through the scheme,
due to the synchronization of higher metrical levels between the original and altered meter.
Compare this with an invalid alternative, tactus-preserving modulation from 4/4 to 3/4 (
= ). After this modulation, each chorus will last 96 quarter-notes, not 128, but each quarter
Dunn (2009) discusses how musicians suggest metrical dissonances and alterations to one
another through musical cues alone.
18
Mirka (2009) discusses how all grouping dissonances can all be understood relative to both a
lower and a higher level (156 ff). The latter orientation is more useful here.
19
Waters (1996) distinguishes measure-preserving from tactus-preserving polymeter, based on
whether the downbeat-level or the tactus-level is common to both of the dissonant metrical
layers. The same distinction may be made between metrical modulations, based on the note
value that is held constant.
20
Fred Hersch oscillates between 4/4 and 6/8 in just this manner throughout his performance
of Con Alma from the album Songs Without Words (2001).
17
note will last the same amount of time. This cannot be understood as the re-division of a
metrical level, and it would be absurd to treat this as subliminal grouping dissonance at some
higher level.21 Furthermore, if a soloist attempted to make this alteration unilaterally, without
prior planning, the rhythm section would probably mistake the alteration for a superimposed
polymeter, and retain the 4/4 scheme. Unless the rhythm section instantaneously responded to
the soloist, the two parts would decouple, drifting further and further apart in their progress
through the scheme.
For this reason, though hypermetrical alteration is ubiquitous in common-practice music,
it is impossible in jazz, since it cannot be understood as re-division of a higher metrical level.
Figure 14 shows a metrical reinterpretation. In measure 16, the regular alternation of strong
and weak downbeats is interrupted by an unexpected strong downbeat, arising from the forte
entrance of the orchestra on a new phrase and tonic harmony. The two-measure level and any
potential four-measure level are disrupted by the unexpected strong downbeat in measure 16.
There is consistency only at the next-lowest metrical level, the downbeat-level.
Alterations that violate this rule may safely be interpreted as mistakes. Consider figure 1
5. Here, the Bill Evans Trio inserts an extra beat in a 3/4 context, resulting in a measure of
4/4. Just before measure 7, as marked with an X, Evans continues the harmony D7, implying
that D7 continues through the downbeat of bar 7. This is a distortion of a rhythmic clich in
which the left-hand anticipates downbeat harmonies by an eighth-note. The late arrival of
Ebmaj7, on beat one-and of measure 7, implies that beat two is a downbeat (since the pianist
would typically play a new harmony just before the downbeat). In consequence, the rhythm
section inserts an extra beat in the following measure. The bassist and drummer erroneously
believed that Evans had (accidentally) inserted an extra beat, and they attempted to
compensate.22
The 3/4 scheme and the 4/4 scheme will only align every 384 beats: three choruses of 4/4
and four choruses of 3/4.
22
A skilled rhythm section is highly sensitive to potential errors on the part of the soloist, in
order to minimize the audible consequences. In this case, they were too sensitive. Errors can
and do occur at every metrical level: the addition or subtraction of a beat is perhaps most
common, but measures and even sections may be accidentally added or subtracted.
21
Figure 14. Hypermetrical analysis of Haydn's Symphony no. 104/I, Allegro.

(Temperley 2008: fig. 1, p. 307)
Figure 15: A metrical mistake. (Evans, "Someday My Prince Will Come, beginning
of 2nd chorus) {9}
How do I know figure 15 shows a mistake and not an intentional alteration of the
scheme? Because the additional beat does not appear at any other point in the performance. Its
appearance in other choruses, especially an appearance at the same place in each, would suggest
that the performance followed model 1c abovea familiar scheme with revisions in the
realization. It is inconceivable that the group would deliberately insert a single extra beat only
once in the performance.
The top-down rigidity of jazz meter has a precedent in classical variation procedure.
Variations, except in the freer variation style of the late nineteenth century, preserve the
metrical scheme established by the theme (Nelson 1949: 6). Jazz develops this procedure in two
ways. First, it combines the metrical continuity of ostinato variations with the greater thematic
length of discrete variations (those performed with an intervening pause). (Consider Tirros
comparison of jazz variation procedure with a chaconne, quoted in the introduction.)
Second, it liberates grouping structure from the scheme, which is maintained through meter
and harmony alone.
Grouping
Meter in jazz is not only rigid, it is also highly independent, requiring a minimum of
reinforcement from other musical features once it has been established. This is true not only of
lower metrical levels, but also of the highest metrical levels. In contrast, hypermeter in classical
music remains closely tied to phrase-level grouping structure and tonal structure. Specifically,
hypermeter, when present, depends on tonal structure and phrase structure. (The distinction
between phrase structure and grouping structure is vague. I use the terms more or less
interchangeably. The term phrase has received a range of definitionsbased on length,
motivic content, essential voice-leading, and so forthbut all imply that a phrase is a kind of
group, and so it seems appropriate to mix the two.)
The conceptual separation of grouping and meter clarifies thought; but in practice, the
two structures are mutually dependent, and theorists recognize this. Of course, grouping and
meter are often in a state of slight misalignmentout of phase, in Lerdahl and Jackendoffs
termsbut this is a long way from true independence. I quoted David Temperley in chapter 1,
writing that in principlemeter and grouping are independent (2003: 125). But elsewhere,
he acknowledges: It appears that grouping and meter both affect one another (2001: 7071).
Indeed, it is impossible for a composer to establish hypermeter without the help of grouping
structure or tonal structure.
Given the close link between hypermeter and phrase structure in musical practice, it is
unsurprising that 18th-century theorists treated them as a single concept. Joseph Riepels midcentury treatise on composition defines the units of phrasing in terms of their metrical length,
a practice continued sometimes even to this day (as in Caplin 1998, quoted below, and in my
analytical method, presented in chapter 2). Melodic and harmonic features delineate Riepels
Zweyer, Dreyer, and Viererphrases two, three, and four measures in length (Eckert 2000: 106
110). Riepel writes that minuets employ only Zweyer and Vierer, reflecting a preference for
duple hypermeter derived from dance practice (Eckert 2000: 108).
Heinrich Kochs mechanical rules of melody, written in the 1780s, develops Riepels
ideas into a more systematic study. Koch defines the basic phrase (enger Satz) in terms of
metrical lengthfour measures of duple or triple meter, or two compound-duple (4/4)
measures. A melodic segment of this length is complete when it can be understood or felt as a
self-sufficient section of the whole, without a preceding or succeeding incomplete segment
fortuitously connected to it (Koch 1983: 67). Phrases of other lengths arise through
extension or combination of basic phrases (41 ff). Koch also classifies these modified phrases by
their metrical length.
Koch recognizes the phenomenon of phrase overlap, in which the ending of a phrase
coincides with the beginning of the next phrase. Modern theorists believe that this happens in
two distinct ways. Sometimes, it results in a missing measure, as in figure 14, measure 16.
But sometimes, phrases can overlap without disturbing the hypermeter (Rothstein 1989: 44).23
This distinction depends on the conceptual separation of grouping and meter, so Koch cannot
make it. He thinks all phrase overlaps result from the stifling or suppression of a measure
(1983: 5465).
Koch shares Riepels preference for duple and quadruple hypermeter. His Einschnitt, or
sub-phrase, is typically two measures long. Not only is the four-bar phrase basic, it is also
ideal: Most common, and also, on the whole, most useful and most pleasing for our feelings
are those basic phrases which are completed in the fourth measure of simple meters (11).
Anton Reicha extends this duple preference to the next metrical level (1818). He bases his
theory of melody on the eight-measure period, divided into four-measure rhythms or
members, which are further divided into two-measure figures (Reicha 2000). Like Koch,
Reicha permits various modifications to these units of phrasing, including supposition, his
term for overlap (2627). These modifications can change the metrical length of the basic units
23
For a critique of this view of phrase overlaps, see Lester 1986: 187192.
but not their underlying status. Going beyond his predecessors, Reicha observes the effect of
tempo on the units of phrasing: The slower the movement [tempo], the shorter the members
should be [in metrical length] (36). Shortening the metrical length of phrases at slower tempos
has the effect of equalizing the clock length of phrases at all tempos. Reichas advice
demonstrates his intuitive awareness of the cognitive limits on perceiving periodicity.
For these three theorists, hypermeter does not exist as a concept outside of grouping
structure. They all express a preference for melodic periodicity, which inevitably creates
hypermetrical periodicity. Reicha even insists that the three-measure sub-phrase always
requires a companion (2000: 29). Thus, Reicha associates three-measure sub-phrases with
three-bar hypermeter, which would require repetition of this unit.
Over a century after Reicha, Cone (1968) similarly blends hypermeter and phrase
structure in his belief that the four-bar phrase does not need to be four bars long (75, quoted
above). The characteristic rhythm of these phrases arises through patterns of harmonic and
melodic tension rather than metrical length. Though Lerdahl and Jackendoff separate grouping
and meter conceptually, they also recognize their close links in musical practice. For them,
meter exerts its organizational power at a local level, while grouping takes care of the highest
levelsentire sections and movements. But in between lies a transitional zone in which
grouping gradually takes over responsibility from metrical structure. It is in this zonethat
metrical ambiguities occur in tonal music (99 ff). This zone corresponds to the units of
phrasing classified by Riepel, Koch, and Reicha. In classical music, meter does not exist beyond
this zone.
Though meter and grouping are intermixed, meter depends on grouping in a way that
grouping does not depend on meter. Lerdahl and Jackendoffs second metrical preference
rule explicitly accounts for the influence of grouping on meter.24 Elsewhere, they write:
Parallelism among groups of irregular length often forces metrical structures into irregularity
above the measure level (99). It is irregular groups that cause irregular metrical structures, not
the other way around. Example 14, discussed earlier, showed how harmony and grouping
structure can override an established hypermetrical level. Rothstein (1989) also endorses the
MPR 2 (Strong Beat Early) Weakly prefer a metrical structure in which the strongest beat
in a group appears relatively early in the group (1983: 76). This rule takes grouping structure
as a given, and assumes the listener uses it to help determine metrical structure.
24
conceptual separation of grouping and meter, while deriving hypermeter from grouping
structure: If two or more non-duple phrases, each of the same length, follow each other in
direct succession, a feeling of regularly recurring accents is likely to be created, and with it a
feeling of hypermeter (37).
William Caplin (1998) defines phrases through melodic content and metrical length. He
echoes 18th-century thought in his definition of the phrase as minimally, a four-measure unit,
often, but not, necessarily, containing two ideas (256). Caplins phrases are of many types, and
need not end with a cadence: for example, the presentation phrase is a four-measure unit that
prolongs tonic harmony, as might begin a larger group (45, 256). Thus, Caplin explicitly
defines the phrase through a combination of meter, thematic structure, and tonal structure.
Historically, other theorists have also linked grouping structure to tonal structure as well
as hypermeter. Riepel and Koch define the phrase through its degree of tonal closure. Both
theorists recognize half and full cadences, and cadences on different degrees (modulations),
as means of ending a phrase. Lerdahl and Jackendoff believe tonally self-contained groups are
most easily perceived (1983: 52). Rothsteins theory of phrase rhythm augments the historic
view of the phrase with the insight of Schenkerian analysis. Rothstein defines the phrase as
directed motion from one tonal entity to another (1989: 5). This definition places a lower
limit on phrase length, but not an upper limit: Rothstein claims that large phrases may
contain smaller ones (10). To determine phrase structure, Rothstein believes that the best
available meansis the Schenkerian method, because that approach reveals underlying tonal
motions most precisely (13). Schachter also uses Schenkerian analysis to clarify hypermeter
(1980, 1987). Like Rothstein, he believes that some phrases of irregular length derive from
regular prototypes, and that tonal structure reveals phrase structure. His process of durational
reduction, a combination of Schenkerian and metrical reduction, shows a higher-level
metrical organization of measures (1980: 198).
Theories of classical music assume a close relationship between phrase structure,
hypermeter, and tonal structure. To wit: at the phrase level, tonal structure determines
grouping structure, and both structures work together to create hypermeter. Jazz upsets these
relationships. In jazz, the scheme determines both metrical structure and middleground tonal
structure; grouping structure has been emancipated.
Distinctive Features of Jazz Phrase Structure
Although the grouping structure of improvised jazz melodies is unencumbered by the scheme,
jazz themes, by and large, preserve the conventional alignment of phrase structure, meter, and
tonal structure that is found in common-practice music. Allen Forte (1995) analyzes schemes by
the big six composers of the Great American Songbook: Harold Arlen, Irving Berlin, Jerome
Kern, George Gershwin, Cole Porter, and Richard Rodgers. Their work may be taken as
representative of the style. Forte writes,
In the American popular song the four-bar length of the phrase is canonical, so much
so that phrase used with respect to form means four-bar phrase. The musical
markers that delimit the phrase engage melody, rhythm, harmony, and often, but not
always, the lyric. (37)
Forte says that phrases are often divided into two-bar groups, and combined into eightmeasure periods. Periods combine into songs, so that all of these units manifest a
hierarchical arrangement (37). While Reicha and company also describe the units of phrasing
as duple and hierarchical, they acknowledge that composers modify these units; but in jazz
standards, non-duple groups are almost unheard of.25
Fortes approach is Schenkerian. He highlights some instances in which tonal structure
cuts across melodic grouping structure:
In general, it is important to recognize that the components of the template formin
particular, the two-bar group and the four-bar phrasedo not delimit motions of
larger span, such as long lines and harmonic progressions. In fact, more often than
not, harmonic progressions override those surface groupings. (41)
In many examples, tonal resolution only occurs at the ends of periods, pairs of periods, or even
entire songs (see especially Fortes chapter 8 on Jerome Kern). But these large tonal motions
still tend to coincide with large metrical groupseight- and sixteen-measures hypermeasures.
One might speculate that this regularity arose from the practical needs of accompanying
social dancing, as in the metrical conventions of Baroque dance movements. But popular
dance steps of the day, such as the foxtrot or various styles of swing dancing, only required
predictibility at the measure level or belowcertainly not through four- and eight-bar levels.
(Indeed, the basic step in West-coast swing lasts six beats, which is consonant at the half-note
level, but creates metrical dissonance with the measure-level!)
25
Smaller groups, indicated by rests and longer notes, more or less follow the two- and four-bar
levels of the meter.
Terefenko (2004) also examines a large repertoire of standards from a Schenkerian
perspective. He concludes, In the case of standard tunes, there appear to be a finite number of
typical phrase models, each with its own distinctive melodic structure, essential jazz
counterpoint, and supporting harmonies (3). At no point does Terefenko discuss hypermeter
perhaps because it is so consistent as to be taken for grantedbut his conclusion reflects the
formulaic quality of phrasing in the standard repertoire.
The formulaic quality of standard schemes alters the relationship between grouping, tonal
structure, and hypermeter. No longer can grouping and tonal structure be said to determine
hypermeter, as they do in classical music. Rather, a composer might set out from the start to
write a thirty-two-bar song in eight-bar sections, or intuitively follow this model, and then craft
the tonal and grouping structure to fit the hypermeter.26 There are many examples in classical
music where tonal structure overrides any preference for duple groups, demonstrating its
primacy (indeed, the preference for duple hypermeter is not uncontroversial); such is seldom
the case in jazz.
After the opening thematic statement, the melody in the variation choruses freely departs
from the grouping structure of the theme. Many authors have recognized the resulting tension
between schematic meter and melodic grouping, but their work does not go far enough. Owens
1974 is the first large-scale formulaic analysis of improvised melody, devoted entirely to Charlie
Parker. Like Henry Martin, quoted in the Introduction, Owens mentions Parkers phrase
rhythm in an aside. He describes Parkers varied phrase lengths and their relationship to the
hypermeter:
Larger aspects of [Parkers] phrasing are observable in any of the transcriptions. A
glance through these solos reveals a great variety of phrase lengths, from two- or threenote groups lasting only one or two beats, to single sustained notes, to elaborate
musical sentences of ten or twelve measures. Parker tended to construct his phrases
There are certainly schemes that deviate from the thirty-two-bar models, and these deviations
are brought about by tonal and grouping structure. But the most common modifications take
the form of two- or four-bar extensions, which preserve the flow of two-bar downbeats. In
chapter 6 I discuss several solos on metrically atypical schemes.
26
to coincide with the phrase structure of the piece being performed. Thus, his solos in
32-measure, *aaba* pieces generally show endings in the seventh or eighth measures
of each section of each chorus. But deviations from this procedure abound, adding to
the unpredictability and freshness of his performances. (14)
Owens does not elaborate on Parkers deviations from this procedure, nor how these
contribute to the performances. The imprecision of his claims is typical of writing on this
subject.
Keith Waters (1996) analyzes rhythmic displacement in a solo by Herbie Hancock. He
notes that in two places in Hancocks solo, Pitch and motive connections cut across the
twelve-bar formal divisions and serve to blur the largest hypermetric divisions (30). Figure 16
shows one instance of this. The motive in question is shown with brackets.
Figure 16. Motive vs. hypermeter. (Hancock, The Eye of the Hurricane, mm. 6976,
from Waters 1996)
It is certainly true that at this point in the solo, a motive cuts across the hypermetrical
division on the downbeat of measure 73, and that this connection unifies the solo. But I think
Waters overstates the case by saying the hypermetrical division is blurred. The grouping
structure of the solo reinforces the hypermetrical division: the final measure of the chorus (72)
is entirely empty, and Hancock begins his next chorus on the chorus-level downbeat. As I
explain in the next chapter, both motive and rests play a role in determining grouping
structure; but here, the long rest trumps the motivic continuity and prevents any real conflict
between grouping structure and hypermeter that the motive might create. In later chapters, I
present several examples in which grouping structure and motive contradict hypermetrical
divisions, and for which blurring seems a more appropriate description.
Of all jazz theorists, Steve Larson confronts the subject of phrase rhythm most directly
(1996A, 1999). He recognizes the misalignment between schematic meter and melodic
grouping structure: Since [Charlie] Parkers phrases do not coincide with the 8-measure
phrases of the original melody, I call these 8-measure units sections rather than phrases
(1996A: 154). Larson describes a 4+2+2 grouping structure as a reverse sentence, saying that
after the longer unit, the two shorter units press forward (ibid.). (This sort of description of
grouping structure through measure counting appears as early as Reicha 1818 and Marx 1854.)
Larson refers to sentential structure twice more in the article (158, 159). He describes phrase
rhythms interaction with listener expectations: The bridge begins as if its first half will be a
1+1+2 sentence; when the third phrase is three measures instead of two, it surprises the
listener (158). Elsewhere, Larson says that progressively lengthening phrases in an Oscar
Peterson solo increase energy, and he even presents a chart of the phrase rhythm (1999: 298
99). But these discussions play a supporting role to the main point of these articles,
Schenkerian analysis. Larsons treatment of phrase rhythm does not go much beyond what I
have quoted here.
One obstacle to developing a theory of jazz phrase rhythm is the lack of a definition for
phrase. Clive Downs also notes this problem: Phrasing is a term that tends to be used
loosely by critics, and musical dictionaries often fail to give a precise definition (2001: 42). He
attempts to correct this situation with his own definition, supposedly precise enough that a
computer program could be written to automatically detect the start and end of each phrase
(ibid.). According to Downs, a phrase:
Contains no rests of an eighth note or greater, except when

o
The rest has the effect of syncopation or
The rest divides a segment from another segment of three beats or less in
duration, in which case the short segment is united with the larger segment
into a single phrase. (4243)
While I sympathize with Downs goal of precision, I find his definition inadequate
although it succeeds in many cases. First of all, he places too much stock in rests, and ignores
the closely-related factor of inter-onset interval (IOI), the temporal gap between successive
attacks, whether or not rests are present. Consider figure 17, from Charlie Parkers Cosmic
Rays. This excerpt contains two segments; the second begins on the Eb at the end of the
second measure. (One might call it a single phrase divided into two sub-phrases.) Between these
segments is an IOI of 3.5 beats, quite long in the context. With respect to phrasing, the divisive
effect of IOI almost equals a rest of equivalent duration (in the absence of other factors, like a
crescendo on the long note). But Downs definition would classify this as a single unit, ignoring
the long IOI.
Figure 17. One phrase or two? (Parker, Cosmic Rays, mm. 14) {25}
Downs definition also fails to explain whether or how small segments might be grouped
together into larger segments. Consider figure 18, from Rollinss Valse Hot. As defined by
rests alone, this excerpt has four phrases, labeled A through D. Motivic parallelism and meter
suggest the following grouping: AB / CD. Segments A and C end with the same motive: a
descending third on a downbeat. Segments B and D provide parallel answers to A and C: a set
of eighth-notes initiated with a downward skip across a barline. There are two levels of
grouping structure: the lettered segments, and the pairs of segments. The hypermetrical
structure also supports this interpretation: each pair of phrases occupies a two-bar
hypermeasure. (Four-bar hypermeasures are shown with double-bars; measure 6 is the first
measure of a four-bar hypermeasure.)
Figure 18. What are the second-level groups? (Rollins, Valse Hot, mm. 510) {34}
The nave application of Downs definition does not adequately reflect these phrases
relationships. (Nave application is appropriate, since the definition is intended for a
computer.) Segment A is 2.5 beats long, so Downs would correctly group it with segment B.
But Downs does not describe phrase structure as hierarchical, so once segment B is grouped
with A, it loses its identity altogether. Segment C, like segment A, is too short to stand alone;
but which adjacent segment should it be grouped with? Downs does not explain how to deal
with such situations.
As these examples show, no theorist has yet tackled jazz phrase rhythm in depth, though
many appear aware of the issue. On the other hand, pedagogical works purporting to teach jazz
improvisation neglect all discussion of phrase rhythm (beyond the trivial advice that phrase
length be varied). Instead, these works are pitch-obsessed: catalogs of scales, chord voicings,
substitutions, intervallic motives, and so forth. The simple question of when to begin and end
ones phrases is left unaddressed. Budding improvisers must develop an intuitive sense for this
aspect of jazz.
Schenkerian analysis has proven very effective at analyzing improvised melodies. It can
point out a melodys internal connections, as well as connections between the melody and the
scheme. Jazz performance practicespecifically, the cyclic repetition of a relatively short
harmonic schemerequires many modifications to the Schenkerian method. Martin (1996)
writes, In jazz the background as a concept is best applied, usually, to a single strophe or
chorus (31). Analyses tend to focus on the foreground and shallow middleground. Despite
this limitation, according to Larson, The clearest view of the nature of jazz improvisation
seems to flow from an essentially Schenkerian approach (1999: 286). Larson believes that
Schenkerian analysis reveals how improvised melodies are based on the underlying voiceleading strands of the theme (ibid.). He denies the distinction between improvisation based on
schematic melody and schematic harmony: underlying voice-leading determines both.
Elsewhere, Larson emphasizes the hidden resemblances between melody and scheme: I now
understand improvisation as the real-time yet pre-heardchoice among possible paths that
elaborate a pre-existing structure, using familiar patterns and their familiar combinations and
embellishments (2005: 272). The goal of this approach is clear: show how the melody derives
from the schemes underlying voice-leading.
In classical music, Rothstein, Schachter, and others have used Schenker to analyze phrase
rhythm. This approach is effective because in classical music, tonal structure and grouping
structure control hypermeter. Thus, Schenkerian insights into tonal structure clarify grouping
structure and hypermeter. But in jazz, since grouping structure is no longer tied to tonal
structure or hypermeter, Schenkerian analysis is less effective as a tool for analyzing phrase
rhythm: this method must, by definition, give more weight to tonal structure than to surface
grouping structure. Within a Schenkerian graph, there is no notation for rests or groups.27 The
linear continuity depicted in a Schenkerian graph overrules grouping structure. Larson admits
as much: The unity of linear progressions is not broken by the silence that intervenes [between
phrases] (1996A: 152). Schenkerian analyses make no distinction between connections across
groups and those within groups.
I agree that audible linear connections can persist across rests, hypermetrical downbeats,
and even passages of unrelated melodic material. But in order to highlight these connections,
the Schenkerian approach is necessarily insensitive to the grouping structure suggested by rests,
hypermetrical downbeats, and other features. The grouping structure of an example might
subtly influence the Schenkerian analysis; but if such an analysis is forced to choose between
showing a linear connection and showing grouping structure, it will surely show the former.
The voice-leading structure in a Schenkerian analysis does not imply any particular grouping
structure: the same voice-leading structure can derive from melodies with radically different
surface grouping structures. In other words, a voice-leading analysis erases an important
component of these melodies. I repeat: this problem is not nearly so significant in classical
music, where tonal structure and grouping structure are intertwined. But in jazz, where they are
not, the choice between depicting one or the other has much more consequence.
Figure 19, adapted from Larson 1996A, will clarify my meaning. Based on rests, I have
divided the passage into five segments, labeled A through F. Larson says that there is a
descending fifth-progression in measures 1 to 2, made of the constituent thirds DCB (m.
1) and BbAG (m. 2) (141). He points out a similar fifth-progression in measures 10 to 13:
Db and C in measure 10, B and A in measure 11, and G on the downbeat of 13. (Larson
realizes that normally, a descending fifth-progression prolongs tonic, but this one ends on the
harmony ii7. He says, The fifth-progression of measures 1013 belongs to the tonic
prolongation of measures 912, but the last note of this progression is delayed until measure
13 with a pattern that is common in Parkers improvisations (154).)
I am not disputing these claims, but I think this provides an incomplete account of
improvised melody. I have laid out the figure to make the schematic metrical structure more
apparent. The excerpt as a whole comprises two eight-bar hypermeasures, each occupying two
Larsons own strict use Schenkerian analyses include no indication for rests or grouping
boundaries (1996B).
27
systems. There is one four-bar hypermeasure in each system; the four-bar downbeats are
therefore in measures 1, 5, 9, and 13. Two-bar downbeats occur halfway through each system.
As I mention above, Larson describes the phrase rhythm of the opening eight measures as
4+2+2, saying that the two shorter segments press forward (154). To build on Larsons
description, I would say that segment A occupies the first hypermeasure without overlapping its
downbeat. Instead, the strongest metrical accent that it overlaps is the two-bar downbeat of
measure 3. The first fifth-progression identified by Larson takes place entirely within segment
A. Segments B and C each occupy a two-bar hypermeasure. In parallel with segment A, these
segments do not overlap the downbeats of the hypermeasures they occupy (the downbeats of
measures 5 and 7).
Figure 19. Voice-leading vs. grouping. (Parker, Oh, Lady Be Good, mm. 116,
A
adapted from Larson 1996A: ex. 1, p. 142)
Segment D is the first segment in the solo that overlaps a four-bar downbeat; it occupies a
two-bar hypermeasure. Such a segment demands a two-bar answer, resulting in a pair of
segments. Segment E is this answer; but it goes on slightly longer than necessary, overlapping
the downbeat of the next hypermeasure. It is end-accented. Together, segments D and E form
the arrangement 2+2.
Larson hear[s] [segment F] as rhetorically parenthetical (154). I would counter that
segment F balances segment A, and is necessary to fill the remainder of the sixteen-bar unit.
Segments A and F both occupy a four-bar hypermeasure without overlapping a four-bar
downbeat. Overall, measures 9 to 16 reverse the 4+2+2 structure that Larson identified in the
first eight measures, instead forming the structure 2+2+4. The structure is somewhat obscured
by the end-accentuation of segment E, but I believe it remains intact.
The second fifth-progression observed by Larson (mm. 1013) stretches from the end of
segment D until the end of segment E. In terms of both grouping structure and hypermeter, it
is very different from the fifth-progression he identifies in segment A: it terminates on a fourbar downbeat, and the rest between the segments delays the motion from scale degree 4, an
unstable tone, to scale degree 3; no such delay occurs in the fifth-progression within segment A.
As I wrote above, The same voice-leading structure can derive from melodies with radically
different surface grouping structures. It is not merely that I like to point out differences while
Larson likes to point out similarities. We are examining different aspects of the music.
Consider that the converse is self-evidently true: two passages with the same grouping structure
can derive from radically different voice-leading structures. In this way, I am equally insensitive
to a key aspect of the music.
In the next chapter, I develop this approach into a systematic theory. I believe my theory
and the Schenkerian approach are complementary. The fullest understanding of jazz melody
comes from consideration of both. Having said that, I must acknowledge that in the following
chapters, I spend little time on voice-leading and linear connections such as those observed in
figure 19. This is not because I think such features are unimportant, but because I have
chosen to devote my full attention to phrase rhythm. At times, I will explicitly invoke voiceleading to support a phrase rhythm analysis. However, I find that other factors, especially rests,
are far more important in establishing grouping structure (just as Larson would probably
acknowledge that tonal connections trump rests in a Schenkerian analysis). As Yeston puts it,
A theory written today need not absolutely refute its predecessors if it asks questions that
others have not considered or if it is applicable to a style of music that others could not have
known (1974: 4).
36
Chapter 2: The Analytical Method

It is impossible to discuss any musical domain, including phrase rhythm, without a shared
vocabulary of concepts for that domain. Theorists today would find it extremely difficult to
discuss harmony without a shared understanding of the triad, diatonic scale, and tonality. I
have criticized previous authors discussions of phrase rhythm as imprecise and unsystematic.
These faults stem from the general lack of a conceptual vocabulary for jazz phrase rhythm,
beyond perhaps an intuitive notion of a phrase as a self-contained unit of melody. The
primary goal of this chapter is to furnish such a conceptual vocabulary.
The counterpart to this conceptual foundation is its application to actual music,
demonstrated in Part II. While I define the concepts as precisely as possible, they are flexible in
their application. Ambiguous cases inevitably arise, and often provide the greatest analytical
(and aural) interest. Phrase-rhythm analyses falls into two categories: descriptions of the unique
aspects of a single performance, chorus, or phrase; and conclusions about phrase rhythm
within the works of a single musician, style, or period. Part II offers samples of both, with an
emphasis on the former.
The analyses are not intended as claims about how an experienced listener or performer
understands phrase rhythm (consciously or unconsciously), or about the right way to hear
phrase rhythm. While I draw on theories grounded in cognition, especially metrical theories
and theories of segmentation, I posit my method as one approach to phrase rhythm among
many possible approaches (albeit an approach that I find especially edifying as a listener and
performer).28 Each analysis represents a way of hearing the phrase rhythm that I find both
aurally and logically defensible.
Temperley (1999A) contrasts two theoretical approaches, descriptive and suggestive, where the
former attempts to describe unconscious listener processes and the latter offers possible ways of
hearing music. Music cognition fits most comfortably in the former category, while 12-tone
theory fits squarely in the latter. My approach is suggestive, but influenced by descriptive
theories.
28
Chapter 2: The Analytical Method 37
Preliminaries
Jazz analysis often makes use of notated transcriptions. I employ transcriptions only as a
shorthand for recordings, never a replacement. Therefore, it is best to consider each analysis
alongside the corresponding recording. Sometimes the transcription alone does not provide
enough information to understand the analysis. Subtleties of articulation can affect the
analyses, particularly in cases of ambiguous grouping structure. When necessary, I refer to such
effects in the accompanying prose.
I use a simple numerical code to designate metrical locations. When referring to a location
within a four-bar hypermeasurethe unit to which hypermeasure refers, unless otherwise
notedRoman numerals designate the measure, Arabic numerals the beat, with eighth-note
beats shown by .5. For example: II.3 refers to bar two of a hypermeasure, beat three; IV.1.5
refers to bar four, beat one-and; and so forth. Arabic numerals designate metrical locations in a
longer transcription: 41.3 means measure 41, beat three; 22.2.5 means measure 22, beat twoand; and so forth. In excerpts, when practical, I show one hypermeasure per line, such that the
first downbeat of a line is the downbeat of a four-bar hypermeasure (a four-bar downbeat)
and the third downbeat is the downbeat of a two-bar hypermeasure (a two-bar downbeat).
When the hypermeter is potentially unclear, I use double-bars to indicate the beginnings and
ends of hypermeasures.
The analytical method has three components: segmentation, prosody, and phrase
classification.
Segmentation: Four Factors
Segmentation is the division of the melody into discrete segments. Prior to segmentation, the
melodic surface may be considered as an uninterrupted stream of notes and rests. Four main
factors govern the process of segmentation; the analyst must balance their influence. As I
mention above, the enumeration of these factors should not be construed as a claim that they
operate unconsciously in the experienced listener (though they might). They are best viewed as
strategies to shape the listeners understanding of grouping structure. In this section, I discuss
how the factors determine the lowest level of grouping structure: the shortest discrete segments
of the melody. Later in the chapter, I explain how these low-level segments form larger
segments in a hierarchical grouping structure. I list the factors in order of importance.
Factor 1: Inter-onset interval (IOI). Inter-onset interval is the metrical distance between
consecutive attacks. Relatively long IOI suggests a grouping boundary. This factor is
significantly stronger than all other factors. IOI is contextual: in a phrase constructed of halfnotes, an IOI greater than a half-note is necessary to suggest a grouping boundary, while a
quarter-note IOI might signal a boundary in an environment of eighth-notes. In figure 21,
long IOIs, with and without rests, divide the first eight measures of Cosmic Rays into four
segments, labeled A through D. Rests strengthen the divisive effect of a relatively long IOI, but
are not strictly necessary.
Figure 21. Segmentation factor 1: IOI. (Parker, Cosmic Rays, mm. 18) {25}
A
Factor 2: Strong downbeat. A strong (hypermetrical) downbeat encourages the placement of

a grouping boundary at the latest plausible point before the beat (typically a relatively long IOI
within the measure before the strong beat); the closer the plausible boundary is to the strong
downbeat, and the stronger the downbeat, the greater the influence. In figure 22, factor 2
strengthens the grouping boundary in measure 12. The four-bar downbeat (beat 13.1)
encourages the placement of a boundary somewhere in the preceding musichere, after beat
12.2. This boundary is further supported by the large melodic interval between the notes on
either side (see factor 3 below). The influence of a strong beat extends backwards from the
moment of the beat; at the very latest, a strong beat encourages placement of a boundary just
before the strong beat, so that a new phrase begins at the moment of the strong beat.
The influence of strong beats is backwards in time onlystrong beats do not encourage
hearing grouping boundaries in locations after the strong beat. This is for two reasons. First, I
understand meter as essentially forward-looking, based on the anticipatory model described in
the previous chapter. As soon as a strong beat arrives, one begins expecting the arrival of the
next strong beat. Therefore, if a plausible point of phrase-division occurs after a strong beat,
one will not look back to the strong beat for further support. Second, the normative phrase in
jazz is beginning-accented. The notion that strong beats imply phrase divisions at or just before
the strong beat encourages the hearing of beginning-accented phrases, phrases that overlap a
strong beat early on.
Figure 22. Segmentation factor 2: strong beat. (Brown, Joy Spring, mm. 916) {2}
The accentual orientation of the normative phrase in classical music is a point of

contention. On the side of normative beginning-accentuation are Lerdahl and Jackendoff
(1983: 76), Rothstein (1989: 2829), and Schachter (1980: 205). Cooper and Meyer (1960: 61)
and Komar (1971: 151, 155) take the opposite view: they believe the weight of the cadence, the
structural goal of the tonal phrase, makes the normative phrase end-accented. Meanwhile,
Cone believes phrase beginnings and endings have accentual strength, while one or the other
can be stronger in an individual case (1968: 27). Lester similarly argues that cadences are by
nature neither metrically accented nor metrically unaccented [if a phrase is beginning-accented
its cadence is unaccented]Their accentual status is created by context (1986: 177).
In general, I think each authors point of view depends on how much independence he
grants to hypermeter. Authors who favor the norm of beginning-accentuation always
acknowledge the importance of the cadence, but treat it as an aspect of the music that is not
bound to hypermeter: Lerdahl and Jackendoff assign the cadence a structural accent, which
need not align with a metrical accent; Schachter and Rothstein take a Schenkerian approach,
which naturally assigns the cadence great importance, as the terminus of a linear progression.
On the other hand, Cone and Cooper/Meyer lump together several types of accent, and it is
not clear that they are referring to metrical accents when they claim the normative phrase has an
accent at the cadence. To them, hypermeter does not seem to be an independent attribute of
the phrase. Lester (1986) appears unwilling to tolerate much dissonance between phenomenal
accents and hypermetrical accents (consider pp. 177181), so his hypermeter never possesses
much independence from the musical surface. Only Komar is unequivocal about the metrical
end-accentedness of the normative phrase, in direct opposition to Lerdahl et al.
I have argued that hypermeter in jazz, once established, has complete independence from
grouping structure, and is dictated only by the scheme. It is thus not surprising that I favor the
norm of beginning-accentuation, in alignment with others who believe in hypermeters
independence. This is not to say that beginning-accented phrases are the most common,
statistically (although I believe they are). I am only arguing that beginning-accented phrases line
up with the meter more closely than other types. I consider the metrical structure itself to be
beginning-accented, because I hear each metrical time-span as extending from a given beat to
just before the next beat at that level.29 Below, I introduce the concepts of metrical consonance
and dissonance to describe the relationship of grouping and meter. Because of this norm, endaccentuation is more dissonant than beginning-accentuation.
Factor 3: Large melodic interval. A relatively large melodic interval encourages the placement
of a grouping boundary, as mentioned in connection with the boundary in figure 22 above.
Factor 4: Change in motive. A change in motive encourages the placement of a grouping
boundary; conversely, continuity of motive has the opposite effect. This factor is weak in
isolation, but can augment other factors. Three factors contribute to the grouping boundary
indicated in figure 23: IOI, strong beat, and motive. Considering IOI alone, segment B might
plausibly be grouped with segment C: the IOI before segment B is much greater than that
which follows. Beat 25.1, however, encourages a boundary after segment B rather than before,
to place the boundary closer to the four-bar downbeat. Evanss abandonment of the ascendingthird motive after segment B further suggests a grouping boundary. (An increase in dynamic
level at segment C, not shown in the transcription, also strengthens the boundary.)
The term motive is subject to many possible definitions.30 I adopt a relatively narrow one.
Motives must be:
The impression of beginning-accented phrases as normative is further reinforced by the

grouping structure of most jazz themes, which tend to employ beginning-accented phrases.
30
Gunther Schuller (1958) was the first to use the term motive in jazz analysis. He does not
define the term precisely, but many of the motives he identifies fit my definition.
29
1. Short, generally three beats or less in length;

2. Contextually distinct, because of rhythm, intervallic content, or surrounding rests;
3. Repeated at least once (that is, appear at least twice).
The motive in figure 23 is a clear example: it is quite short, it has a distinct profile (ascending
third in triplet rhythm), it is isolated by rests, and it appears six times in succession (including
the motion from Bb to Db in measure 23, a transposition of the same motive).
Figure 23. Segmentation factor 5: motive. (Evans, How Deep Is the Ocean? mm. 2129)
{11}
D
How Deep Is The Ocean (How High Is The Sky)
Words and Music by Irving Berlin
Copyright 1932 Irving Berlin
Copyright Renewed
International Copyright Secured All Rights Reserved
On the other hand, I would say the circled figure in figure 24 is not a motive at all.
While it is relatively short, and appears three times, it is not sufficiently distinct from its
context to qualify. Clifford Browns entire solo is dominated by eighth-notes, so the figures
rhythm is indistinct. The figure appears in three different places relative to the grouping
boundaries: once at the end of a phrase, once in the middle, and once at the beginning;
consistent placement within each phrase would have created a greater impression of parallelism
between appearances of the figure. Melodically, it is made up of an ascending scale followed by
a double-neighbor approach to a goal tone. But these basic figuresascending scales and
double-neighbor approachesare ubiquitous in the solo (and in the melodic language of bebopderived jazz). They do not distinguish the motive. Furthermore, to preserve the motives exact
melodic profile requires an unintuitive segmentation of the melodic surface: in its second
appearance, the motive begins in the middle of a long scalar ascent, and its first note does
not stand out in any way. Thus, I would argue that the motive is just an accidental
consequence of Browns reliance on several basic fragments of melodic vocabulary, including
scales, neighbor tones, and arpeggios.31 In the language of jazz scholarship, these are formulas.32
Figure 24. A formula, not a motive. (Brown, Ill Remember April, mm. 9098) {4}
A formula can become a motive through repetition or unusual prominence. Figure 25

shows one such case. An ascending arpeggio appears as a formula in many improvised
melodies. But because it occurs so regularly in measures 59 to 62, it attains the prominence of a
motive, and helps to create unity across the brief rest in measure 60. (This passage is discussed
more fully in chapter 3.)
As is usual with fuzzy categories like motive, there are cases that straddle the line
between formula and motive. In general, I have a high threshold for motive identification, and
I tend to discount ambiguous cases. As befits the metrical focus of this dissertation, I favor
motives that are repeated in metrically similar waysfor example, each instance of a motive
might begin on beat 3as I think this contributes a great deal to their salience.
This is not to say that it is impossible to hear a connection between the three circled areas of
figure 24. Rather, I do not believe the similarities between these passages are sufficient to
make them relevant for phrase-rhythm or motivic analysis.
32
Owens (1974) and Smith (1983) were the first to present extensive lists of melodic formulas,
for Charlie Parker and Bill Evans respectively, advancing the thesis that a vocabulary of stock
melodic figures is one means by which jazz improvisers produce original melodies at great speed
with little apparent effort.
31
Figure 25. A formula becomes a motive through repetition.

(Powell, Wail, mm. 57-64) {28}33
This list of four segmentation factors is not comprehensive. Even in the course of
presenting them, I have referred to other factors like dynamics. I will invoke less-common
factors where necessary in the analyses that follow. David Temperley generalizes grouping
factors across many categories: An interval value in some parameter tends to be a grouping
boundary if it is a local maximum, that is, if it is larger than the values of intervals on either
side (2001: 61). A change in any musical variable can affect how grouping structure is heard.
The grouping factors variously support or contradict one another. Several examples will
illustrate their interaction. In figure 26A, IOI and strong beat support the highlighted
grouping division, while continuity of motive and a small melodic interval contradict it. The
former factors outweigh the latter. The same factors weigh into figure 26B, with the same
outcome: IOI and strong beat support the division, while a single figuration unites the melody
on either side (ascending thirds). This connection does not outweigh the divisive factors. In
figure 26C, however, strong beat alone is not enough to create a boundary at the highlighted
location. Continuity of motive and relatively uniform IOI combine to unify the segment across
beat 53.1. Such conflicts do not figure into my analytical markings, but I mention them in the
accompanying prose when significant.
33
Copyright information accompanies the complete transcription, in Appendix B.
Figure 26. Conflicts among grouping factors.

26A. Brown, Joy Spring, mm. 3340. {2}
26B. Evans, Solar, mm. 4148. {13}
Solar
By Miles Davis
Copyright 1963 Prestige Music
Copyright Renewed
26C. Evans, How Deep Is the Ocean? mm. 4956. {11}

Copyright Renewed
Dora Hanninen (2001) presents a general theory of segmentation based on the

influence of three domains: sonic, the psychoacoustic attributes of individual soundevents; contextual, entailing attention to similarities among groups of sound-events; and
structural, the domain concerned strictly with the relationship between music and abstract
systems like twelve-tone theory or Schenkerian theory (353355). (Her concern is with posttonal music, a style in which segmentation is generally far more difficult than in jazz.)
Hanninens view has many intersections with my own: IOI and melodic interval are evidently
sonic factors, while motive is contextual. Strong beat is harder to pinpoint, however. It might
appear to be structural: an assessment of the relationship between the improvised melody and
the abstract, theoretical meter. But inasmuch as meter is intuitively perceptible, strong beat
might instead be considered a feature of the sonic domain: the listener can directly perceive the
proximity of a possible point of division to an upcoming strong beat.
Within Hanninens theory, attention to each domain presumes a distinct orientation to
music analysis (355). Sonic factors tend to be disjunctive, encouraging one to hear events as
members of distinct groups. This fits with my assessment of IOI, strong beat, and melodic
interval as disjunctive factors: they all have the potential to create boundaries. The contextual
factors of motive and length, on the other hand, unite musical events: sets of events containing
the same motive tend to be single groups. This matches Hanninens view that the contextual
domain implies an associative orientation. Structural factors, which imply a top-down
analytical orientation, come into play later in the chapter, after I introduce the hierarchical
system of segments.
Prosody
After segmentation has taken place, the identification of a segments metrical-accentual pattern
(prosody) is relatively straightforward. Melodic segments overlap downbeats of varying accentual
strength, which I indicate with the numbers [1] (downbeat), [2] (two-bar downbeat), and [4]
(four-bar downbeat). In figure 26B above, the segment in measures 45 to 47 overlaps a
downbeat (beat 46.1) and a two-bar downbeat (beat 47.1): the prosody is therefore [12]
(pronounced one-two). In 26A, the segment in measures 36 (after the arrow) to 38 overlaps
a four-bar downbeat and a one-bar downbeat: prosody [41] (four-one). The first of these
segments is end-accented, the second, beginning-accented. The pattern of metrical accents that
a segment overlaps depends entirely on the segments placement within the scheme. If the
segment in figure 26B occurred one measure later in the scheme, it would have the prosody
[21]; under the same shift, the prosody of the segment in figure 26A would be [12].
Each pattern of accentuation uniquely colors a segment, such that the same segment in a
different metrical context would sound differently. At the most basic level, the segments
strongest metrical accent acts as a center of gravity, defining the phrase as end-, beginning-, or
middle-accented.34 There does not need to be an attack on the overlapped downbeats; the
segment only needs to surround them with an attack on both sides. Crucially, downbeats
overlapped by a held final note do not count towards its prosody. For example, in figure 23
above, the prosody of segment C is only [4], not [41], even though the final Eb is held to
overlap beat 26.1.
In all schemes with consistent four-bar hypermeasures, the downbeat accents form the
repeated pattern [4121]. Even though some four-bar downbeats are also eight- or sixteen-bar
downbeats, I ignore these levels, for several reasons: to simplify the theory, to highlight the
four-bar level, and because of the qualitative difference between a four-bar and eight-bar
downbeat (the latter tends to sound formal rather than metrical). Therefore, every phrase of
sufficient length overlaps some segment of the continuous pattern [41214121].35
The pattern of metrical accents within a segment is similar to phrase prosody as described by
Cooper and Meyer (1960). Cooper and Meyer define segments as beginning-, middle-, or endaccented and name these patterns after poetic feet. They have been criticized for confusing
different types of accent in their analyses and for attributing accents to time-spans rather than
beats. The accents shown by my theorys patterns are strictly metrical, eliminating this problem.
35
Given a duple metrical hierarchy at all levels, as in the common thirty-two-bar scheme, the
recurring pattern [4121] also characterizes the accents at any metrical level, where the [4]
indicates a beat at the level two levels higher. One can shift ones perspective depending on the
analytical goals. For example, in figure 23, the prosody of segment A, [2], can be specified
further by shifting perspective from the measure-levelthe level at which the pattern [4121]
characterizes the relative strength of successive downbeatsto the half-note level, at which the
pattern characterizes successive half-note accents (and at which [4] represents a two-bar
downbeat). At this level, the prosody of segment A is [41]: it overlaps a two-bar downbeat and
then a half-note beat. As a consequence of this shift, one loses the distinction between two-bar
and four-bar downbeats: both count as [4]. In parallel fashion, the downbeat-level prosody is
insensitive to the distinction between four-bar and eight-bar downbeats. Throughout this
dissertation, I focus on downbeat-level prosody, but there is nothing unique about this level.
34
It is not necessary to list every downbeat that a phrase overlaps. Prosodic notation may be
shortened without ambiguity, and in a way that highlights the segments accentual center of
gravity. The shorthand is simple: omit any downbeats that have stronger downbeats on both
sides. Figure 27 illustrates the shorthand by example.
Figure 27. The short form of prosodic notation.
The pattern
[4(1)21]
[4(1)2]
[12(1)4]
[2(1)41]
[4(121)4]
[4(121)41]
[121]
Becomes
[421]
[42]
[124]
[241]
[44]
[441]
[121]
Dashes appearing before or after the full set of numbers indicate material before or after
the downbeat, overlapping an additional half-note beat or more. In figure 21, segment A
begins three beats before beat 2.1, so its complete prosodic notation would be [-1], with the
initial dash representing the initial half-note beat. Segment B extends more than two beats
beyond its last downbeat, so its complete prosody would be shown as [2-].
Figure 28 contains two phrases whose final attacks come just before downbeats. By the
above description, the prosody of segment A would be [-], since it does not overlap any
downbeats. The prosody of segment B would be [-1-], since the only downbeat it overlaps is beat
8.1. However, both of the phrases end on beat 4.5 of the measure. In the case of phrase B, the
final note even anticipates the harmonic resolution of the following measure. Phrase-endings
on beat 4.5 are incredibly common in jazz, and lead to a question about prosody: does the
anticipated downbeat contribute to the prosody, even though it is not strictly overlapped by the
segment? Do segments A and B sound end-accented, in a way their prosody ought to reflect?
Figure 28. Accent borrowing. (Brown, Joy Spring, mm. 512) {2}
Discussing a similar phenomenon in rock music, Temperley argues that the logical
explanation is that the syncopated [anticipatory] beats are understood as occurring on the
following beat (1999B: 33).36 I believe that in most cases, the final note of such phrases in jazz
borrows the accent of following downbeat, and as far as prosody goes, they should be treated
as though they overlap the downbeat that they anticipate.37 When the final note anticipates the
following harmony, as in phrase B, this effect is quite pronounced. Therefore, in figure 28,
the prosody of phrase A is [-2], and the prosody of phrase B is [-14]. These notations indicate
that these phrases do indeed sound end-accented, even though they do not literally overlap the
downbeats indicated by their prosody. (One might argue that the final accent of these phrases
is phenomenal, not metrical, and that I am conflating accent-types by incorporating these
accents into the prosody; I would counter that the phenomenal accent at the end of such
phrases borrows the weight of the metrical accent that follows.)
The swing articulation typical of jazz eighth-notes heightens the accent-borrowing effect.
Eighth-note swing depends on several factors: the second of each pair of eighth notes is often
shorter and louder than the first, separated from the first, and slurred into the following
note.38 These effects are shown in figure 29. They encourage an attack on beat 4.5 to be heard
as an anticipation of the following downbeat, rather than as a tail to beat 4.0.
Figure 29. Effects characteristic of swing articulation of 8th-notes.
=
The final judgment of whether a particular phrase-ending borrows the following metrical
accent depends on the balancing of several factors. Figure 210 shows a phrase in which the
final attack does not borrow the accent of the following downbeat, though it occurs on beat 4.5
(mm. 1719). This is because final G is a registral low point, does not imply a harmonic
change, and receives no dynamic stress.
Temperleys analyses are further informed by poetic stress, as he is analyzing music with
lyrics.
37
A view supported by Temperley in personal correspondence.
38
Figure 29 presents a simplistic picture of an incredibly rich phenomenon: swing eighthnotes may be played in countless ways. Benadon 2006 provides a fuller treatment.
36
Figure 210. No borrowed accent. (Evans, How Deep Is the Ocean? mm. 1720) {11}

Copyright Renewed
Phrase Types
The picture of jazz melody becomes a great deal more interesting when the segments at the
lowest level are grouped into larger segments, forming a hierarchic grouping structure. I
envision this structure in parallel with the metrical structure. The scheme presents the
improviser with a hierarchy of metrical time-spans, which it is the function of the melody to
occupy. Figure 211 presents an abstract diagram of the time-spans relevant to my theory, from
the one-measure to the eight-measure level, and the phrase-type associated with each. Across the
top of the figure, bracketed numbers indicate the locations of beats at various metrical levels,
which are dictated in advance by the scheme. The figure assumes consistent eight-bar
hypermeasures, as are typical of thirty-two-bar schemes. (The eight-bar level is also the highest
level that I routinely discuss.)
Figure 211. Metrical time-spans and associated phrase-types.
[8] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [8]
[
[
8-phrase
4 - p h r a s e ][
4-phrase ]
[ 2-phr. ][ 2-phr. ][ 2-phr. ][ 2-phr. ]

[ 1 ][ 1 ][ 1 ][ 1 ][ 1 ][ 1 ][ 1 ][ 1 ]
The 4-phrase level is primary. A 4-phrase is any discrete segment or collection of segments
that occupiesthat is, fills and belongs toa four-bar hypermeasure. Similarly, a 2-phrase
occupies a two-bar hypermeasure, a 1-phrase occupies one measure, and an 8-phrase occupies an
eight-bar hypermeasure. The system is hierarchical: a series of eight one-measure phrases,
within a single eight-bar hypermeasure, are not only a set of eight 1-phrases, but also four 2-
phrases, two 4-phrases, and a single 8-phrase. This is because each pair of 1-phrases occupies a
two-bar hypermeasure, and so can be understood at a larger level as a 2-phrase; each pair of 2phrases in turn occupies a four-bar hypermeasure, and so can be understood as a 4-phrase; and
so forth.
I must emphasize that these labels do not strictly correspond to a phrases metrical length.
Though a 4-phrase occupies a four-bar hypermeasure, it can span anywhere from two to six
measures. Conversely, not every segment four measures in length is a 4-phrase. The occupation
of a time-span is a functional designation, a description of the phrases job relative to the
schematic meter. In general, a phrase of a given type must be more or less coextensive with the
metrical time-span designated by its name. So a 4-phrase must begin at or near the beginning of
a hypermeasure and end at or near the ending of the same hypermeasure. A discrete segment
four measures long, but which is significantly offset from the hypermeter, is not a 4-phrase.
An undivided 4-phrase occupies a single hypermeasure without any internal points of
division. In beginning-accented form, the 4-phrase overlaps one four-bar downbeat at or near its
beginning. Figure 212A shows a prototypical beginning-accented 4-phrase (prosody [421-]),
and its square brackets. Figure 212B shows another beginning-accented 4-phrase. Despite its
anacrusis and truncated ending, this phrase serves to occupy a hypermeasure, just like the one
in figure 212A. (I use the term anacrusis for any portion of a beginning-accented 4-phrase
before the hypermetrical downbeat.) Compare the notation accompanying these two phrases:
the brackets show their common type, while the prosody, shown in boxes above each segment,
reflects their difference.
Figure 212. The beginning-accented 4-phrase.
212A. Parker, Nows the Time, mm. 14. {27}
421-
212B. Parker, Moose the Mooche, mm. 1724. {18}
-42-
An end-accented 4-phrase overlaps one four-bar downbeat at or near its end. Figure 213A
shows a typical example (prosody [-124]), along with its characteristic dotted square brackets. In
general, square brackets indicate 4-phrase beginnings and endings. Solid or dotted lines
indicate the location within the hypermeasure where the 4-phrase begins and ends. Like
beginning-accented 4-phrases, end-accented 4-phrases can take a variety of forms without losing
their identity. Figure 213B shows an end-accented phrase with a truncated beginning and a
short tailmodifications analogous to those illustrated in figure 212B, relative to 212A. (I
use the term tail for any portion of an end-accented phrase after the final hypermetrical
downbeat.) Just as in figure 212, the brackets in figure 213 show common type while the
prosody reveals differences. Notice that the phrase in 213B follows another phrase that has
ended in the first bar of a hypermeasureanother end-accented phrase. It is common for endaccented phrases to occur successively: the end-accentuation of one phrase forces the following
phrase to begin late, which makes it prone to end late.39
At a minimum, beginning- and end-accented 4-phrases must also overlap a two-bar
downbeat, or else the hypermeasure is insufficiently filled. (In other words, they must have at
least the prosody [42] or [24].) In figure 214, the phrase in measures 100 to 102 is not a
beginning-accented 4-phrase: its prosody is only [41]. (It is actually a beginning-accented 2phrase, as discussed below.) If the hypermeasure contained no other material, it would be
incompletely occupied.
39
Temperley (2003) discusses a similar phenomenon in classical music, common in codas.
Figure 213. The end-accented 4-phrase

213A. Rollins, St. Thomas, mm. 82109. {33}
-124
St. Thomas
By Sonny Rollins
Copyright Renewed
213B. Rollins, Moritat, mm. 5764. {32}

-24-
Figure 214. Not a 4-phrase. (Rollins, Airegin, mm. 97104 {29})
The solid-square brackets do not strictly mean beginning-accented 4-phrase, nor do the
dotted square brackets mean end-accented 4-phrase. Rather, their precise meanings may be
summarized as follows:
Square bracket: boundary of a 4-phrase

o
Beginning bracket:
Solid: before beat I.1 of the four-bar hypermeasure in question.
Dotted: after beat I.1.
Ending bracket:
Solid: before beat I.1 of the next hypermeasure.
Dotted: after beat I.1 of the next hypermeasure.
Figure 215 shows a hypermeasure, set off by double-bars, and one measure before and after.
Based on these rules, I have plotted a (non-exhaustive) range of possible locations where the
different brackets could appear.
Figure 215. Where to place 4-phrase brackets: solid v. dotted.
Figure 215 aids the interpretation of 4-phrases that depart from the two types introduced
so far. These departures fall into two categories. Figure 216 shows three instances of a 4phrase that begins after beat I.1, as though end-accented, but ends before the following
hypermeasure, as though beginning-accented. I call such phrases un-accented, since they overlap
no four-bar downbeat. (They overlap some metrical accents, but none at the four-bar level.)
Such phrases are still 4-phrases because they serve to occupy a complete hypermeasure. The
brackets of these phrases reflect the location of their beginnings and endings, as described
above. Since the beginning of such a phrase occurs after a four-bar downbeat, it is marked with
a dotted bracket; since the end occurs before a four-bar downbeat, it takes a solid bracket. This
example should make it clear that a brackets do not necessarily show the accentuation of a
phrase, only the metrical location of the beginning or ending.
The phrase in figure 216A resembles a beginning-accented 4-phrase whose beginning has
been cut off. (The first note shown in the figure is the end of the previous phrase.) The phrase
in figure 216B is quite short, but the long rest on either side, and its placement in the middle
of the hypermeasure, grant it 4-phrase status. 216C shows an un-accented phrase placed
slightly later in the hypermeasure. Notice that all of these examples overlap, at the minimum,
the two-bar downbeat in the middle of the hypermeasure. This is essential to their identity as 4phrases.
Figure 216. Some un-accented 4-phrases.
216A. Parker, Kim No. 2, mm. 1316. {26}
-12-
216B. Rollins, Airegin, mm. 2528. {29}

12-
216C. Rollins, Airegin, mm. 7376. {29}

-21-
I mentioned that end-accented phrases commonly come in a series. Un-accented phrases

often follow end-accented phrases, because they are necessary to mediate between end-accented
and beginning-accented 4-phrases. Consider: an end-accented 4-phrase cannot be followed
immediately by a beginning-accented 4-phrase, since the first phrase already overlaps the
hypermetrical downbeat with which the beginning-accented 4-phrase would have to begin. An
un-accented phrase must come between such phrases.
Less often, 4-phrases begin and end by overlapping a four-bar downbeat. Such phrases
must, at a minimum, overlap a complete hypermeasure plus the downbeat of the next
hypermeasure, with prosody [44]. I call these phrases double-accented. Figure 217 shows a
textbook double-accented 4-phrase. In measure 13, Evans seems to extend a beginning-accented
4-phrase beyond its natural ending and carries it into the next hypermeasure. The phrase
begins and ends with an overlapped four-bar downbeat, and has no clear center of accentual
gravity. The solid beginning-bracket shows the placement of the beginning before a four-bar
downbeat, and the dotted ending-bracket shows the placement of the ending shortly after a
four-bar downbeatthe opposite of the un-accented phrase.
Figure 217. The double-accented 4-phrase. (Evans, Night and Day, mm. 516) {8}
44
Meter and grouping superimpose two different structures on the musical surface, which
may or may not agree. When grouping boundaries match metrical boundaries, phrase rhythm
is in a state of consonance. Therefore, the most consonant 4-phrase begins exactly on a
hypermetrical downbeat and continues until just before the next hypermetrical downbeat. This
is the quintessential beginning-accented phrase (see fig. 212A above, and the top phrase of fig.
218 below).
All 4-phrases that depart from this norm are dissonant with the meter, to varying degrees.
Figure 218 lists the 4-phrase types, from consonant to dissonant, and shows their placement
against the meter. An anacrusis to a 4-phrase (a portion before the hypermetrical downbeat)
creates very slight dissonance. Un-accented 4-phrases are more dissonant, since they do not
reinforce the hypermetrical downbeats role as a point of departure. But because they are
confined entirely within a hypermeasure, they do not really challenge the meter either. Endaccented phrases are the most dissonant of all, because they superimpose a phrase-ending on a
location of metrical beginning.40 A tail (a portion after the hypermetrical downbeat) makes an
end-accented phrase more dissonant, by intruding further into the next hypermeasure. While
beginning-accented phrases tend to sound like they proceed from a hypermetrical downbeat
forward, end-accented phrases sound like they proceed to a hypermetrical downbeat.
40
Combined phrases, introduced below, are even more dissonant.
Figure 218. Comparison of 4-phrase types.

[4] [1] [2] [1] [4]
[4phrase
Ideal:
Beg.-acc., with anacrusis:
Un-accented:
Double-accented:
s.
End-accented:
4-phrases often contain an internal point of division. The result is a pair of 2-phrases.
Figure 219A shows a beginning-accented 4-phrase divided into two beginning-accented 2phrases. Figure 219B shows an end-accented 4-phrase divided into two end-accented 2phrases. In each case, square brackets show the boundaries of the 4-phrase; angled brackets
show the interior boundaries. Because the phrases are hierarchically nested, the square brackets
serve double duty: the first square bracket indicates the beginning of the 4-phrase and the
beginning of the first 2-phrase; the second square bracket similarly indicates the end of the 4phrase and the end of the second 2-phrase. This is made clearer in figure 2-19C, which shows
the abstract grouping structure for a pair of 2-phrases. Since every phrase-beginning or ending
at one level is also a beginning or ending at every lower level, it is unnecessary to show both
functions explicitly.
Figure 219. The 2-phrase.
219A. Parker, Nows the Time, mm. 2629 (beginning-accented 2-phrases). {27}
41-
21
219B. Rollins, Airegin, mm. 5360 (end-accented 2-phrases). {29}

-12
-14
219C. Grouping structure.

m. 53 54 55 56 57
[4] [1] [2] [1] [4]
4:
2:
4
2
][
]
2
As in the case of the 4-phrase, whether a 2-phrase (angled) bracket is solid or dotted
depends on its metrical location. Just as 4-phrase brackets were measured in relation to the
nearest four-bar downbeat, 2-phrase brackets are measured in relation to the nearest two-bar
downbeat, generally beat III.1 of the hypermeasure. The rules are analogous to those for 4phrase (square) brackets:
Angled bracket: boundary of a 2-phrase

o
Beginning bracket:
Solid: before beat III.1.
Dotted: after beat III.1.
Ending bracket:
Solid: before beat III.1.
Dotted: after beat III.1.
Figure 220A modifies figure 215, showing a (non-exhaustive) range of possible locations for
the brackets demarcating the different 2-phrases. The relationship of the 2-phrase brackets to
beat III.1 is identical to the relationship of the 4-phrase brackets to beat I.1.
Figure 220. Where to place 2-phrase brackets: solid v. dotted.
220A. Some possible brackets for the first 2-phrase.
220B. Some possible brackets for the second 2-phrase.
These rules suggest the following procedure for bracketing divided 4-phrases:
1. Identify the 4-phrase and bracket accordingly, ignoring the division.
2. Compare the ending of the first 2-phrase to beat III.1 and bracket accordingly.
3. Compare the beginning of the second 2-phrase to beat III.1 and bracket
accordingly.
Figure 221 shows some divided 4-phrases that do not exactly match the prototypes in
figure 220. In figure 221A, the 4-phrase in measures 29 to 34 is double-accented. Since its
first 2-phrase ends before beat III.1, it has a solid angled ending. In this case, its beginningaccented prosody, [41], agrees with its solid brackets, which also suggest beginningaccentuation. The second 2-phrase begins before beat III.1, and so it has a solid angled
beginning. But it ends after beat 34.1, so it is a double-accented 2-phrase, just as the overall
phrase is a double-accented 4-phrase: it overlaps a two-bar downbeat at its beginning and at its
end. Notice how the brackets around the second 2-phrase resemble those around the entire 4phrase: solid-dotted.
Figure 221. Asymmetrical 2-phrase division.
221A. Parker, Nows the Time, mm. 2637. {27}
41
24-
221B. Evans, Night and Day, mm. 3336. {8}

-1
21-
Figure 221B presents the inverse situation. The 4-phrase is un-accented. The ending of
its first 2-phrase comes before beat III.1, and so its bracket is solid. In this way, the construction
of the first 2-phrase mirrors the 4-phrase: it overlaps no two-bar downbeats, just as the 4-phrase
overlaps no four-bar downbeats. Un-accented 4-phrases, when divided into 2-phrases, always
contain at least one un-accented 2-phrase.41
Figure 222 is a challenging case. As an exercise for the reader, I first present it without
any brackets or prosody markings. I invite the reader to determine the appropriate brackets and
prosody for the two segments in measures 12 to 15 (a divided 4-phrase). Figure 222B, on the
next page, presents the same example with the brackets and prosody filled in.
Figure 222A: A challenging case. (Rollins, Blue Seven, mm. 915) {31}
Blue Seven
By Sonny Rollins
Copyright Renewed
Double-accented 4-phrases do not have the parallel requirement: they need not contain a
double-accented 2-phrase. They could begin with a beginning-accented 2-phrase and end with
an end-accented 2-phrase, without overlapping beat III.1. Charlie Parker often employs this
phrase rhythm.
41
Figure 222B. The solution to fig. 223A.
-2
The 4-phrase begins before beat 13.1 and ends before beat 17.1 (not shown), so it takes solid square
brackets. The 2-phrase division occurs before beat 15.1, so it is shown with solid angled brackets.
2-phrases are sometimes divided into pairs of 1-phrases. These are shown with curved
brackets. (In these cases, I usually label the prosody of the 2-phrase rather than its constituent
1-phrases.) Figure 223A shows a typical instance. The procedure for notating this situation
logically extends the bracket notation to the next level. First, bracket the 4-phrase as though it
were undivided. Then bracket the 2-phrases as though they were undivided. Finally, show
divisions of the 2-phrases with solid round brackets. (For 1-phrases, I do not bother with solid
and dotted brackets.) In this case, the square brackets serve triple duty: the first one shows the
beginning of the 4-phrase, the first 2-phrase, and the first 1-phrase; the second one shows the
ending of the 4-phrase, the second 2-phrase, and the fourth 1-phrase. Similarly, now the 2phrase brackets serve double-duty, indicating divisions at the 2-phrase and 1-phrase levels.
Figure 223B illustrates the grouping structure. Notice how the 4-phrase brackets extend down
through two additional levels, and the 2-phrase brackets extend through one additional level.
Figure 223. The 1-phrase.
223A. Brown, Valse Hot, mm. 613. {5}
41
21
223B. Grouping structure.

m. 10 11 12 13 14
[4] [1] [2] [1] [4]
4:
2:
1:
[ 1 ][ 1 ][ 1 ][ 1 ]
][
]
2
Often, only one of a pair of 2-phrases is divided (usually the first: a sentential structure,
short-short-long). Figure 224 presents this situation.
Figure 224. Sentence-structure, 1/1/2. (Rollins, Blue Seven, mm. 82109) {31}
21
41
Blue Seven
By Sonny Rollins
Copyright Renewed
The division of a 4-phrase into four 1-phrases can have some unusual consequences for
prosody. Figure 225 shows an un-accented 4-phrase, a type favored by Bill Evans. Its
constituent 2-phrases are themselves un-accented: the first begins after beat I.1 but ends before
III.1, the second begins after III.1 but ends before the subsequent I.1. Even the 1-phrases are
un-accented, so there are no overlapped downbeats at all.
Fig. 225. No overlapped downbeats. (Evans, How Deep Is the Ocean? mm. 1316) {11}

Copyright Renewed
The phrase-types described above are valid for all schemes that maintain consistent fourbar hypermeter. They relate melodic segments to metrical units of various length. Whenever a
scheme has eight-bar hypermeasures, 8-phrases may also appear. (Eight-bar hypermeasures are
coextensive with sections in thirty-two-bar AABA and ABAC form.) An 8-phrase is a discrete
phrase or set of smaller phrases that occupies an eight-bar hypermeasure. Like the other types,
8-phrases can be beginning-, end-, un-, or double-accented. Figure 226 presents a beginningaccented 8-phrase, divided into 4-phrases, and illustrates the notation: double square brackets
at the beginning and end. As with other phrase types, the different types of 8-phrase are
consonant or dissonant to varying degrees, ranging from beginning-accented (most consonant)
to end-accented (most dissonant).
Figure 226. The beginning-accented 8-phrase. (Parker, Ornithology, mm. 18) {19}
42-
42-
The constituent phrases of an 8-phrase may be further divided. In figure 227A, four 2phrases form a beginning-accented 8-phrase. The 2-phrases all have similar prosody. Like 4phrase and 2-phrase brackets, 8-phrase brackets frequently serve double- or triple-duty: the
bracket in measure 16 indicates the beginning of the 8-phrase, the first 4-phrase, and the first 2phrase. Figure 227B shows the grouping structure of 227A.
Figure 227. An 8-phrase made from four 2-phrases.

227A. Evans, Nardis, mm. 1324. {12}
-4-
-2
-4
-2-
Nardis
By Miles Davis
Copyright 1959 JAZZ HORN MUSIC CORP.
Copyright Renewed
All Rights Controlled and Administered by SONGS OF UNIVERSAL, INC.
All Rights Reserved Used by Permission

m. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
[8] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [8]
8:
4:
2:
8
4
2
][
][
2
][
4
2
][
]
2
I conclude this section with a tutorial analysis of the first chorus from Miles Daviss twochorus solo on Oleo. I selected this solo specifically for the clarity of its phrase rhythm, which
is more consonant than that of any other solo in this dissertation. (The solo is analyzed in full
in chapter 3.) For the readers benefit, figure 228A presents the entire first chorus, without
annotations. Figure 228B fills in the brackets and prosody.
Figure 228A. Davis, Oleo, mm. 132.42 {7}
42
Figure 228B. Davis, Oleo, with brackets and prosody shown.

41-
-1-
-12-
-2-
-1
1-
21
-1-
-1-
-1-
-14
-2
421
The solo opens with a beginning-accented 4-phrase and an un-accented 4-phrase, which
form a beginning-accented 8-phrase. The first 4-phrase is divided into parallel 2-phrases.
Relatively speaking, the second 2-phrase (mm. 34) begins an eighth-note later than the first,
on beat 1.5 of the measure rather than beat 1. This causes its beginning-bracket to be dotted,
rather than solid. It would have been solid if the phrase had begun before measure 3, beat 1.
Davis also fills measures 9 to 16 with an 8-phrase (this time, un-accented), but one whose
constituent 4-phrases are more unusual. The first 4-phrase is end-accented, extending into
measure 13. (The two-note segment in measure 13, motivically connected with the previous
segment by its descending third, is a suffix, defined below.) The second 4-phrase (mm. 1415) is
quite short. It is also an excellent example of accent-borrowing: its final note, on beat 15.4.5,
anticipates the harmony of measure 16 and borrows the accent of beat 16.1, giving the 4-phrase
a prosody of [21] rather than [2-].
In the third section (mm. 1724), Davis sets up the expectation for another consonant 8phrase but departs at the last moment, turning an un-accented 8-phrase into an end-accented 8phrase by overlapping beat 25.1. The section opens with three repetitions of the same 2-phrase.
Since the first 2-phrase ends before beat III.1 (19.1), and the second begins after beat III.1, the
2-phrases are un-accented. Though these segments are highly dissonant with the harmony, after
three repetitions of the same 2-phrase, the phrase rhythm appears predictable, even banal.
Parallelism would suggest that the fourth appearance (begun in m. 23) will resemble the others.
But the fourth 2-phrase begins an eighth-note later than expected and ends a quarter-note later
than expected. This small deviation has a significant consequence: the 8-phrase in measures 17
to 24 becomes end-accented, creating deep dissonance between grouping and meter, and
suppressing the schemes half-cadence in measure 24.
The final eight measures (2532) contain an un-accented 4-phrase followed by a
beginning-accented 4-phrase, which reverses the order of the 4-phrases in measures 1 to 8. The
final 4-phrase is highly consonant with the meter, following the prototypical 4-phrase prosody
of [421] and ending within the hypermeasure.
(It is conceivable to put a 2-phrase division in measure 30, after the high Bb. This division
is supported chiefly by strong beat (the backwards influence of beat 31.1) and contour (the
reversal of direction). For me, this moment does not quite cross the threshold into 2-phrase
division, but for another analyst, it might.)
For this tutorial analysis, I have not discussed any deeper issues of phrase rhythm, such as
the relationship of the solo to the scheme at higher levels, the similarities and differences
between sections, or the long-term progression of consonance and dissonance. I save these
subjects for later chapters.
Prefixes and Suffixes; Phrase Overlap; Combined Phrases; Rhyme
There are three means of modifying these basic phrases: the addition of prefixes and suffixes;
phrase overlap; and phrase combination. 4-phrases may contain a short prefix or suffix separated
from most of the phrase by a rest. This divides the complete phrase into two discrete units,
with the prefix or suffix substantially shorter than the main part of the phrase. A prefix seems
to set up the longer segment that follows, while a suffix seems like an afterthought to the
preceding segment. (I have already introduced the suffix, in figure 228, measure 13.) A vertical
line separates a prefix or suffix from the remainder of the phrase. Square brackets encompass
the entire 4-phrase, including the prefix or suffix.
Figure 229 has a prefix in measures 12 to 13. This prefix initiates a 4-phrase, the bulk of
which falls in measures 13 to 15. If the prefix were left out, the 4-phrase would transform from
beginning-accented to un-accented, since it would begin after beat I.1 of the hypermeasure. The
prefix highlights the hypermetrical downbeat (beat 13.1 in the figure), and makes the overall 4phrase beginning-accented.
Figure 229. A prefix. (Parker, Scrapple From the Apple, mm. 916) {22}
-12-
-42-
If the prefix in figure 229 fell one beat earlier, such that it ended within measure 12, I
might have analyzed it instead as a suffix to the previous phrase. The phrase rhythm of figure
229two 4-phrases separated by a short segment that overlaps beat I.1is common. In this
arrangement, the short segment links the two larger segments together. But the designation
prefix or suffix requires that the short segment be understood as connected to either the
preceding or following longer segment, as part of the same 4-phrase. The forward-looking
quality of meter suggests that short segments that end at or after beat I.1 should usually be
attached to the 4-phrase that follows. (The example from Oleo, fig. 228, is an exception.)
A series of discrete 4-phrases, even of varying type, can become monotonous. Phrase
overlap, a notion familiar from theories of classical music, is one way of escaping this monotony.
In this case, a pivot note overlapping beat I.1 of a hypermeasure seems simultaneously to end a
segment and begin the following segment. It links two segments together, while maintaining
their essential independence. On classical music, William Rothstein writes, A phrase overlap
is most likely to occur when the first of two phrases ends either at (or just after) a hypermetrical
downbeat (1989: 48). The same is true in jazz: as I define it, a pivot note always overlaps a
hypermetrical downbeat. Segmentation factor 3 (strong beat) is relevant here. In a phrase
overlap, the metrical accent on the pivot note encourages the hearing of a grouping boundary,
when plausible. A pivot note also stands out from the surrounding melody in some other way,
most often through relative duration or contour.
Figure 230 present two phrase overlaps, where the end of a 4-phrase overlaps with the
beginning of a 2-phrase. In figure A, on beat 89.1, a pivot note joins an end-accented 4-phrase
with a 2-phrase. The 4-phrase ends when the 2-phrase begins. The brackets surrounding the
pivot note reflect its dual role. (An underlined 4 in the prosody notation shows a phrase
overlap.) In figure A, the pivot note is marked by its relatively long duration and the different
rhythmic divisions on either side; in figure B, the pivot note is a melodic low point. Low points
make especially good pivots: a descent leads into the pivot and an ascent leads from the pivot,
contours often associated with ending and beginning, respectively.
Figure 231 plots the grouping structure of figure 230 (examples A and B have the same
grouping structure), with the overlap shown with an O. The first 4-phrase overlaps with the
following 2-phrase. By extension through the phrase hierarchy, it also overlaps with the
following 4-phrase. Phrase overlap creates some dissonance, since it requires an end-accented
phrase. But a phrase overlap is less dissonant than an isolated end-accented phrase, since the
second phrase of the overlapping pair reinforces the role of the hypermetrical downbeat as a
point of departure.
Figure 230. Phrase overlap.

230A. Evans, Solar, mm. 8591. {13}
1241-
Solar
By Miles Davis
Copyright Renewed
230B. Rollins, St. Thomas, mm. 110117. {33}

441-
St. Thomas
By Sonny Rollins
Copyright Renewed
Figure 231. Grouping structure in a phrase overlap. (O indicates the point of overlap.)
[4] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [4]
4:
2:
O
O
4
2
][
]
2
As I have defined them, 8-phrases, 4-phrases, 2-phrases, and 1-phrases must be roughly
coextensive with metrical time-spans. Consider now the second phrase in figure 232. Though
it is roughly four measures long, it is not a 4-phrase, because it does not occupy a single four-bar
hypermeasure of the scheme. It is not a pair of overlapping phrases, because the Eb on beat
89.1 does not stand out as a pivot note. Instead, this phrase occupies two distinct metrical timespans: a two-bar hypermeasure in measures 87 and 88, and a four-bar hypermeasure in
measures 89 to 92. It is a combined phrase. Because it fills the roles of both a 2-phrase and a 4phrase, it is a 2+4 combined phrase. The + symbols below the phrases brackets show this
type. Just as other phrases are defined by their occupation of metrical time-spans, combined
phrases cross four-bar downbeats and occupy two different metrical time-spans. This does not
merely demand that a combined phrase have parts in two hypermeasures: beginning-accented
4-phrases often begin in measure IV of the previous hypermeasure, and end-accented 4-phrases
always fall within two different hypermeasures, since they end at or after beat I.1, but these are
not combined phrases. Rather, melodic characteristics of the combined phrase must make it
sound as though it contributes to both hypermeasures. In the next section, I elucidate the
difference between these interpretations with several examples.
Figure 232. A 2+4 combined phrase. (Evans, All the Things You Are, mm. 8592) {15}
41
242
All The Things You Are

From VERY WARM FOR MAY
Lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein II
Music by Jerome Kern
Copyright 1939 UNIVERSALPOLYGRAM INTERNATIONAL PUB., INC.
Copyright Renewed
Figure 233. Grouping structure, figure 232 (phrase combination).

[4] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1]
8:
4:
2:
][
2+4
Figure 233 shows the grouping structure of figure 232. The two phrases constitute an 8phrase: they occupy an eight-measure hypermeasure. But there is no 4-phrase level in the
passage, because no single segment serves to occupy a four-bar hypermeasure. The 2+4 phrase is
shown at the 2-phrase level, rather than the 4-phrase level, because it is only consonant with the
meter at this level (as a set of three two-bar hypermeasures). Because they suppress the 4-phrase
level, combined phrases are extremely dissonantmuch more so even than end-accented 4phrases. But when they take place within an eight-bar hypermeasure, as they do here, combined
phrases create highly unified 8-phrases, by shifting attention from the four-bar to the eight-bar
level. In subsequent chapters, I will present some examples of combined phrases that run across
an eight-bar downbeat, disrupting the 4-phrase and 8-phrase levels.
With these concepts in place, I can discuss a final factor of phrase rhythm: rhyme. Rhyme
is often casually invoked in discussions of music, but I use it in a very specific way. Two
segments rhyme when they begin or end at the same point within a measure, two-bar
hypermeasure, or four-bar hypermeasure. Two segments that begin at (or near) the same
relative metrical location have beginning-rhyme, while two segments that end at (or near) the
same relative metrical location have end-rhyme. End-rhyme is generally more conspicuous than
beginning-rhyme, as in poetic verse.
Figure 234 presents some rhyming phrases. In 234A, the 4-phrases begin at the same
hypermetrical location. This creates beginning-rhyme at the four-bar level, since the interval
between the rhymes is four measures. Figure 234B illustrates beginning-rhyme and end-rhyme
at the two-bar level, in the 2-phrases in measures 60 to 63. Figure 234C shows two instances
of end-rhyme. Its first two 1-phrases (mm. 33-34) end on beat 4, a rhyme at the one-bar level. A
long combined phrase follows, the end of which also rhymes with these 1-phrases by ending on
beat 4. This rhyme occurs at an interval of five and six measures from the 1-phrases. It helps
unify the 8-phrase as a whole but it does not create a correspondence between rhyme and the
schematic meter, the way the other rhymes do.
Figure 234. Rhyme.

234A. Beginning-rhyme. (Evans, Nardis, mm. 18) {12}
121-
12-
Nardis
By Miles Davis
Copyright Renewed
234B. Beginning- and end-rhyme. (Rollins, St. Thomas, mm. 5764) {33}
4-
2-
St. Thomas
By Sonny Rollins
Copyright Renewed
234C. End-rhyme. (Evans, Nardis, mm. 3340) {12}

41-
-142-
Nardis
By Miles Davis
Copyright Renewed
As I have defined it, rhyme does not require melodic or even rhythmic parallelism
between different segments, only parallelism in metrical location. When present, melodic and
rhythmic parallelism intensify rhyme. The rhyming 2-phrases in figure 234B have parallel
melodies and rhythms, as do the 1-phrases in figure 234C. But rhymes lacking these
reinforcements remain audible and affect phrase rhythm. Rhyme helps resolve ambiguities in
the phrase rhythm hierarchy, by suggesting how smaller segments should be grouped into larger
segments. Specifically, when possible, rhyming segments should be grouped together as part of
the same larger phrase.
Resolving Ambiguities
I have hand-picked the preceding examples to illustrate the theorys concepts. They may have
created the impression that the identification of phrase types depends entirely on the metrical
location of a phrases beginning and ending; it does not. Ambiguous situations arise, usually
involving phrases that end just after beat I.1. It is often unclear whether to treat these phrases
as combinedoccupying two different time-spansor merely end-accentedcrossing into the
next hypermeasure without really occupying any part of it. Figure 235 shows the difference
between these two interpretations, in the abstract grouping structure.
Figure 235. A common source of ambiguity.

[4] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [4]
Ambig. segment:
As end-acc. 4-phrase:
4:
][
2:
4+2
][
1:
4+1
][ 1 ]
As 4+1 comb. phrase:

4:
2
The passage in figure 236A will illustrate this difference further. The segment in
measures 65 to 69 might be a 4+1 combined phrase (figure 236B) or, alternatively, an endaccented phrase (figure 236C). As analyzed in figure B, the segment contributes a 4-phrase to
measures 65 to 68, and a 1-phrase to measures 69 to 72. The eighth-rest on beat 69.1
punctuates a three-note motive (C-B-A), repeated exactly one measure later as G-F-E and
extended by two notes. Figure 236B accounts for this motivic connection by placing both
instances of the motive within the same 2-phrase, which combines with the preceding 4-phrase.
(Because of the hierarchical nature of grouping structure, there is a 4+1 and a 4+2 combined
phrase.) In ambiguous situations, motivically connected segments should belong to the same
larger phrase when possible, as suggested by grouping factor 4.
Figure 236: Combination or end-accentuation?
236A. Rollins, St. Thomas, mm. 6572. {33}
St. Thomas
By Sonny Rollins
Copyright Renewed
236B. As combination.
-1241-
236C. As end-accentuation.
In terms of hearing, I prefer figure 236B because I hear the last portion of the segment in
measures 65 to 69 as initiating something new, which continues in the next segment. On the
opposing hearing, shown in figure 236C, the phrase-ending in measure 69 is much more
final, and the next segment initiates a new group at a deep level. I find it very difficult to hear
the passage in this way.
Figure 236 presented a combined phrase that might be mistaken for an end-accented 4phrase. The opposite can also occur: an end-accented 4-phrase might mistaken for a combined
phrase.43 Figure 237 shows two instances of such a 4-phrase, both by Charlie Parker. In both,
the end-accented 4-phrase lasts until beat I.3 of the following hypermeasure, but a long IOI
deepens the division between the phrase-ending and the next segment. In terms of hearing, in
Ambiguity between end-accented and overlapped phrases also arises in classical music.
Rothstein writes, The juxtaposition of phrases in an afterbeat [end-accented] pattern can easily
take on the appearance of a series of phrase overlaps (1989: 48). Just as jazz musicians and
classical composers draw from the same well of harmonic and melodic devices, they also
explore similar subtleties of phrase rhythm.
43
figure 237A, I do not hear the last portion of the segment ending in measure 6 as initiating a
new melodic idea or segment. It sounds like a beginning only because of its metrical strength.
The same goes for figure 237B, measure 9. There is also no motivic connection comparable
to that in figure 236. This is not to suggest that phrase rhythm should always be analyzed to
show motivic connection above other factors; I believe one can hear motivic connections across
significant phrase divisions, and between segments occurring quite far apart in the music.
Motive plays a decisive role in determining phrase rhythm only when other factors, such as IOI
and strong beat, are insufficient or ambiguous, especially when it comes to the hierarchical
organization of segments.
Figure 237. End-accentuation that resembles combination.
237A. Parker, Yardbird Suite, mm. 19. {20}
-44-
237B. Parker, Dewey Square, mm. 512. {21}

-14-
41-
-2
When introducing the prefix and suffix, I claimed that short segments ending at or after
beat I.1 should usually be attached to the following hypermeasure. It turns out that even short
segments ending before beat I.1 can be attached to the following hypermeasure, due to rhyme or
a motivic connection. In figure 238, Sonny Rollins uses melodic parallelism and contour to
suggest this phrase rhythm. The segment in measure 36, considering only its metrical
placement, would most naturally be interpreted as a suffix to the preceding 4-phrase. But I
prefer to interpret it as the first 1-phrase of the following 4-phrase. Rollinss immediate
repetition of F#-G in measure 37 creates a link between measure 36 and the following
hypermeasure. Measures 38 and 39 echo measures 36 and 37: I hear the G on beat 36.4 as an
anticipation of beat 37.1, corresponding to the A on beat 39.1; the subsequent motion to F#
on beat 37.3 corresponds with the move from A to G on beat 39.3. Finally, the ending on beat
37.4.5 rhymes with that on beat 39.4.5, creating parallelism between successive 2-phrases. The
first 1-phrase, in measure 36, is entirely contained in the preceding hypermeasure, creating
remarkable dissonance between meter and grouping structure.
Figure 238. Ambiguous phrase rhythm. (Rollins, St. Thomas, mm. 3340) {33}
4-
-41
-2
21
St. Thomas
By Sonny Rollins
Copyright Renewed
Figure 239 shows two instances of phrase division without pause, where a grouping
boundary is not supported by IOI. In 239A, the voice-leading and contour suggest a grouping
boundary after beat 58.1. The note on this beat resolves a double-chromatic approach from the
previous measure, a conclusive gesture. The Bb on beat 58.1.5 initiates new melodic motion
upwards. There is no pivot note, nor melodic continuity, nor slur between the F and Bb, so
neither a phrase overlap nor a combined phrase is indicated.
Figure 239. Phrase division without pause.

239A. Brown, Valse Hot, mm. 54-71. {5}
239B. Rollins, Blue Seven, mm. 143-160. {31}
Blue Seven
By Sonny Rollins
Copyright Renewed
My reading of figure 239B is perhaps unintuitive, but I believe it is supported by the

music. The questionable grouping boundary comes between beat 146.1 and 146.1.5. On the
recording, Rollins inserts a lift between the Bb and Ab, which supports hearing Bb as the
termination of a phrase. In terms of voice-leading, the Db on beat 145.1 travels up an octave
during measure 145 before resolving through C to Bb on beat 146.1. The arrival on scale
degree 1 highlights this moment as an end-point. The strong downbeat of measure 147 exerts
its backwards influence to the nearest plausible boundary, which is just after this Bb. Therefore,
articulation, strong beat, and voice-leading all support my interpretation.
Earlier, I downplayed motive and voice-leading as factors of segmentation. But as these

analyses show, they play a role in two situations: the resolution of ambiguity, and the
determination of higher-level phrase rhythm. Often, determining the smallest segments of a
solo is easy, while determining how best to group those segments into 2- and 4-phrases is
difficult. Factors that do not play a role in initial segmentation come to the fore during this
process.
80
PART II: APPLICATIONS

Introduction
Each chapter of Part II focuses on schemes of a particular type: thirty-two-bar AABA, thirty-twobar ABAC, twelve-bar blues, and a selection of metrically atypical schemes. I discuss the general
properties of each type and then discuss the phrase rhythm of several solos in detail. In the
appendix, all of the solos discussed in chapters 3 through 7 appear in full, with analytical
annotations.
The works I examine span the fifteen years from 1946 to 1961, and all might be said to fit
into the bebop tradition. (Bebop tradition includes all bebops immediate descendants: hard
bop, cool jazz, etc.) Bebop and its descendants are perhaps the most widely-played style of jazz
today. Gary Giddins and Scott Deveaux write:
If the present era is not dominated by a single jazz school, it does offer something
akin to a universal lingua francaTodays jazz musicians can all speak the same
language: a musical patois grounded in bebop, with respect for previous jazz schools
and knowledge of later ones.44 (2009: 607)
Given this status, I hope readers will recognize many familiar techniques in the solos that
followand even some of the solos themselves. My choice of solos was motivated by a desire to
showcase a variety of approaches to each scheme-type, and by the availability of transcriptions.
I include the most important melodic instruments of bebop: tenor and alto saxophone,
trumpet, and piano. I represent many significant figures from this period: Cannonball
Adderley, Clifford Brown, Miles Davis, Bill Evans, Stan Getz, Charlie Parker, Bud Powell, and
Sonny Rollins. With an eye towards brevity, I offer only cursory biographies of the performers.
I advise the curious reader to peruse the New Grove Dictionary of Jazz or any historical survey.45
The primary goal of this dissertation is to present a new analytical method. From this
follow two caveats. First, I make no claim of comprehensiveness in my choice of repertoire.
Thomas Owens also calls bebop the lingua franca of jazz (1995: 4).
For example, Giddins & Deveaux 2009, Gioia 1997, Gridley 2006, Martin & Waters 2002,
Owens 1995
44
45
Part II: ApplicationsIntroduction 81
Limitations of space and time prevent me from tackling any individuals style in depth, or from
offering anything approaching a survey of jazz in a certain time period. The generalizations I
make are speculative, the conclusions, tentative.
Second, I make no attempt at comprehensiveness in my analyses; indeed, by a strict
definition, they are not analyses at all. According to David Lewin, what I present here is theory,
not analysis: I am attempting to validate my ideas by point[ing] out passages from the
literature as support for the putative pertinence of [my] notions; I am trying to focus [my]
readers ears on what I am interested in (1969: 63). Analysis begins with a piece; I began with a
method, and selected the solos in this section to demonstrate its applicability. Therefore, I
ignore many aspects of these solos altogether, not because they are unimportant or make no
contribution to the solos value, but because they are outside the scope of this dissertation.
Chorus-level Phrase Rhythm
I frequently invoke the concept of chorus-level phrase rhythm. Both AABA and ABAC forms
divide four eight-bar hypermeasures (or sections). I believe one does not perceive meter at the
eight- and sixteen-bar levels in the same way as at lower levels: the eight-bar and sixteen-bar
beats are too far apart in real time to be experienced as temporal periodicities, and arise
through unconscious accumulation of lower-level beats. Nevertheless, the ubiquity of the
division into eight-bar hypermeasures allows experienced listeners and players to feel these
beats in a manner analogous to metrical beats.
Chorus-level phrase rhythm arises through the interaction of grouping structure with
sectional downbeats. When a phrase ends before such a beat, and a new phrase begins at or
near such a beat, the sectional division is confirmed. When the soloist overlaps a sectional
downbeat with an end-accented phrase, the division is disrupted: the downbeat points forward
while the ending points backward, heightening the tension intrinsic to the end-accented
phrase. The most disruptive situation is a combined phrase that overlaps a sectional downbeat.
In one chorus of an AABA scheme, the soloist has four chances to confirm or challenge a
sectional beat: one between each section, and one final opportunity at the end of the solo
either to conclude within the final A section, or to overlap the downbeat of the next chorus
(quite common). A solo in which the performer contradicts sectional downbeats tends to be
Part II: ApplicationsIntroduction 82
much more dissonant than one in which those downbeats are confirmed. In a multi-chorus
solo, another level of beats emerges: chorus downbeats. The performer may confirm or
contradict these just like any other, with the expected effect. Alongside the lower-level phrase
rhythm that was the focus of chapter 2, I discuss these high-level interactions extensively in the
analyses that follow.
(N.B. When referring to sections of a multi-chorus solo, the number of the chorus comes
first, followed by the name of the section. For example, in an AABA form, the sections are
labeled A1, A2, B, and A3; 2A3 would refer to the second chorus, section A3.)
83

AABA Form
Most thirty-two-bar schemes are cast in AABA or ABAC form, based on melodic recurrences
and the occurrence of certain harmonic events at sectional boundaries. The following events
characterize an idealized AABA (A1 A2 B A3) form (see figure 31):46
1. Recurrence of melody and harmony from section A1 in sections A2 and A3;
2. A new melody and harmonic digression in section B;
3. A half-cadence or evaded cadence at the end of sections A1 and B;
4. A full cadence at the end of sections A2 and A3, which I call the medial and final
cadences.
Figure 31. An idealized AABA form.
Section:
A1 |
A2 |
A3 |
Melody:
Harmony:
| IHC |IPAC | ?HC |I PAC|
Terefenko (2004) considers both AABA and ABAC to be two-part forms: Though each
section of these designs is self-contained, the overall structure exhibits binary characteristics
with a harmonic interruption occurring in m. 24 of the AABA form and m. 16 of the ABAC
form (vol. 1: 57). His perspective is explicitly Schenkerian: Two basic tonal motions
characterize the two branches of the interruption: 1) IV, and 2) II (ibid., my emphasis).
I prefer to view AABA form as having essentially three parts, A1 A2 / B / A3.47 My view is
based on the occurrence of harmonic closure and thematic reprise at metrically significant
moments. I agree with Terefenko that the boundary between sections B and A3 is significant:
the thematic reprise here, most often preceded by a half cadence, creates a strong formal
division just before beat 25.1, the beginning of section A3. But I also believe the medial
cadence at the end of section A2, coupled with the melodic and harmonic digression that
Compare Figure 2.1 in Terefenko 2004, vol. 2: 139.

I avoid the label ternary because this term has too many connotations in theories of
classical music.
46
47
84
usually initiates section B, create a division of equal significance at beat 17.1. This establishes
the three-part form A1 A2 / B / A3. Like beat 25.1, beat 17.1 is marked with significant events
immediately both before (a PAC) and after (a melodic/harmonic digression).
An analogy might be drawn between thirty-two-bar AABA form and rounded binary
form in classical music, which I diagram A :||: B A. The first A section usually ends with a
tonicization of V (or bIII in minor), but a PAC in tonic sometimes occurs here.48 Schenkerians
make no distinction between these cases in their interpretation of the forms primary
division.49 They always place the form-defining interruption after section B, dividing the form
into two parts: A B || A. (This contradicts the location of the repeat signs.)
On the other hand, casual descriptions of the form sometimes stress the off-tonic cadence
at the end of the first half as a defining feature, and imply that the forms primary division is
between sections A and B, in agreement with the repeat signs. The Harvard Dictionary of Music
says, The first [half] generally modulates from the tonic to a related keyThe second [half]
reverses this motionBinary form is thus an archetypal example of open tonal structure at the
large scale, in which motion away from the tonic in one part requires a complementary return
to the tonic in a second (White 2003: 100). Similarly, according to Grove: Binary form is
characterized by an articulated movement to another key followed by an articulated return to
tonic. A conclusive arrival on the principal contrasting key (normally the dominant) marks the
end of the first section (Sutcliffe 2010). These descriptions do not account for rounded binary
pieces in which the first half remains closes in tonic. They also contradict the Schenkerians.
William Caplin (1998) takes a third position of rounded binary form, which accords with
my view of AABA form, and which accommodates both modulating and non-modulating first
halves. He calls rounded binary form small ternary, describing the three sections as
exposition (corresponding to A1 and A2), contrasting middle (B), and recapitulation
(A3) (71). His description of small ternary form could also apply to AABA form:
The exposition is constructed as a tight-knit theme, most often a periodThe theme
ends with a perfect authentic cadence in either the home key or, in the case of a
modulating A section, a closely related, subordinate keyThe exposition emphasizes
For example, in the trio of Mozarts Symphony no. 35, third movement, analyzed in both
Schachter 1999 and Cadwallader and Gagn 1998.
49
See Cadwallader and Gagn 1998: 224243 for two analyses along these lines.
48
85
tonic harmony (by beginning and ending with this harmonic function)The
harmonic goal of the [middle] section is, with rare exceptions, the dominant of the
home keyThe [recapitulation] must begin with the basic idea from the exposition
and close in the home key with a perfect authentic cadence. (1998: 71)
The exposition of a typical AABA form (A1 A2) is a parallel interrupted period; but this
period is not always constructed according to classical norms, with the first phrase terminating
in a half-cadence. Instead of a half-cadence, section A1 often ends with a tonic-evading
turnaround. In such a turnaround, a cadential dominant proceeds not to tonic, but directly
to iii-7, which functions as ii in a iiV progression to the supertonic. This suppresses the
potential tonic arrival at the end of section A1, and postpones the moment of harmonicmetrical closure until the end of section A2. Indeed, this gesture is often substituted into
schemes whose A1 sections normally close on tonic.
The most important formal events of AABA form are the medial cadence (in the tonic or
some other key), a contrasting middle section that ends on a functional dominant, and a
recapitulation at the opening of section A3three parts, rather than two. In the introduction to
Part II, I posited the concept of chorus-level phrase rhythm, the soloists confirmation or denial
of the choruss most important divisions. At the very highest level, AABA forms have a threepart structure. Just as a soloists low-level phrase rhythm takes place against the schemes twoand four-bar hypermeter, a soloists chorus-level phrase rhythm takes place against this
structure.
Miles Davis, Oleo (1954)50
I introduced the first chorus of this two-chorus solo in the previous chapter. The clarity of
Daviss phrase rhythm makes it ideal to introduce the analytical method. Davis (19261991) is
truly a towering figure in the history of jazz. He is perhaps best known for the 1959 album
Kind of Blue, an early example of modal jazz. According to Henry Martin and Keith Waters,
Davis was consistently on the cutting edge of musical developments across four decades of
50
The complete transcription appears on page 227.
86
jazz history, with an uncanny ability to explore and develop new styles, including
collaboration with Charlie Parker during bebops formative years (2002: 233).
Oleo was a favorite scheme of Daviss. He recorded it several times across an eleven-year
portion of his career, from this recording (the first) until 1965; there must have been countless
unrecorded performances as well. The scheme superimposes a jerky, unpredictable melody over
the chord progression of I Got Rhythm (Rhythm changes). Rhythm changes are the
quintessential AABA form, fitting figure 31 (above) perfectly.51 The first two A sections
present identical eight-bar prolongations of tonic, save for an evaded cadence at the end of
section A1; the B section contains a circle-of-fifths sequence terminating on a half-cadence.
(Two other solos analyzed in this chapter, Charlie Parkers Moose the Mooche and Bud
Powells Wail, are also based on Rhythm changes.)
The phrase rhythm of Daviss two-chorus solo is extremely consonant. The solo includes
no combined phrases, and only three end-accented phrases (including the final phrase of the
solo). To hear the richness of the solos phrase rhythm requires sensitivity to slight dissonance
and manipulation of expectations.
In the first chorus, parallelism between sections A1 and A2, and suppression of the halfcadence at the end of the bridge (weakening the division here), suggest a binary structure: A1
A2 / B A3. In the second chorus, recurring tension between diatonicism and blues permeates
sections A1 and A2. Clear divisions after sections A2 and B imply a chorus-level three-part
structureA1 A2 / B / A3in accordance with schematic AABA form.
Each section exhibits a characteristic design. The A1 sections of both choruses, shown in
figure 32, employ the same phrase rhythm: a divided, beginning-accented 4-phrase followed by
an un-accented 4-phrase. This is the only 8-phrase design that appears twice in the solo. There
are differences between the sections, however. The pair of 2-phrases in measures 1 to 4 are
almost identical, except the second begins an eighth-note too late. (This slight alteration moves
the second 2-phrases strongest metrical accent to the middle of the phrase.) The near-perfect
repetition and the implication of dominant harmony in measure 4 leave the 4-phrase open-
It is easily forgotten that I Got Rhythm, as originally composed by George Gershwin, is

thirty-four measures long, not thirty-two: section A3 features a two-bar extension. Such is the
power of metrical convention that most performances of Gershwins tune, and schemes based
on its harmonic progression, tend to omit this extension and normalize the meter.
51
87
ended. The second 4-phrase (mm. 58) sounds like an answer to this phrase, and this
relationship unifies the 8-phrase as a 2+2+4 sentence. In section 2A1 (mm. 3340), the first 4phrase sounds more self-contained (its internal division is weak), and the second 4-phrase does
not sound like a necessary response or answer to the first. Instead, end-rhyme between
measures 35 and 39 unifies the 4-phrases of the 8-phrase.
Figure 32. Davis, Oleo, sections 1A1 and 2A1.52 {7}
32A. Section 1A1 (mm. 18).
41-
-1-
-12-
-41-
32B. Section 2A1 (mm. 3242).

2-
-12
Section 1A2 (fig. 33), like 1A1, sounds self-contained and complete only at the 8-phrase
level. The end-accentuation of the first 4-phrase obscures the metrical midpoint of the section
at beat 13.1. Davis constructs its first 4-phrase from a motive in descending skips, varying the
rhythm slightly. He progressively alters the motives prosody through its three complete
appearances (912): beginning-, then middle-, then end-accented. The larger segment
containing these three appearances is itself middle-accented, an example of remarkable
symmetry. The fourth, partial appearance of the motive in measure 13 appends a suffix to the
52
88
4-phrase and makes it end-accented. This shifts attention to the 8-phrase level, at which level
closure is achieved in measure 15.
Figure 33. Davis, Oleo, section 1A2 (mm. 916). {7}

-1
-2-
1-
21
The first two sections of chorus 1 (figs. 32A and 33) are self-contained 8-phrases, with
close internal connections but no dependence on one another (discounting the similarity of
their endings in mm. 7 and 15). On the other hand, the blue color of section 2A1 (fig. 32B),
especially the ending on b3, leaves it more open-ended than 1A1. The melody of 1A1, at the
beginning of the solo, being consonant and well-circumscribed, serves an expositional role. The
greater tension of 2A1 befits the middle portion of the solo. It also places greater demands on
section 2A2 (fig. 34), which must resolve or sustain the bluesy tension.
Figure 34. Davis, Oleo, section 2A2 (mm. 4148). {7}
41-
2-
421
The sections first 4-phrase continues the blue color of 2A1. The second 4-phrase (mm.
4447) returns to diatonicism and brings the choruss first half to a satisfying close, with the
same ending formula as appeared in measures 7 and 15, to close sections 1A1 and 1A2.
Though the phrase rhythm of section 2A2 is highly consonant, the tension between blues and
diatonicism maintains interest.
In the bridge of both choruses, Davis manipulates the expectation of melodic parallelism;
section 2B even builds on the expectations established by 1B. To balance this, the final A
89
section of each chorus resolves tensions created by the bridge. In chapter 2, I mentioned the
unexpected, last-minute turn to end-accentuation in measure 25 (fig. 35), after the same 2phrase has appeared thrice in succession. This suppresses the schematic half-cadence in
measure 24. Another consequence of the end-accentuation in measure 25 is that the first 4phrase of section 1A3 begins late (mm. 2627). The second phrase of 1A3 is the most
consonant of the chorus (fig. 35, mm. 2832), undivided and beginning-accented, with the
ideal prosody [421]. Throughout the first chorus, the endings of each A-section occur
progressively nearer to the sections final measure: in 1A1, beat 7.3 (fig. 32A); in 1A2, beat
15.4.5 (fig. 33); here, finally, beat 32.1, beat IV.1 of the hypermeasure and the most
consonant ending point possible. The high register, brevity of the rest in measure 32, and
introduction of b7, abruptly undermine the metrical stability of this phrase.
Figure 35. Davis, Oleo, sections 1B and 1A3 (mm. 1732). {7}
-1-
-1-
-1-
-14
-2
421
In section 2B, Davis parodies the predictability of 1B (fig. 36). The section begins with a
2-phrase of identical prosody to those in section 1B. Measures 51 and 52 are a perfect example
of a loud silence, when the listeners expectation of an answering 2-phrase is thwarted. Davis
transforms the expected 2-phrase parallelism into 4-phrase parallelism: the answering phrase
comes two measures late, as part of the section hypermeasure (mm. 5355). The first
90
hypermeasure is incompletely occupied, containing only a 2-phrase. While distorted parallelism

characterizes sections 1B and 2B, the parallelism of section 2A3 is straightforward and resolves
all tension at the end of the solo. Its structure is sentential. The first 4-phrase presents a basic
idea and its repetition; as in section 1A1, exact repetition of a figure makes the phrase sound
incomplete (mm. 5660). (The fanfare-like motive is highly idiomatic for trumpet, reminiscent
of Louis Armstrong.) The answering 4-phrase (6165), the continuation, begins in parallel
before concluding with the formula familiar from the first chorus (63). If one ignores the suffix
in measures 64 and 65, the 4-phrases of this section rhyme perfectly. Even their 2-phrases
rhyme (allowing for the borrowed accent of beat 61.4.5).
Figure 36. Davis, Oleo, sections 2B and 2A3 (4956). {7}
-1-
-12-
41
41
-21
-21
-4
A suffix extends the final phrase to the downbeat of the next chorus. This suffix links the
true end of Daviss solo (beat 63.4.5) with the next chorus, like a caesura fill between the
transitional section and second theme of a sonata.53
The term is from Hepokoski and Darcy 2006. They write that caesura fill is part of neither
[the transition] nor [the second group]: it represents the sonic articulation of the gap separating
the two zones (40). Similarly, Daviss fill does not seem to belong to his solo, which ended on
beat 63.4.5, but rather, fills the space before the next solo.
53
91
The schematic chorus-level phrase rhythm of AABA form presents two key divisions, after
sections A2 and B. In Rhythm changes, the soloist can suppress the division after section B by
reinterpreting the half-cadence at the end of this section as the dominant chord of an authentic
cadence, which terminates on the downbeat of section A3. The VI progression of measures 24
and 25 of the form is easy to reinterpret. Davis makes this alteration in his first chorus (fig. 3
5). Observe how this juncture is treated in the solos that follow.
Charlie Parker, Moose the Mooche (1946),

Yardbird Suite (1946), Dewey Square (1947)
I continue with a comparison of three one-chorus solos by Charlie Parker. Each solo features
subtly different phrase rhythm. My commentary centers on Parkers treatment of the two
schematic points of division in AABA form (AA/B/A). Parker (19201955) is widely regarded
as the key architect of the bebop style, of which these solos are a classic example. He began his
career as a swing player in the 30s, attaining his reputation for innovation in the mid-40s
(Gioia 1997: 205 ff.). His virtuosity and development of jazzs harmonic language has
influenced every musician that followed; his legendary status justifies the inclusion of five of his
solos in this dissertation.
Moose the Mooche (Parker), recorded in 1946, is based on Rhythm changes (like
Oleo).54 The solo contains four 8-phrases: Parker indicates all sectional divisions with long
rests. Indeed, it is difficult to discern any chorus-level phrase rhythm that transcends sectional
boundaries. Parallelism between the phrase rhythm of each section divides the chorus in half,
very weakly: A1 A2 / B A3. The first section within each half (sections A1 and B) is consonant,
while the second (A2 and A3) is more dissonant as a result of phrase combination.
This relationship is best illustrated through comparison of the corresponding sections of
each sixteen-measure half: A1 to B, and A2 to A3. Figure 37 shows sections A1 and B side by
side. Section A1 contains two un-accented 4-phrases. These phrases feature beginning-rhyme,
each starting on beat I.3 of their respective hypermeasures (mm. 1 and 5). This 8-phrase is
highly consonant: rhyme and common phrase-type unify its two 4-phrases at the eight-bar level,
54
92
while phrase divisions reinforce the four-bar level and an arrival on scale degree 1 marks the
end of the section. Also notice how Parker uses the same double-neighbor figure in measure 1
and measure 8, as bookends to the 8-phrase.
Figure 37. Parker, Moose the Mooche, sections A1 and B. {18}
37A. Section A1 (mm. 18).
-12-
-121
37B. Section B (mm. 1724).

-1
-42-
Section B, the consonant section of the second half, is more diverse than A1, though its
neat division into 4-phrases still supports the meter. Parker divides the first 4-phrase into
syncopated 2-phrases (mm. 1719). The melody of the second echoes the first, but does not
occur exactly two measures later. Instead, the second 2-phrase reaches its melodic apex on beat
III.1, while the first placed it on beat I.3, a distance of 1.2 measures (one measure and two
beats). This creates dissonance against the two-bar level of the meter. The long rest that follows
in measures 19 and 20 affirms the four-bar level by creating a clear division between the
bridges 4-phrases.
A2 and A3, the second sections of each half, are more dissonant. Figure 38 shows them
side by side. In section A2, a 2+4 combined phrase runs across the hypermetrical downbeat at
13.1. The phrase rhythm of measures 9 to 12 recurs throughout Parkers work, including other
93
solos in this dissertation. Its essential feature is that the melody does not overlap beat III.1, the
hypermetrical midpoint. The first 2-phrase ends before this beat, but the second 2-phrase
begins after it. When a 4-phrase is divided in this way, the second 2-phrase often overlaps the
subsequent hypermetrical downbeat (in this case, beat 13.1), as either an end-accented phrase
or a combined phrase, an apparent consequence of its beginning late. Here, Parker heightens
the effect through beginning-rhyme at the two-bar level (on beats 9.1.5 and 11.1.5), which leads
to the expectation of parallel endings; but the second 2-phrase goes on much longer than the
first.
Figure 38. Parker, Moose the Mooche, sections A2 and A3. {18}
38A. Section A2 (mm. 916).
-1
-142
38B. Section A3 (mm. 2434).

41-
241-
14
Parker similarly plays with expectations in section A3 (fig. 38B). As in section A2, the
first 4-phrase divides into 2-phrases. The second 2-phrase begins in parallel with the firstnote
the rhyme on beats 25.1 and 27.1but its second 1-phrase goes on longer than parallelism
would demand, and combines with the first 2-phrase of the next hypermeasure (the 1+2
combined phrase in mm. 2730). The process of phrase combination is similar in sections A2
and A3. In each case, the combined phrase originates with a phrase-beginning after beat III.1,
94
and Parker similarly downplays the hypermetrical downbeats (beat 13.1 and 29.1) that occur in
the middle of these phrases.
As I said, these parallelisms suggest a chorus-level A1 A2 / B A3 phrase rhythm. But since
Parker respects every sectional division, this chorus-level structure is extremely subtle. He does
not override the half-cadence at the end of the bridge, an effect which would have more firmly
united the sections of the second half.
At the end of a solo, it is a commonplace for the soloist to overlap the downbeat of the
next chorus. This occurs at the end of Daviss solo (fig. 36) and Parkers (fig. 38B). This may
serve two purposes: to smooth the transition from one soloist to the next, and to signal to the
next soloist and the audience that the solo is complete. Nearly all standard schemes achieve
harmonic closure in their final or penultimate measure, measure III or IV of the final
hypermeasure. In chapters 1 and 2, I referred to the forward-looking nature of meter and the
propulsive effect of strong downbeats. In contrast, weaker downbeats suggest metrical closure.
Thus, standard schemes achieve simultaneous harmonic and metrical closure in their final,
hypermetrically weak measures. By prolonging their final phrases past this point Parker and
Davis deny this closure.
On this point, Barry Kernfeld (1995) takes the opposite view. He writes:
Every chorus, whether the ordinary 32bar popular song and the 12bar blues or
something less ordinary, has a common element: the design allows it to repeat. This
is achieved through a lack of coincidence between two points of arrival the cadence
on a tonic chord, which falls two (sometimes four) bars before the end of a chorus,
and the strongest metric downbeat, which falls on the first bar of the next chorus.
The result is a formal instability that perpetually energizes a piece, pushing it toward
a simultaneous resolution of harmony and rhythm but never allowing it to reach that
resolution. (41)
I disagree. In fact, I would argue that placing the final cadence on the strongest metric
downbeat (the downbeat of the next chorus) creates far more formal instability than the
typical arrangement, in which the final cadence occurs a measure or two earlier. Indeed, I
believe that some jazz clichs, including prolonging ones solo through the downbeat of the
next chorus, emerged to counter the stability inherent in the schematic relationship of melody,
harmony, and meter. Similar clichs include the use of a turnaround or a dominant pedal in
95
place of the choruss final tonic. This is especially common at the transition between the
opening theme and the first variation chorus, sustaining tension into the first solo. (The solo
break has a similar effect. In a break, the first soloist fills the final measures of the opening
theme with a cadenza-like passage, while the accompanying musicians are tacet.)
The scheme of Yardbird Suite (Parker) follows the three-part plan typical of AABA
form.55 The phrase rhythm of Parkers solo on Yardbird divides the chorus into two equal
halves much more clearly than in Moose: the end of section A2 includes the only 8-phrase
ending in the entire solo, reinforced by the solos longest rest (mm. 1617; see fig. 312 below).
Parker further reinforces the division of the chorus into halves by weakening the sectional
division within each half, after sections A1 and B (figs. 39, 310). The second 4-phrase of
section A1 (mm. 810) begins and ends late. Its ending coincides with the next hypermetrical
downbeat: beat 10.1, the downbeat of section A2. The phrase overlaps the turnaround of
section A1. A turnaround normally marks time at the end of a section, filling in a gap between
phrases. But by placing a 4-phrase here, Parker reinterprets the turnaround as a cadential
progression, treating measure 10 as a moment of arrival and completion rather than a
beginning. The result is a conflict between meter and phrase rhythm, and a weakened
boundary between sections A1 and A2. In the same way, the final phrase of the bridge
suppresses the schematic half-cadence in measure 25, transforming it into an authentic cadence
that terminates on the downbeat of section A3 (fig. 310, m. 26).
55
96
Figure 39. Parker, Yardbird Suite, junction of A1/A2 (mm. 613). {20}
24
124
Figure 310. Parker, Yardbird Suite, junction of B/A3 (mm. 2229). {20}
-124
124
Because of these effects, if one considers only the phrase rhythm at sectional boundaries,
the chorus-level phrase rhythm is binary, A1 A2 / B A3. But in Parkers solo, elements of
section A1 return in section A3, echoing the themes melodic reprise at this moment and
implying a significant division between section B and section A3. Figure 311 shows these
sections side by side. After their first measures, sections A1 and A3 have identical phrase
rhythm. Starting at beats 2.3.5 and 26.3.5, they each contain a divided 4-phrase, with similar
prosody and melodic content. (In addition, the melody in their first 4-phrases paraphrases the
theme, which proceeds from C in m. 1, through Bb and Ab in m. 2, to G in m. 3 and E in m.
4.) Both 4-phrases are end accented, running into measure 6 or 30, and long rests separate
them from the second 4-phrases of each section. The end-accentuation weakens the
hypermetrical divisions within these sections.
97
Figure 311. Parker, Yardbird Suite, sections A1 and A3. {20}

311A. Section A1 (mm. 19; overlaps first half of fig. 39A).
24-
-41-
24
311B. Section A3 (mm. 2634; overlaps second half of 310).

124
-24
I have already discussed the second 4-phrase of section A1, which reinterpreted a
turnaround as an authentic cadence (fig. 39: mm. 810). The corresponding phrase of A3 (fig.
311B: mm. 3134) similarly postpones its ending until the next hypermetrical downbeat,
which is the downbeat of the next chorus. While Parker articulates the choruss final cadence
with scale degree 1 (m. 32), he extends tonic for several additional measures. In addition, the
coincidence of a phrase beginning with the schemes harmonic ending weakens the sense of
closure. As in Moose, Parker overlaps the downbeat of the next chorus. The final measures of
this solo are somewhere between those of Oleo and those of Moose: as Davis did in
Oleo, Parker affirms the schemes final tonic in the correct place, but as in Moose, he
energizes this moment with a phrase-beginning rather than an ending.
The similarities between section A1 and A3 go deeper than this. Section A1 opens with a
short lead-in, a segment that links the end of the thematic chorus with the first variation
chorus. Such a segment can serve several functions. Here, it is most naturally viewed as a prefix
98
to the first 4-phrase. When the lead-in ends before the downbeat of the chorus, it might not
contribute to the first choruss phrase rhythm at all (for example, see Ornithology, p. 238,
analyzed in chapter 4).
In a literal sense, there is no corresponding lead-in to section A3. But the late ending of
the B-sections final phrase in measure 26 creates much the same effect as the lead-in. Indeed,
one might view the lead-in that opens the solo not as a prefix to the first phrase, but as a suffix
to the opening themes final phrase (not shown). In this view, the lead-in makes the final
phrase of the opening theme end-accented. The end-accented final phrase of section B brings
about the same effect, within a chorus.
I now turn to the phrase rhythm of sections A2 and B. Recall that Parker blurred the
hypermetrical boundaries within sections A1 and A3 through end-accentuation, weakening the
four-bar level of the meter (fig. 311). In section A2 (fig. 312), phrase combination serves the
same purpose. The section is structured as a 4+2 combined phrase followed by a 2-phrase. The
lack of any accent on beat 14.1, and the brevity of the final phrase, suggest shifting ones
perspective from the 4-phrase to the 8-phrase level. At this level, one might say the section
contains a single long phrase followed by a suffix (the 2-phrase). The phrase rhythm highlights
the sectional level and downplays the four-bar level.
The bridge (mm. 1826) has the squarest phrase rhythm of the solo: two 4-phrases with
near-rhyming beginnings, alluding to the themes melodic/harmonic sequence. The 2-phrases
of the first 4-phrase even feature end-rhyme, a rarity for Parker. Compared to the first 4-phrase,
the second (mm. 2226) begins in parallel but goes on too long, resulting in an unexpected
end-accented 8-phrase. (Compare Moose the Mooche, figs. 38A and B, where the same false
parallelism appears at the 2-phrase level.)
In Yardbird Suite, two competing forces create chorus-level phrase rhythm. Parker
downplays the divisions after sections A1 and B, and highlights the end of A2, creating a binary
structure A1 A2 / B A3. Melodic and phrase-rhythmic reprise establish the opening of section
A3 as a restart of A1. Taken together, these forces create a three-part structure, AA / B / A,
matching the three-part structure of the scheme (and AABA schemes in general).
99
Figure 312. Parker, Yardbird Suite, sections A2 and B. {20}

(mm. 1025; overlaps second half of fig. 310A and first half of 310B)
1241
-1
21
-124
I mention only a few aspects of phrase rhythm in Parkers solo on Dewey Square
(Parker), to show how it articulates the schemes three-part structure.56 As in Yardbird Suite,
Parker links sections A1 and A2 through end-accentuation. Figure 313 shows their junction:
beat 9.1 is the downbeat of section A2. Parker reinterprets the turnaround in measures 7 and 8
as the initial measures of an authentic cadence, just as in Yardbird (see fig. 39). The scheme
of Dewey Square has a built-in resolution to tonic at the end of section A1, in measure 7.
Parkers reinterpretation of this moment is therefore necessary in order to minimize the sense
of resolution between sections A1 and A2.
56
Chapter 3: Thirty-Two-Bar Schemes in AABA Form 100
Figure 313. Parker, Dewey Square, junction of A1/A2 (mm. 512). {21}
41-
124-
124
Figure 314 compares the final measures of sections A2, B, and A3. In the first two cases,
Parker more or less follows the schemes sectional division. This establishes the choruss three
primary sections. (Note also how these endings rhyme.) Parkers agreement with the schematic
half-cadence in measure 24 is the chief difference between the chorus-level phrase rhythm in
Dewey Square and Yardbird Suite. But in the choruss final measures (314C) Parker
employs blue notes to weaken the schemes final tonicas in Yardbird Suite (compare fig. 3
11B). He affirms the chorus-level three-part structure, but leaves the chorus open-ended.
Figure 314. Parker, Dewey Square, endings of sections A2, B, and A3. {21}
314A. End of section A2 (mm. 1316).
314B. End of section B (mm. 2124).
314C. End of section A3 (mm. 2933).
Bud Powell, Wail (1949) 57
Moose the Mooche and Oleo might give the impression that the scheme of Rhythm
changes lends itself to consonant phrase rhythm. Bud Powells two-chorus solo on Wail, a
scheme based on Rhythm changes in the key of Eb, should dispel that notion. Each chorus
implements a different strategy to create dissonance. In the first chorus, phrase combination
and end-accentuation challenge the schematic meter; in the second, the factors of segmentation
come into frequent conflict, creating pre-analytical dissonance.
Thomas Owens calls Powell (19241966) early bops most influential pianist (1995:
145). Owens also compares him to Parker: Hetransferred Parkers melodic vocabulary and
phrasing to the piano (ibid.). Powell was known for blazing tempos and occasionally overambitious virtuosity. Wail demonstrates his ability to produce intricate, well-formed melodies
at an incredible speedaround 270 (quarter-note) beats per minute.
Figure 315. Powell, Wail, mm. 116 (sections 1A1 and 1A2).58 {28}
-12
41
57
58
-1421
1421

Powell divides the first chorus into two halves, although the 8-phrase division in measure
16, between the halves, is weak (fig. 315 above). He employs phrase combination in the first
half, and end-accentuation in the second. Figure 315 shows the first half of chorus 1. The
eight-bar sections have similar phrase rhythm: a 2-phrase followed by a 2+4 combined phrase,
resulting in a highly unified sectional design that directs attention from the four-bar to the
eight-bar levelappropriate for the rapid tempo. In both sections, the combined phrase begins
just after beat III.1 (mm. 3 and 12). Powell extends each 2-phrase across the next hypermetrical
downbeat, without a pivot note. (Compare Moose mm. 13 and 29, fig. 38.)
The key difference between sections A1 and A2 is in the prosody. A1 opens with an endaccented 2-phrase (mm. 13), A2 with a beginning-accented 2-phrase (mm. 810). The first 4phrase of A2, unlike A1, avoids overlapping beat III.1 (beat 11.1), a pattern also observed in
Parker. The long rest between phrases in section A2 (mm. 910) comes as a surprise, given the
density of notes around it. The second phrases of A1 and A2 also differ. Section A1 ends
consonantly on beat IV.1 (8.1), which establishes metrical stability to begin the solo. The
relatively late ending of section A2, on beat 16.3.5, weakens the division before the bridge. A
single eighth-rest occurring within an otherwise-unbroken flow of eighth-notes, presented at a
rate of around nine notes per second, barely registers. Despite the combined phrases within
sections A1 and A2, and the weakness of this division, the beginning of the solo is very
consonant compared to what follows.
Figure 316 shows the second half of chorus 1. The bridge opens with an end-accented 2phrase, part of an end-accented 8-phrase in measures 16 to 25. The second 2-phrase (mm. 19
21) at first seems as though it will end on beat 21.1, a two-bar rhyme with the previous ending
in measure 19. A brief extension overrides the rhyme. The final 4-phrase of the bridge (mm.
2325) begins six measures after the previous 4-phrase began (m. 17), while parallelism would
dictate an interval of four measures. The bridges three phrases end at progressively later points
in the measure: beat 19.1, then beat 21.3, and finally beat 25.4. Powell stretches endaccentedness as far as it will go, gradually decoupling from the meter.
Figure 316. Powell, Wail, second half of chorus 1 (mm. 1732). {28}
42
-14-
24-
244
The bridges final phrase spills well into section 1A3. This spillage, and the beginningrhyme around beats 23.1 and 27.1, blur the boundary between sections 1B and 1A3. The 4phrases on either side of this boundary are highly dissonant with the meter: they both begin
very late. In measure 29, the two-note fragment GBb begins to re-align the phrasing with the
meter. I hear this fragment as coming in the middle of a 4+4 combined phrase. This unusual
interpretation is due to its register and metrical placement, which endow it with great potential
energy for the long descent that follows. It therefore sounds like a new beginning, aligned with
the hypermetrical downbeat, but one that comes at the end of a longer segment; hence, the last
part of a combined phrase. The phrase overlap on beat 33.1, the downbeat of the next chorus,
finally realigns grouping and meter. The pivot note occurs at a registral low point, highlighting
its status.
The extraordinary dissonance of this passage suggests a plausible alternative analysis.
Figure 317 reinterprets the segments in measures 19 to 21 and 23 to 25 as 2+2 combined
phrases rather than end-accented 4-phrases. How does this change reflect a different perception
of the passage? The clearest difference is in the phrase-endings in measures 21 and 25.
According to figure 316, these endings conclude end-accented 4-phrases, and so should sound
closed off from what follows. According to figure 317, these endings occur within larger 4phrases, suggesting continuity with what follows. In that figure, these endings conclude 2+2
combined phrases: somewhere around beats 21.1, 25.1, and 29.1, the phrase transitions from a
function of ending to a function of beginning as it crosses a hypermetrical downbeat. By the
same token, according to figure 316, the phrase-beginnings in measures 23 and 26 sound like
they initiate new gestures; in figure 317, however, these beginnings should seem more like the
continuation of what preceded them. I find I can hear the passage either way. I prefer the
interpretation shown in figure 316 because of two main factors: contour and IOI. The
descending contour in measures 21 and 25 suggests the ending of a 4-phrase, as in figure 316,
rather than the first part of a new 4-phrase, as in figure 317. Similarly, the ascending contour
in measures 23 and 26 suggests the beginning of a 4-phrase (fig. 316) rather than the
continuation of an ongoing 4-phrase (fig. 317). Finally, the long rests between segments in
measures 21 to 27 suggests 4-phrase division rather than a pause between 2-phrases.
Nevertheless, the fact that two plausible, contradictory interpretations are possible illustrates
the dissonance of this passage. (Contrast this ambiguity with m. 25 of Oleo, fig. 35, in
which an end-accented phrase also occurs at the end of the bridge, but the phrase rhythm
remains quite transparent.)
Figure 317. Powell, Wail: Alternative interpretation of 1B and 1A3. {28}

-14-
42
24-
244
The second chorus comprises four 8-phrases, with no end-accentuation. This outward
consonance belies hidden tensions among factors of segmentation. Figure 318 shows the first
half of the second chorus. Section 2A1 (mm. 3340) contains two beginning-accented 4phrases, with the only dissonance coming from the displaced rhyme in measures 35 and 40.
Section 2A2 (mm. 4148) begins in similarly consonant fashion, but grows suddenly dissonant
at its end. Structured like section 1B of Oleo (fig. 35), it contains three parallel 2-phrases,
and a fourth that deviates from the norm established by the first three (mm. 4648). Although
the final 2-phrase ends within the hypermeasure, it ends on a note of uncertainty, owing to the
ascending octatonic scale, the relative instability of the chordal sixth, and the short IOI before
the first phrase of the bridge. Contour also contradicts the 8-phrase division in measure 48: 8phrases do not usually end on a high note. The only other support for the division comes from
the strength of beat 48.1.
Figure 318. Powell, Wail, sections 2A1, 2A2 (mm. 3348). {28}
421
42
-1-
41
-1
21
The phrase divisions in sections 2B and 2A3, shown in figure 319, are similarly
conflicted. First of all, the bridges two 4-phrases overlap on beat 53.1. The first 4-phrase (mm.
4953) is undivided and end-accented. The G on beat 53.1 is not only the end of this phrase,
but also a one-note prefix to the next phrase. This notes role in the next 4-phrase is established
by two factors: its high register, giving it potential energy, and its initiation of a middleground
chromatic descent terminating on D, beat 56.3. Within measures 53 to 56, several possible
points of division present themselves. I place a 2-phrase division in measure 54. In context, the
IOI at this point is unexceptional, but coupled with the strength of beat 55.1, it creates a weak
division. Nevertheless, section 2B unfolds as a single, long gesture; these divisions are mere
bumps in the road.
A conflict between IOI and strong beat occurs between measures 56 and 57. Strong beat
suggests placing a 4-phrase division as close to beat 57.1 as possible. But the lengthy rest after
beat 57.3 suggests joining the segment in measure 57 with the previous 4-phrase, as a suffix to
the bridge (imagine a dotted square ending-bracket in m. 57). However, the 2-phrase that
begins on beat 59.1 retroactively suggests hearing beat 57.1 as a parallel point of beginning, not
as the ending of the bridges last phrase: a 2-phrase that begins on beat III.1 (59.1) implies one
on beat I.1 (57.1). This weak rhyme, coupled with the innate strength of beat 57.1, are enough
to suggest an 8-phrase division at the end of measure 56. (Perceptually, I hear the segment in
m. 57 as a new beginning, answered in m. 59.)
Figure 319. Powell, Wail, sections 2B, 2A3 (mm. 4964). {28}
-441-
21-
4-
21-
421-
A final conflict occurs in measure 60, this time between motive and strong beat. The 4phrase division in measure 60 receives support from both the following strong beat and an
eighth-rest. But the ascending-arpeggio motive, begun in measure 59, continues across the 4phrase boundary and into measure 61. This weakens the 4-phrase division without destroying
it. Like Davis, Powell brings his solo to a close within the boundaries of the final chorus.
Unlike Davis, he does not fill the space between the close of his solo and the next chorus. This
is because the theme has a two-bear anacrusis, and the horns begin to play it on beat 64.3 (not
shown). Therefore, there is almost no gap between the end of his solo and the themes return,
even though his solo appears to leave two empty beats.
The differing strategies of each chorus create two different kinds of tension. In chorus 1,
combination and end-accentuation create tension evident in both the analytical notation and
the recording. Based on the analytical notation alone, chorus 2 appears less dissonant than
chorus 1. The tension between segmentation factors that occurs in this chorus is pre-analytical:
it must be resolved by the analyst one way or another in order to perform the phrase-rhythm
analysis, and it is concealed by the brackets. But the analysis of this chorus as a series of
consonant phrases belies the breathless quality of the phrasing and the weakness of the
sectional divisions.
Conclusion
I opened this chapter with the claim that AABA form is essentially a three-part structure.
Having surveyed five solos, I can draw a few tentative conclusions. First, the soloists here
consistently respect the boundary between sections A2 and B, dividing the chorus into
symmetrical halves, A1 A2 / B A3. (Indeed, in an informal survey of some other solos by
Parker, I found no examples of his overlapping this boundary.) The forms other key division,
after the bridge, is often overridden by end-accentuation or combination, transforming the
schematic half-cadence (and the Schenkerian interruption) into something more like an
authentic cadence, completed on the downbeat of section A3. This suggests that if soloists
conceive of AABA form as having two parts, it is not along the lines suggested by Terefenko
(AAB/A), but rather as AA/BA.
One possible explanation for this tendency is the desire to increase tension towards the
end of the chorus. The elision of a sectional boundary certainly accomplishes this. These points
beg further study. All of the solos analyzed here date from before 1955. I daresay soloists
treatment of sectional boundaries grew more adventurous as the 50s and 60s progressed, in
parallel with their treatment of other musical features.
109
Chapter 4: Thirty-Two-Bar Schemes in ABAC Form

ABAC Form
Perhaps slightly less common than schemes in AABA form are those in the form ABAC. Each
letter represents an eight-bar hypermeasure (section), as before. While AABA form has
essentially three parts (AA / B / A), schemes in ABAC form (A1 B A2 C) have essentially two
parts, A1 B / A2 C. The two sections of each halfA1 and B, A2 and Coften blend smoothly
into one another, harmonically. The return of material from section A to mark the beginning
of the second half creates the most significant formal boundary.59
The designation ABAC might imply that the A sections are entirely identical and that
sections B and C are entirely different. In fact, the second half often reprises more or less than
eight measures of the first half. The three tunes analyzed below illustrate this flexibility: in
Pennies From Heaven (Johnston), the halves share only their first four measures; in
Ornithology (Parker/Lewis), the halves share twelve measures; only in My Romance
(Rodgers and Hart) are the A sections identical and the B and C sections entirely different.
Since the boundaries of sections can be blurry, strictly speaking, the alphabetic labels
designate eight-bar hypermeasures.
The three schemes in question all follow the harmonic model typical of the form,
achieving a half cadence in measure 15 or 16 at the end of section B, followed by a turnaround
and a reprise. Each chorus is a parallel interrupted period. In some ABAC schemes, though
none of the ones analyzed here, the harmonic goal of the B section is not the dominant, but
some other non-tonic harmony. For example, in If I Were a Bell (Loesser) and The Touch of
Your Lips (Noble), the B section features a modulation to III# and a rather hasty remodulation before the downbeat of section A2. But even when the harmonic goal of the first
half does not appear to be a half-cadence, the return of the opening material at the midpoint
creates the forms deepest division.
In this I agree with Terefenko (2004), who writes, The return of the opening A at the
beginning of the second half partitions the form into two large sections (80).
59
Chapter 4: Thirty-Two-Bar Schemes in ABAC Form 110
As in the previous chapter, the solos here each exhibit different techniques of phrase
rhythm. On Pennies From Heaven, Stan Getz uses an incredible variety of rhyming
structures. For the second solo of the chapter, I return to Charlie Parker, and a 1950 recording
of Ornithology. Parkers chorus-level phrase rhythm fluctuates between consonance and
dissonance. Finally, Bill Evanss 1961 version of My Romance inverts the typical treatment of
phrase rhythm, employing more dissonant structures at the beginning of the solo than at the
end.
Stan Getz, Pennies From Heaven (1957)60
In the scheme of Pennies From Heaven (fig. 41), section A1 (mm. 18) contains two
repetitions of a four-bar motion from I to V. Section B (mm. 916) follows the Monte
progression of classical music: sequential tonicization of IV then V, culminating in a half
cadence.61 Within the second half, the tonicization of IV occurs after only five measures, rather
than nine. The scheme consequently loses some energy at measure 25: IV is the last harmony
of section A2 (m. 2324) and the first harmony of section C (m. 25), filling three successive
measures across an eight-bar downbeat. This creates harmonic stasis at an important formal
juncture.
Figure 41. Pennies From Heaven (Johnston): metrical-harmonic scheme.
A1:
B:
Measures:
|14
|58
|912
Harmony:
|I HC |I HC |(V) IV
|1316
|(V) V
A2:
C:
Measures:
|1720 |2124
|2528
|2932 |
Harmony:
|I HC |(V) IV
|IV bVIIV/ii
|PAC (I) |
Saxophonist Stan Getz (19271991) exemplifies the cool style of jazz, a lyrical style of
50s post-bop. He is most widely known for his forays into Latin jazz in the 60s, although he
was also considered one of the premier tenors of the 50s (Giddins and Deveaux 2009: 521
522). The title of his composition Prezervation pays homage to one of his stylistic models,
60
61

The Monte progression was given its name by Joseph Riepel in the 1750s (Eckert 2000).
tenor Lester Prez Young, who predates the bebop era and was, like Getz, known for a relaxed
style (Martin and Waters 2002: 211). Reflecting its distance from bebop, Getzs solo departs
from the solos of chapter 3 in many ways. He employs no true end-accented 4-phrases, only
pseudo-end-accented phrases, a technique explained below.62 He creates variety and interest
through phrase length, combination, and rhyme. The phrases grow shorter as the solo
progresses. Every 4-phrase of the last chorus is divided, while only half are divided in the first
chorus (in fact, exactly every other 4-phrase). The amount of division gradually increases across
choruses 2 and 3. Metrical rhyme establishes deep-level consonances in choruses 1 and 2, while
it only occurs at lower metrical levels in chorus 3. Of all factors of phrase rhythm, division and
rhyme contribute most to a sense of long-range development in this solo.
Adding to the solos general consonance, Getz never plays combined phrases across the
boundary between sections A2 and C (the twenty-fifth measure of each chorus). He combines
across each of the other sectional downbeats at least twice in the four-chorus solo. As I
mentioned above, the schematic harmony at this point is static: three successive measures of
IV, on either side of the downbeat. By consistently beginning a phrase at this point, Getz
reinforces the hypermetrical downbeat. Without a new phrase here, the solo might lose energy
from the lack of harmonic motion.
Getz tends to avoid following the two-part plan of the scheme. Only in the final chorus
does he articulate the chorus midpoint with a half-cadence and new phrase. In the other
choruses, he overlaps the downbeat of section A2, undercutting the half-cadence (see figs. 4
2B, 43, and 44 below). This highlights the unity of the chorus as a whole and minimizes the
separation between the two halves. Getz calls further attention to the chorus-level with phraseendings on tonic to conclude the first and second choruses. Only between the third and fourth
choruses does Getz play a phrase across the chorus boundary, which creates a climax of phraserhythm dissonance. Perhaps to compensate for this peak of dissonance, Getzs grouping
structure confirms all of the sectional boundaries in chorus 4.
I have observed the same absence of end-accented phrases in Getzs solo on Sunday,
another medium-tempo tune from the same album (with the Oscar Peterson Trio). Further
study might determine whether a lack of this phrase-type characterizes Getzs oeuvre of this
period.
62
There are two phrase overlaps in the solo, shown in figure 42. The first occurs in
measures 1 to 7 (fig. 42A). The second 2-phrase (mm. 34) begins as though it will rhyme with
the first, forming an end-accented 4-phrase that ends in measure 5. But the final note of this
rhyme also begins a new segment, the 4-phrase in measures 5 to 7 that completes the 8-phrase.
This overlap unifies section A1. The second overlap occurs at the midpoint of the second
chorus (fig. 42B). Like the overlap in measure 5, it couples a late-beginning 2-phrase with the
next 4-phrase.
Figure 42. Getz, Pennies From Heaven: overlapping phrases.63 {16}
42A. mm. 18.
-12
1421
42B. mm. 4552 (overlap at downbeat of section 2A2).

141
-12
21-
In the examples I have presented so far, combined phrases often appear to be single
phrases, comprising a single melodic gesture or repeated motive that happens to overlap a
hypermetrical downbeat. Not so in this solo. Every combined phrase appears to contain two
distinct segments whose boundaries have been blended together, like a phrase overlap without
63
a pivot note. This is suggested by motivic content, rhythm, or contour. Getz transforms the end
of the first segment into the beginning of the next segment, but it is impossible to pinpoint
exactly where.
The first example of this appears at the midpoint of the first chorus (fig. 43A). In
measures 15 and 16, a gesture of conclusion blends into one of initiation. A potential phraseending occurs on beat 16.1. But Getz immediately repeats the same gesture, reinterpreted as an
anacrusis. The transition between phrase-ending and phrase-beginning does not occur at any
distinct point in measure 16. Rather, it is gradual, taking place somewhere in the measure.
The phrase truly combines two different phrases.
Figure 43. Getz, Pennies From Heaven, combination across an 8-bar downbeat. {16}
43A. mm. 13-20.
441
21

m. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
[4] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [4]
8:
4:
2:
4+2
][
Unlike previous examples, this combined phrase overlaps an eight-bar downbeat. Figure
43B shows the consequences of this for the grouping structure. There is no 4-phrase level or 8phrase level. The bracket in measure 20 is unusual: a 2-phrase ending bracket, placed at the
end of a four-bar hypermeasure. It might seem more natural to place a 4-phrase (square) ending
bracket here. But by definition, such a bracket shows the end of a discrete, coherent melodic
segment occupying a four-bar hypermeasure (a 4-phrase). No such segment ends here: there is
no phrase-beginning four measures earlier. In consequence, there is no level of grouping

structure above the 2-phrase level. In previous examples of combined phrases (see, e.g., fig. 3
15 above), the 4-phrase level was suppressed by the combined phrase, but the 8-phrase level
persisted, because the phrase combination occurred within an eight-bar hypermeasure. Here,
however, since the combination occurs across an eight-bar downbeat, no higher level of
grouping structure can emerge. In many more examples below, I use only 2-phrase brackets
when there is no 4-phrase or 8-phrase level, as in figure 43A. This reflects highly dissonant
phrase rhythm.
The same type of combinationincluding nearly the same chromatic figureappears in
measures 77 to 81, across the midpoint of chorus 3 (see fig. 44). Again, it is clear that
somewhere in measure 79 or 80, the end of a phrase becomes the beginning of another phrase.
That is, the complete phrase seems to combine two distinct units. But the moment of
transition is perhaps even more difficult to pinpoint than in the previous example. Compared
to figure 43, in figure 44, Getz ends the combined phrase earlier within the next
hypermeasuremeasure I (m. 81). But the strength of this downbeat and the presentation of a
new motive in measure 81 grants this ending great energy, signaling that it actually begins the
next 2-phrase.
Figure 44. Getz, Pennies From Heaven, more combination. {16}
-1241
44A. mm. 7784.
2-

m. 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
[4] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [4]
4:
2:
1:
4+2
4+1
][
][ 1 ]
Several other combined phrases follow the same pattern. (See fig. 45.) One example
occurs in measures 70 to 73 (fig. 45A). The transition between segments occurs somewhere in
measure 72; note the ascending chromatic melody near this point, as in measure 80 (fig. 44).
Another combined phrase occupies measures 107 to 111 (fig. 45B). Here, the transition
between segments occurs somewhere in measure 108, brought out most clearly by the shift in
contour on beat 108.3.
Two other phrases employ this technique. In measures 114 to 117 (fig. 45B), the second
portion of the 2+1 combined phrase begins somewhere in measure 116. This segment is
foreshortened: it ends just before the next hypermetrical downbeat, on beat 116.4.5, and it
borrows its final accent from beat 117.1. The immediate recurrence of the high A in the
subsequent measures forms a link between the phrase-ending in measure 116/117 and the next
4-phrase, which is why I interpret measures 114 to 117 as a 2+1 combined phrase rather than
merely the end of a 4-phrase. (Below, I discuss the unusual 1+1 combined phrase in measures
117119).
Figure 45. Getz, Pennies From Heaven: more combination. {16}
45A. mm. 6976 (2+1).
241
-21
45B. mm. 105120 (2+2, 2+1, 1+1).

-1-
-141-
21-
124
4-
1-
12
-2421-
45C. mm. 3744 (4+4).
As a final example of this type, consider the phrase that overlaps beat 41.1, the downbeat
of section 2B (fig. 45C). Here, a plausible phrase-ending arrives on beat 39.3, but Getz
suppresses it by continuing the eighth-note rhythm and introducing of a new motive in
measure 40. Therefore, the transition between segments of the 4+4 combined phrase occurs
relatively early in the hypermeasure, somewhere in measure 39, before the entrance of the new
motive. (This phrase crosses an eight-bar downbeat, so it cannot be an 8-phrase.)
I would describe several of these combined phrases as pseudo-end-accented. I apply this

term to a combined phrase that ends at or very near beat I.1. It thus has the metrical
characteristics of an end-accented phrase. But for melodic or motivic reasons, it also forms an
essential part of the next phrase: the content of its final notes is developed or repeated in
subsequent phrases. The combined phrases ending in measures 73, 81, and 117 are pseudoend-accented (figs. 45A, 44, and 45B). In all three cases, the final note or motive forms the
first 1-phrase of the next 2-phrase, reinforced by its immediate repetition in the next segment.
These phrases creates greater melodic continuity than end-accented phrases, while having the
same metrical energy. They are also less dissonant with the meter: end-accented phrases create
dissonance by superimposing a melodic ending at a point of metrical beginning; pseudo-endaccented phrases attenuate the sense of melodic closure by introducing a new motive or figure,
coinciding with the hypermetrical downbeat. This phrase-type seldom occurs in the other solos
in this dissertation.
Figure 46A shows the only plausible end-accented phrase of the solo, at the junction of
choruses 3 and 4, in measures 94 to 97. As analyzed in figure 46B, the excerpt contains an
end-accented 4-phrase with a short prefix followed by an un-accented 4-phrase. This analysis
implies a deep division after the phrase-ending in measure 97, made stronger by the choruslevel boundary. The interpretation in 46C, however, implies much more continuity between
the ending in measure 97 and the next segment. In this view, measure 97 contains a prefix to a
4-phrase, smoothly blended with the end of the previous 4-phrase. As in other ambiguous cases,
I find I can hear the excerpt either way. But ultimately I prefer the interpretation of 46C. The
excerpt as a whole contains a 4+4 combined phrase, with the combination obscured somewhat
by the division of each 4-phrase into a prefix and a larger segment. Two features stand out in
support of this view: the final note of measure 97 is the first note of the next segment (though
after a long IOI), linking the prefix to the main part of the phrase; and the resulting 4-phrases
are parallel in structure. Measures 93 to 96 establish the model, prefix/4-phrase, which is
repeated in measures 97 to 100.
Figure 46. Getz, Pennies From Heaven: An end-accented phrase? {16}

46A. mm. 93100.
46B. As an end-accented phrase.
46C. As phrase combination.
This solo contains more rhymes than any other I have considered, including rhymes at the
measure, two-measure, and four-measure levels, as well as syncopated rhymesrhymes at nonmetrical time intervals. Two-measure and four-measure rhymes appear near the beginning and
end of the solo, with one-measure and syncopated rhymes creating dissonance in the middle
choruses.
Measure-level rhyme tends to occur in the first two measures of a hypermeasure, often
with varied rhythm, as part of a 1/1/2 sentential structure. Measures 73 and 74 are typical (fig.
45A above). While the final attack in measure 73 comes on beat 3, the parallel attack in 74
comes on beat 2.5; but the rhyme is evident regardless: the eighth-note anticipation in the
second instance prevents monotony without destroying the resemblance. Similar rhymes occur
in measures 81 to 82 and 105 to 106 (figs. 44 and 45B, above). The measure-level rhyme in
measures 51 to 52 differs from previous examples in that it falls in the second half of a
hypermeasure, and in the exactness of the repetition (fig. 47). In fact, measures 51 to 54 place
a 1/1/2 sentential structure across a hypermetrical downbeat, unifying the 8-phrase in measures
49 to 56.
Figure 47. Getz, Pennies From Heaven: Unusual 1measure rhyme (mm. 4956). {16}
41
21-
-21
-1
All of the measure-level rhymes occur between measures 51 and 106, the middle portion
of the solo. Higher-level rhymes characterize other portions of the solo, and affirm deeper
consonance between meter and melody. The solo opens with a rhyming pair of end-accented 2phrases (fig. 42A). Another two-measure rhyme appears in measures 9 to 11 (fig. 48A below).
These segments feature minimal variation and highlight the metrical symmetry of the
hypermeasure. Similar passages appear in figures 48B, C, D, and E. Like measure-level
rhymes, rhymes at the two-measure level often include some rhythmic variation. As a rule,
differences between rhyming segments must not be so great that they affect the prosody.
Figure 48. Getz, Pennies From Heaven: Two-measure rhymes. {16}
48A. mm. 912.
4-
41-
2-
48B. mm. 2528.

21-
48C. mm. 3336.

41
21
48D. mm. 109112.

41-
21-
48E. mm. 121124.

-1-
-1-
Getz also employs syncopated rhymes, which often appear to be distortions of metrical
rhymes. A syncopated, near-two-measure rhyme occurs in measures 81 to 83 (fig. 49A)(also the
site of a one-measure rhyme). I understand beat 83.3 as a two-beat anticipation of beat 84.1,
where it would rhyme exactly with the 2-phrase ending in measure 82. Therefore, the onemeasure rhyme in measures 81 to 82 is exact, but the possible two-measure rhyme in bar 84
occurs two beats early, destroying the prosodic connection between the 2-phrases. Syncopated
measure-level rhyme appears within the 2-phrase in measures 103 to 104 (fig. 49B), a
quotation from the Gershwins Fascinatin Rhythm. (The quotation continues into m. 106,
overlapping and weakening a sectional boundary.)
Figure 49. Getz, Pennies From Heaven: syncopated rhymes. {16}
49A. Syncopated two-measure rhyme (mm. 8184).
41
2-
49B. One-measure rhyme (mm. 101108).

41-
21-
A comparable displacement at the four-measure level can be found in measures 25 to 31

(fig. 410). The phrase-endings in measures 26 and 28 rhyme exactly at the two-measure level.
The ending in measure 31 resembles those endings (substituting a half-note for a dottedquarter), and completes the middleground descent from G5 to C5 begun in measure 25. But
the ending arrives in measure III of the hypermeasure, while the previous endings occurred in
measures II and IV. It is thus displaced by a measure, an anticipation of measure 32.
Figure 410. Getz, Pennies From Heaven: 4measure syncop. rhyme (mm. 2532). {16}
41-
21-
-12-
I have analyzed two 4-phrases from this solo in an unusual way, measures 64 to 68 and
117 to 120. (Fig. 411 shows mm. 6468; mm. 117120 are structurally identical.) The 4phrase is divided into four 1-phrases, but the middle two 1-phrases are combined, forming the
pattern 1/1+1/1. Figure 411B presents the grouping structure: the 2-phrase level is
suppressed, but the 4-phrase level remains. The intricate construction of measures 64 to 68
arises through a combination of implied grouping structure and metrical rhyme. Beat 64.4
rhymes with 65.4, establishing these as parallel 1-phrase beginnings. Beat 65.1 rhymes with
66.4.5 (borrowing from 67.1), establishing these as parallel 2-phrase beginnings. This means
that the segment in measures 65 to 67 has both a one-measure and a two-measure rhyme with
the previous segment: it contains an answering 1-phrase (through the one-measure rhyme) and
the first part of an answering 2-phrase (through the two-measure rhyme). A comparable onemeasure rhyme in measures 67 to 68 suggests that the second 2-phrase has the same 1+1
design. A final rhyme appears in measure 68: beat 68.2 is a displaced (syncopated) rhyme of
beat 66.4, tying off the 4-phrase.
Figure 411. Getz, Pennies From Heaven: a 4-phrase, 1/1+1/1. {16}
411A. mm. 6468.
syncop. rhyme
1-m. rhyme
1-m. rhyme
2-m. rhyme

m. 65 66 67 68 69
[4] [1] [2] [1] [4]
4:
[ 1 ][ 1+1
][ 1 ]
2:
1:
Even though this solo contains no end-accented phrases, Getzs skilled use of phrase
combination and rhyme produces engaging phrase rhythm. He creates dissonance through
combination across sectional boundaries. The solo ends like Daviss Oleo: Getz reinforces
the schemes tonal closure on beat 127.1, and uses a linking passage to ease the transition to
the next chorus (fig. 412).
Figure 412. Getz, Pennies From Heaven, end of solo (mm. 125128). {16}
-124
Charlie Parker, Ornithology (1950)64
The melodic scheme of Ornithology, composed by Parker himself, is based on the harmonies
of the standard How High the Moon (Lewis). Sections A1 and A2 of Ornithology are
identical (fig. 413A). There are two small differences between sections B and C (fig. 413B).
Their first four measures are identical, except the tonic chord in the third measure of each
section: in section B, the chord is minor, while in C, it is major. But neither Parker nor the
rhythm section always respects this difference, and the measures are effectively
indistinguishable. In their second hypermeasures, sections B and C differ only in harmonic
rhythm. Section B contains a standard turnaround, with one chord per measure, so that the
downbeat of the next section coincides with the arrival on tonic after the turnaround. In
section C, the same progression occurs at the rate of two chords per measure, so that tonic
arrives two measures before the end of the chorus.
Figure 413. Ornithology (Parker): Metrical-harmonic scheme.
413A. Sections A1 and A2.
Measures:
|14/1720 |58/2124
Harmony:
|I (V)
|bVII V/bVI
413B. Sections B and C, compared. Differences are underlined.

Measure:
|9/25
|10/26 |11/27 |12/28 |13/29 |14/30 |15/31 |16/32
Section B:
|bVI
|iiV
|i
|i
|(ii
Section C:
|bVI
|iiV
|I
|I
|(iiV) |iiV
| -V) |ii
|I
|V
|V
Though this difference would seem to be essential to the harmonic structure of the
chorusthe first half is unresolved, the second, resolvedneither Parker nor the rhythm section
consistently respects it. It is as though he is playing over a sixteen-measure scheme. In a multichorus performance like this one, the last four measures of each chorus can serve either of two
roles: provide temporary closure, or sustain tension to accent the tonic arrival on the downbeat
of the next chorus. The soloists selection of one or the other affects the large-scale plan. In
Pennies From Heaven, Getz provided melodic closure at the end of the first two choruses,
but suppressed it at the end of the third chorus. On the other hand, Parker tends to sustain
64
tension through the end of the chorus. Figure 414 shows the final measures of the first three
choruses. In the first chorus, Parker follows the schemes resolution to tonic on beat 33.1 (fig.
414A), but the melody abruptly disintegrates. Similarly, at the end of chorus 2 (fig. 414B),
Parkers melody is ambiguous, seeming to sustain mediant harmony through measures 63 and
64. Here, the rhythm section denies tonic arrival by using a slower harmonic rhythm, as though
it were the end of section B, not C. Despite the lack of decisive melodic closure, a long rest at
the end of choruses 1 and 2 still reinforces the chorus boundary. In other words, the grouping
structure is highly consonant with the scheme, even if the harmony is vague or open-ended. At
the end of chorus 3 (fig. 414C), Parkers melody implies the slower harmonic rhythm of
section B. Here, Parker, like Getz, increases tension by playing straight into the fourth chorus
but only overlapping it by a single note (m. 99).
Figure 414. Parker, Ornithology, end of choruses 1, 2, 3. {23}
414A. End of chorus 1 (mm. 3134).
414B. End of chorus 2 (mm. 5966).
414C. End of chorus 3 (mm. 9599).
Parkers phrase rhythm does not create a gradual rise and fall of dissonance across the
whole solo. Instead, choruses 1 and 3 are consonant, while choruses 2 and 4 are dissonant.
Dissonance arises through phrase combination and asymmetrylike Getz, in this recording
Parker uses no true end-accented phrases. (This is unusual: end-accented phrases are common
in Parkers other work, including the performances discussed in chapter 3.)
Parker accords no special status to the chorus midpoint, the key schematic division of
ABAC form. This accords with his treatment of the two halves as harmonically
interchangeablesince the second half does not attain tonic closure, there is nothing to
distinguish it from the first. In choruses 1 and 3, Parker places a phrase boundary at the chorus
midpoint and at the beginning of section B. On the other hand, in choruses 2 and 4, Parker
plays a combined phrase across the chorus midpoint, and across at least one other sectional
boundary. In other words, he does not treat the chorus midpoint differently from the other
eight-bar downbeats. Contrast this with Parkers typical phrase rhythm on schemes in AABA
form, in which he always indicates the chorus midpoint (the bridge) with a new phrase,
mirroring the schemes division at this point.
The first chorus opens with two 8-phrases. Their phrase rhythm recurs in chorus 3 in
modified form. After a two-measure break, the solo opens with a pair of un-accented 4-phrases
(fig. 415). (Moose the Mooche, in the previous chapter, begins in the same way; see fig. 3
7A.) This opening establishes a consonant reference against which the solos later dissonances
are set. A similar 8-phrase appears in measures 83 to 90, in section 3A2 (fig. 416). Though the
first 4-phrase is divided, both 4-phrases are un-accented and end rather late in their
hypermeasures, and the effect is very similar to the opening of the solo. In section 3A2, the 8phrase offers a final taste of consonance before the dissonance of the fourth chorus.
Figure 415. Parker, Ornithology, section 1A1 (mm. 310). {23}
-21-
-121-

-12
-121-
1-
The second 8-phrase of chorus 1 (fig. 417) overlaps its internal hypermetrical downbeat
(15.1) through phrase combination. Its beginning (m. 11) rhymes with the beginning of the
previous 4-phrase (fig. 415: m. 7), forging a connection across the sectional divide. (It also
rhymes with the beginning of the next 2-phrase on beat 13.2.5). The 8-phrase ends quite early
in the hypermeasure (17.1), leaving room for a long anacrusis to the next 8-phrase.
Figure 417. Parker, Ornithology, section 1B (mm. 1118). {23}
-14-
-1-
12
In outline, the phrase rhythm of section 3A1 (fig. 418) is similar: it contains a pair of
divided 4-phrases with a combined middle phrase: 2/2+2/2. But unlike the earlier phrase, it
begins developmentally: its first 4-phrase is divided into an initial idea (a quotation from
There Will Never Be Another You) and an extended repetition of that idea. Its final 2-phrase
comes very late in the hypermeasure (mm. 7374), rather than very early. The same essential
phrase rhythm can take on very different forms at the surface.
-41
-241
1-
In the second half of the chorus, Parkers phrase rhythm grows considerably more
adventurous (fig. 419). The opening 2-phrase begins too early (m. 18), overlapping a full
measure of the preceding hypermeasure; it introduces the main motive of the 4-phrase, an
ascending arpeggio in sixteenth-notes, which persists until measure 21. Although hypermeter
suggests treating measures 18 to 22 as a single 4-phrase, the short IOI between phrases in
measure 22, and long IOI before measure 20, challenges this interpretation: the longest IOI in
the passage occurs in the middle of this 4-phrase. Nevertheless, in this case, the factors of
motive and strong beat support treating measures 18 through 22 as a discrete 4-phrase.
Figure 419. Parker, Ornithology, section 1A2, parts of 1B and 1C (mm. 1530). {23}
14
-42-
12
Figure 419B. Grouping structure.

m. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
[4] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [4]
4:
][
2:
4
2
][
]
2
On the surface:
m. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
[Main phrase|suffix ]
[
][
The next hypermeasure (mm. 2326) contains parts of two segments. The segment in
measures 26 to 27 is highly ambiguous. At first, it might appear to be only a suffix to the 4phrase whose main portion ends in measure 25. The melodic parallelism between measures 25
and 26, and the short IOI between these segments, support this interpretation. But the
segment also rhymes with the next segment in measures 27 to 29. Though this rhyme is in
prosody only, I find it extremely salient: if one considers measures 26 to 29 in isolation, they
evidently seem like a parallel pair of 2-phrases. I hear the segment in measures 26 to 27
simultaneously as both a suffix and the first 2-phrase of the next 4-phrase: an afterthought to
measures 22 to 25, and a segment that initiates a new idea with the next hypermetrical
downbeat, answered in parallel two measures later. (Figure 419B shows this abstractly.) This
extends of the concept of phrase overlap from a single pivot note to an entire pivot
segment. This is distinct from a combined phrase: there is a discrete set of segments in
measures 22 to 27 that occupies a hypermeasure, and so it is a closed 4-phrase; there is also a
discrete set of segments in measures 26 to 29 that does the same thing; these sets of segments
simply happen to share one segment. If there were a combined phrase, it would be impossible
to point to specific locations where each phrase began and ended; but since this is possible, it is
an instance of overlap.
Choruses 2 and 4 contain no 8-phrases. Instead, they contain many combined phrases,
which often overlap sectional boundaries. Some of these involve pseudo-end-accentuation, as in
Pennies From Heaven. One such case comes in measure 43, on the border between sections
2A1 and 2B (fig. 420). Two factors suggest hearing measure 43 as the initiation of a new 4phrase rather than the ending of an end-accented 4-phrase (imagine a dotted-square bracket in
m. 43). First, the rising contour and change in rhythm in measure 43 imply a beginning, rather
than an ending. Second, the attack on beat 45.1, beat III.1 of the hypermeasure, retroactively
reinforces hearing a parallel initiation on beat I.1 (43.1).
Figure 420. Parker, Ornithology: Pseudo-end-accentuation (mm. 3946). {23}
-124-
21
Parker plays another pseudo-end-accented phrase at the end of chorus 2, in measures 59 to

63 (fig. 421). (The final D on beat 62.4.5 borrows the accent of beat 63.1.) There is a motivic
connection between the last portion of the 4+1 combined phrase (mm. 5963) and the next
segment. Both are centered on D4 with C4 as lower neighbor. This argues against hearing a
deep phrase division in measure 63, and in support of the 4+1 combined phrase.
Figure 421. Parker, Ornithology, section 2C (mm. 5967). {23}
44
1-
Pseudo-end-accentuation also occurs at the border between chorus 3 and 4 (fig. 422).
Drawing a connection between the phrase-ending on beat 99.1 (a hypermetrical downbeat) and
the following segment requires knowledge of another scheme, Poinciana (Simon), whose
harmonies open like those of Ornithology: Ii-7. Measures 99 to 101 are a quotation from
this scheme.65 In isolation, the A on beat 99.1 (the chordal ninth) is not sufficient to suggest
Poinciana. But the segment in measures 100 to 101 is unmistakable, and retroactively reveals
the A to be part of the quotation as well. (A ninth on beat 1.1 is a distinguishing feature of
Poinciana.) Poinciana opens with a pair of 2-phrases; the quotation from it should
naturally be heard the same way, so the A on beat 99.1 is the first 2-phrase of a pair in
measures 99 to 101. The segment that ends in measure 99 must be a combined phrase.
Figure 422. Parker, Ornithology, chorus 3/4 border (mm. 98102). {23}
4
-2
The 2+4 combined phrase in measures 53 to 57 (fig. 423A) exemplifies another type
common for Parker, which I referred to in discussion of Moose the Mooche. In measure 51
to 54, Parker avoids overlapping beat III.1. In isolation, the segment in measures 53 and 54
might be taken for a long anacrusis to the following 4-phrase. But since the segment in
65
The quotation is helpfully noted in Owens 1974: vol. 2, p. 416.
measures 51 to 52 only extends to beat II.2 of the hypermeasure, an answering 2-phrase is

required. Only when the answering phrase goes on too long, past beat 55.1, does it become
part of a combined phrase. The same type of combination appears in measures 103 to 109 (fig.
423B).
Figure 423. Parker, Ornithology: 2+4 combined phrases. {23}
423A. mm. 5358.
41
1421
423B. mm. 103109.

41
-1421
A final type of combined phrase appears in measures 47 to 52 (fig. 424). The answer to
the opening 2-phrase begins before beat III.1 (49.1) but continues well past the downbeat of
the next hypermeasure, with no clear pivot point. Like some examples from Pennies From
Heaven, this combined phrase seems to have two separate parts that blur into one another,
somewhere in measure 50. The same occurs in measures 67 to 72 (fig. 418 above): the
combined phrase contains two distinct ideas; the transition occurs somewhere before measure
71.
Figure 424. Parker, Ornithology: 2+2 combined phrase (mm. 4754). {23}
1
241
On the other hand, the combined phrase in measures 113 to 117 (fig. 425) does not
seem to derive from two separate ideas. As in figure 424, it begins before III.1 and then
continues past the next hypermetrical downbeat, beat 115.1. But no clear motivic or rhythmic
shift marks the passage of the downbeat, and the resolution of D7 to G is delayed until beat
15.3. The lack of emphasis is highly dissonant: beat 115.1 marks not only a hypermetrical
downbeat, but the chorus midpoint.
Figure 425. Parker, Ornithology: 2+4 combined phrase (mm. 111118). {23}
41-
242
These examples show the incredible variety of combined phrases in Parkers solo. The
result is extraordinary dissonance between meter and grouping in choruses 2 and 4: for much
of these choruses, the 4-phrase level is suppressed by a series of 2+2, 2+4, and 4+2 combined
phrases. In aggregate, the combined phrases of chorus 4 result in a curious pattern: three
displaced 8-phrases, spanning measures 102 to 109, 110 to 117, and 118 to 125. These units
are clearly separated from one another. But the divisions between them occur at the midpoints
of each section, not at the divisions between sections. Thus, the divisions occur four measures
away from where 8-phrase divisions should occur, at sectional boundaries. The phrase
rhythm of chorus 4 involves the displacement of eight-bar groups, in a manner akin to metrical
displacement at lower levels.
Parker treats phrase rhythm more liberally in Ornithology than in any of his solos
analyzed in chapter 3. (Further research might reveal that he generally treats ABAC forms more
loosely than AABA forms.) The lack of chorus-level punctuation in his phrase rhythm mirrors
the less-punctuated scheme.
Bill Evans, My Romance (1961)66
Pianist Bill Evans (19291980) matches Charlie Parker in his degree of influence on later
musicians. He learned jazz piano during bebops heyday, and he attained prominence after
bebop had given way to a wider range of styles in the late 50s. Bassist Chuck Israels, who
collaborated extensively with Evans, commented on his phrase rhythm: [Evanss] phrases
would start and end in ever-changing places, often crossing the boundaries of one section of a
piece and another (1985: 112). Compared to Parker or Powell, who epitomize the bebop style,
Evans tends to stick with one phrase type for a longer period of time, then make a calculated
shift between types. While Parkers phrase rhythm is endlessly varied, in Evanss playing, each
phrase relates closely to those around it. Both players are comfortable crossing sectional
boundaries; Evans treats boundaries between choruses more freely than Parker.
Above, I observed that Parkers phrase rhythm challenged the scheme most severely in its
final chorus. Evanss three-chorus solo on My Romance follows a different strategy: the first
chorus has the most dissonant phrase rhythm, characterized by short, end-accented segments;
the phrase rhythm of the third chorus is the reverse: it contains long, beginning-accented
phrases. Each chorus has a distinct character, partly evoked by phrase rhythm; there is a
remarkable moment of clarity at the beginning of the third chorus, where Evans shifts his (and
the listeners) focus from smaller to larger metrical levels.
Evanss treatment of sectional boundaries generally bears out Israels observation. But he
always marks the beginning of section B with a new phrase. In the theme of My Romance, a
single motive dominates sections A1, A2, and C, with a different motive active in section B.
Perhaps the themes melodic design influences Evanss consistent articulation of the section B
downbeat.
66
On chorus-level boundaries, Israels remarks, Evans view of the turnaround [the final
measures of a chorus] was that it belonged to the following chorus, rather than to the one just
ending. In practice this meant that a new idea introduced at the turnaround could be carried
over into the next chorus (1985: 11213). Figure 426 shows the transitions between
choruses. In the first such transition (fig. 426A), Evans not only introduces a new motive
during the turnaround, he also blurs the chorus-level boundary with a 2+2 combined phrase.
This tactic appears quite early in the solo: compare this with Ornithology and Pennies From
Heaven, in which Parker and Getz only overlapped the boundary of the final chorus.67 In the
last hypermeasure of the chorus (mm. 2933), the first 2-phrase closes on tonic (beat 30.4.5),
but the rapid appearance of the following segment (m. 31) prevents any sense of stability or
closure. This segment begins as an answering 2-phrase. Its characteristic motive, begun on beat
31.3, continues just past the downbeat of the next chorus before being aborted. The motivic
continuity blurs the chorus boundary. Evans also introduces a thicker left hand
accompaniment with the new motive on beat 31.3, and continues it into the next chorus. Just
as Israels suggests, he treats measures 31 and 32 as part of the second chorus.
Figure 426. Evans, My Romance: Inter-chorus transitions.68 {14}
426A. Chorus 1 to chorus 2 (mm. 2936).
42
-141
21-
Evanss trios often create a climax in the final chorus of a solo by two means: left-hand chord
attacks that match the rhythm of the right hands melody, thickening the texture; and the
bassists switch from a freer accompaniment to a walking bass with an attack on every quarter
note. In this performance, Evanss left hand begins matching his right hand rhythm starting in
chorus 2, not chorus 3, although the bass continues a freer accompaniment until chorus 3. The
elision of a chorus-level boundary typically occurs going into the final chorus of a solo, paired
with the thickened left-hand texture. Here, this climactic event arrives a chorus earlier than
normal, between choruses 1 and 2, and the chorus 2/3 boundary is marked with a phrase
division, a reversal of Evanss normal procedure.
68
67
426B. Chorus 2 to chorus 3 (mm. 6168).

421
-421
426C. End of solo (mm. 8997).
Evans marks the boundary between choruses 2 and 3 (fig. 426B) with a phrase-ending in
measure 63 on scale degree 1, although the supporting harmony A7 (V7/ii) undercuts the
sense of melodic stability. But the anacrusis to chorus 3 only occupies a single measure (m. 64),
and does not include a combined phrase. The solo itself does not end on a stable note (4
26C). Instead, Evanss melody overlaps the downbeat of the next chorus, ending on scale
degree 5, and creating a smooth transition into bassist Scott LaFaros solo.
In the solos above, neither Getz nor Parker consistently respected the division between the
two halves of the ABAC form, the most important chorus-level division. In four choruses, Getz
indicated this division once; Parker, twice. Evans consistently follows the schemes two-part
structurenot with phrase division, but with a reprise of each choruss opening at its midpoint.
This recapitulation is the essence of ABAC form. Choruses 2 and 3 provide the clearest
examples. Section 2A1 (fig. 427A) begins with an elaboration of a descending tonic triad
preceded by its upper neighbor. Evans repeats the G-E-C figure on the downbeat of section
2A2 (fig. 427B, beat 49.1), preceded by an upper neighbor in measure 48. The next phrases
are also similar: C-E on beat 34.4 has a counterpart on beat 50.4, C-Eb; G-C on beat 35.34
has a counterpart on beat 52.1. Chorus 3 features similar parallelism (fig. 428). The most
memorable features of section 3A1 (fig. 428A) are a high register, dotted-quarter rhythm, and
emphasis on the pitches of a Cmaj7 chord. Though the specific melody is different, the
opening of section 3A2 (fig. 428B) is very similar.
Figure 427. Evans, My Romance: Comparison of chorus 2 beg. and midpoint. {14}
427A. Opening, section 2A1 (mm. 3336).
41
21-
427B. Opening, section 2A2 (mm. 4852).

-44
428A. Opening, section 3A1 (mm. 6568).
428B. Opening, section 3A2 (mm. 8184).
Chorus 1 features the same reprise at its midpoint, but more subtly. Figure 429A shows
the opening of the chorus. The first note of measure 1 concludes a brief transitional passage
between the opening theme and the first solo chorus. At the midpoint of the chorus (fig. 4
29B), an end-accented phrase ending on beat 17.1 corresponds to the transitional passage. The
phrase rhythm in sections 1A1 (mm. 18) and 1A2 (mm. 1724) is nearly identical: an endaccented 4-phrase, beginning and ending on the pitch C5, followed by an un-accented 4-phrase
that brings the 8-phrase to a consonant close.
The phrase rhythm around the midpoint of chorus 1 is quite ambiguous: note the
approximately rhyming endings of the three 2-phrases in measures 16 to 21. Rhyming segments
should, when possible, be grouped within the same larger phrase; but this would require three
2-phrases to form a single 4-phrase. This reading is not inconceivable, but I find it impossible to
hear the passage this way. I have chosen to group the second and third 2-phrases together as an
end-accented 4-phrase (mm. 1721). One might instead group the first and second 2-phrases
together as a beginning-accented 4-phrase (mm. 1619), but this 4-phrase would be very
much offset from the hypermeter. Further complicating the phrase rhythm is the beginningrhyme between beats 19.2.5 and 21.2.5, which suggests that the phrases that begin on these
beats belong to the same 4-phrase. In short, the phrase rhythm in measures 16 to 23 is
uncommonly obscure, stemming from a series of three rhyming 2-phrases.69 It is impossible to
group the 2-phrases into 4-phrases in such a way that no rhymes cross 4-phrase divisions, in
other words, in a way that rhyming segments are always grouped into the same higher-level
phrase.
Figure 429A. Section 1A1 (mm. 18).
124
-21
In his solo on Witchcraft, analyzed in chapter 6, Evans again employs an odd number of
successive rhyming phrases, exploiting the same conflict between rhyme and meter. Indeed,
whenever rhymes at a metrical time intervalone measure, two measures, four measures, etc.
occur an odd number of times, they inevitably conflict with the meter, in which the beats at any
level have a duple relationship with the levels above and below.
69
429B. Section 1B, 1A2 (mm. 924).

-1
-1
-41-
-14
12
14
12-
I mentioned that sections 1A1 and 1A2, the first and third sections of chorus 1, project
motion from phrase-rhythm dissonance to consonance, because they contain an end-accented
4-phrase followed by an un-accented 4-phrase. Sections 1B and 1C, the second and fourth
sections, project the opposite motion, consonance to dissonance, as a result of double-accented
4-phrases. Section B opens with an un-accented 4-phrase (figure 429B, mm. 912). A long 2phrase occupies measures 12 to 14. Alone, the short segment in measure 15 is insufficient to
complete the 4-phrase, due to its brevity, rhythm, contour, and highly dissonant octatonic scale.
It is the first 1-phrase of the answering 2-phrase. The final segment of the section (mm. 1617)
reinterprets the schemes half-cadence as an anacrusis to beat 17.1, and makes the 4-phrase
double-accented.
Section 1C (figure 430A) also suggests motion from consonance to dissonance: it opens
with a double-accented phrase. The shift to dissonance signals that the solo is only just
beginning, and there is more to come. The pivot note that terminates this phrase (beat 29.1)
propels the solo into chorus 2, energized by its register and metrical location.
Figure 430. Evans, My Romance, section 1C. {14}

430A. mm. 2132.
-1
12-
1242
-141
430B. Grouping structure, including beginning of next chorus (not shown in 430A).
m. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
[4] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2]
4:
2:
O
O
][
2+2
Evans uses three phrase overlaps, including the one shown in figure 430 (m. 29). These
all occur mid-section, uniting the hypermeasures of an eight-bar section. Figure 431 shows the
other two, both of which occur in the last chorus. In measure 77, a marked change in
figuration follows the pivot. The subtler pivot at 85.1 is indicated by duration and the cessation
of triplet rhythm. The pivot notes mildly accent the midpoints of eight-bar hypermeasures,
while maintaining melodic flow.
Compared to chorus 1, the phrase rhythm of chorus 2 is clear, but still far from
predictable. The chorus opens with a combined phrase (fig. 426A above), and contains the
solos only other combined phrase (fig. 432 below). Like the phrase in measures 31 to 34 (fig.
426A), this is a 2+2 combined phrase; the two also have similar prosody.
Figure 431. Evans, My Romance: More phrase overlap (mm. 7388). {14}
2421
-4-
-441
24
Figure 432. Evans, My Romance: A 2+2 combined phrase (mm. 5360). {14}
1-
241-
-1
Section 2A1 (fig. 433) exemplifies the subtle variety of Evanss phrase rhythm. The
endings in measures 35 and 39 rhyme. Evans follows each ending with an eighth-rest and a
short segment. In measure 36, I analyze this segment as a suffix to the 4-phrase. The
corresponding segment in measure 40, however, is part of the first 2-phrase of the next
hypermeasure. A small extension has transformed a segment that was a mere suffix in measure
36 into something very different in measures 40 to 41. This reflects my different hearing of
these segments: the segment in measure 40 sounds like an afterthought to the previous 4phrase; the segment in measures 40 to 41 seems to initiate something new.
Figure 433. Evans, My Romance, section 2A1 (mm. 3341). {14}
41
21
-121
-4-
The next 8-phrase extends from measures 40 to 47, occupying section 2B (fig. 434).
Though its constituent 4-phrases are both divided, and have similar prosody overall, they differ
at the 2-phrase level. Their constituent 2-phrases have inverse prosody: in measures 40 to 44,
the 2-phrases are end- then beginning-accented, while in measures 44 to 47, the 2-phrases are
beginning- then end-accented. The ending in measure 47 leaves room for a long anacrusis to
the next section. Notice how closely the phrase in measures 48 to 49 corresponds with the
phrase in measures 16 to 17, at the equivalent place in chorus 1 (see fig. 429B above). Yet in
chorus 1, I analyze this phrase as the end of an end-accented 4-phrase, while in chorus 2 (fig. 4
34), it is the beginning of a beginning-accented 4-phrase. Why have I interpreted these phrases
differently? The difference is in the preceding segment. In chorus 1, the segment in measure 15
does not sound conclusive, metrically, melodically, or harmonically, so the next segment has a
duty to complete the 4-phrase. But in chorus 2, the segment ending in measure 47
corresponding to that in measure 15ends in a more satisfactory way, with a downward
contour and clear articulation of the schemes half-cadence. Therefore, the next segment,
beginning in measure 48, can be heard more easily as a new beginning.
Figure 434. Evans, My Romance, section 2B (mm. 4049). {14}

-4-
-21
41
-1
-4
Chorus 3 opens with a shift of attention to higher metrical levels, creating a sense of highlevel metrical clarity after the divided phrases of chorus 2 (fig. 435). A slow-moving,
syncopated 4-phrase (mm. 6568) contradicts low metrical levels but has the ideal prosody
[421]. Another beginning-accented 4-phrase concludes section 3A1, reinforcing the four- and
eight-measure levels. Though the surface rhythm accelerates in section 3B at measure 77 (fig. 4
31 above), the pace of deeper activity remains slow: B4 persists for three straight measures (77
79) within another beginning-accented 8-phrase.
Figure 435. Evans, My Romance: Section 3A1 (mm. 6482). {14}
-421
-42-
The phrase rhythm of the second half is more dissonant, including a phrase overlap
(again, see fig. 431 above). But the long phrases continue, and maintain a feeling of
spaciousness. This contrasts with the focus on lower metrical levels characteristic of choruses 1
and 2.
Conclusion
This chapter presented three distinct phrase-rhythm strategies for multi-chorus solos on ABAC
schemes. Only Evanss solo consistently referred to the two-part structure inherent to the
ABAC scheme; the other solos treated the chorus midpoint no differently from other sectional
boundaries. Getzs and Parkers solos involve careful use of phrase combination, often to
simulate end-accentuation. Getz also employs intricate rhyming structures to maintain interest,
reflecting his cooler approach. Parker shifts the amount and type of dissonance dramatically
from chorus to chorus. Evans moves from short, dissonant phrases in the first two choruses to
broad phrases and slower rhythm in the final chorus, projecting a clear long-range plan.
This and the previous chapter illustrate the differences between thirty-two-bar schemes
cast in AABA and ABAC form. Though schemes of these types are metrically identical,
melodic and harmonic recurrence establish AABA as a three-part form and ABAC as a two-part
form. Furthermore, soloists do not treat these forms identically. Based on the small sample
surveyed here, it appears that soloists articulate the form of AABA schemes more clearly than
ABAC forms, especially the sectional division just before the bridge. But perhaps most
remarkable is the incredible variety of phrase-rhythm strategies possible within these schemes,
which helps explain their longevity as vehicles for improvisation.
143
Chapter 5: The Twelve-Bar Blues

Blues Form
While there are sixteen- and eight-bar blues schemes, the most common blues schemes are
twelve measures long, comprising three hypermeasures. A harmonic outline of a blues in C is
given in figure 51. The first hypermeasure prolongs tonic, the second hypermeasure moves to
the subdominant and then back to tonic, and the third hypermeasure presents a cadence in
tonic. The most significant distinction between versions of the blues is the harmonization of
measures 9 and 10: iiV vs. VIV; both alternatives are shown. The iiV progression
predominates in bop-influenced jazz, while the VIV progression is more typical of rock and
the genre known as blues. There are countless other ways of elaborating the harmonies of
figure 51, but all require a motion to the subdominant in measure 5 and a cadence
terminating in measure 11.70
Figure 51. Metrical-harmonic scheme of twelve-bar blues in C.
mm. 14
|C7
|(F7)
|C7
|C7
mm. 58
|F7
|F7
|C7
|C7
mm. 912
|D-7 (or G7) |G7 (or F7
|C7
|(G7)
Two features distinguish the metrical hierarchy of the blues from other schemes: its
shallowness and its triple construction. Most schemes are longer than twelve measures, and
divide into discrete sections above the four-bar level. These sections create a metrical level
between the four-bar hypermeasure and the chorus. Not so in the blues, in which the choruslevel is directly above the four-bar level. The hierarchy is therefore shallower. Furthermore, the
entire chorus comprises three hypermeasures. This contradicts the duple construction typical of
thirty-two-bar schemes, in which the time-spans of each metrical level are in a 2:1 ratio with
higher and lower levels.
Experienced musicians grow extremely comfortable with the blues scheme at a variety of
tempos, such that these irregularities are hardly noticed. Instead, the brevity of the scheme
For example, each chord can be preceded by its own iiV: the F7 in bar can be approached
by G-7C7 in the previous bar, and the D-7 in bar 9 can similarly be approached by E-7A7.
70
Chapter 5: The Twelve-Bar Blues 144
increases the risk that a multi-chorus solo will become tedious. Thirty-two-bar schemes contain
inherent long-range harmonic drama: interruptions, modulating bridges, and so forth. These
built-in features help sustain even a mediocre solo. To fill the same amount of (metrical) time
requires almost three choruses of blues, but three choruses of the blues contains much less
inherent harmonic interest than a single chorus of a well-composed ABAC scheme. The
shallower metrical hierarchy would also seem to limit the possibilities for phrase rhythm. In
chapters 3 and 4, I described the ways soloists interact with each level of the metrical hierarchy,
from the measure to the eight-bar section, sixteen-bar half-chorus, and chorus. In the blues,
phrase rhythm has fewer metrical levels to work with (or against).
The enduring popularity of the blues scheme suggests that skilled musicians have
developed ways of working around these limitations. In this chapter, I examine the phrase
rhythm of three solos to show how this may be done. Each solo illustrates a different phrase
rhythm strategy. Although the metrical hierarchy of the blues is shallower than that of other
schemes, musicians use IOI, rhyme, and motive to generate a level of structure between the
four-measure level and the chorus, a level not intrinsic to the scheme. Most common, and
perhaps most readily perceptible, is the structure 8/4: an 8-phrase consisting of a closely related
pair of 4-phrases, and a contrasting final 4-phrase over the final cadence. The typical AAB
structure of blues lyrics, in which a four-bar phrase is repeated, and then followed by a rhyming
four-bar phrase (often with a lyrical twist or surprise), follows this 8/4 grouping:
A1 (mm. 14): Theres a red house over yonder, thats where my baby stays;
A2 (58): Theres a red house over yonder, thats where my baby stays;
B (912): I aint been home to see my baby in ninety-nine and one-half days.
(Jimi Hendrix, Red House)
The harmonic structure of the blues also helps sustain the 8/4 structure. The first eight
measures prolong tonic through motion to and from the subdominant; the last four measures
contain the cadence and stand apart from the rest.
Less common, but also possible, is 4/8 chorus-level phrase rhythm. Unlike 8-phrases in a
thirty-two-bar scheme, the 8-phrases in the 8/4 and 4/8 structures are not literally coextensive
with eight-measure hypermeasures. Therefore, the emergence of an 8-phrase requires more than
simply a pair of 4-phrases. Instead, the eight measures must seem to stand together, apart from
the other four measures of the chorus, so that the 8/4 or 4/8 structure may be clearly perceived
even in the absence of eight-bar hypermeter. The musicians superimpose a higher level of
grouping on the four-bar level. Musicians can use the same techniques to divide the chorus into
two equal parts, 6/6. This phrase rhythm divides the choruss middle hypermeasure, and
creates a chorus-level hemiola.71
Charlie Parker, Chi Chi (1953)72
According to Henry Martin, the twelve-bar blues is the basis for a quarter of Charlie Parkers
recorded output (Martin 1996: 3). It is therefore not surprising that Parker developed many
ways of navigating this form. In his six-chorus solo on Chi Chi, the chorus-level phrase
rhythm develops gradually from one structure to another. The first four choruses divide into an
8-phrase plus a 4-phrase, while the last chorus implies a chorus-level 6/6 phrase rhythm.
In the first chorus, shown in figure 52, the first 8-phrase is a single melodic segment
spanning measures 15 to 21. The 4-phrase that occupies the choruss third hypermeasure is
similarly undivided (mm. 2225). The content of the 8-phrase suggests that two separate parts
form the complete phrase: note the slower rhythm after bar 19. However, there is no pivot
note. Both of the choruss phrases end over tonic harmony, in measures 21 and 25. The 4phrase (mm. 2225) ends on scale degree 5, anticipating the dominant harmony of the
following measure and maintaining tonal instability leading into the next chorus.
Chorus 2 (fig. 53) maintains the chorus-level 8/4 phrase rhythm but subdivides each
large group. Parker divides the 8-phrase into four 2-phrases, with short rests in between. The
first three 2-phrases have rhyming endings on beat 4.5 of a strong measure (mm. 27, 29, and
31), and very similar prosody. The last 2-phrase does not rhyme, ending on beat 3.5. This early
ending has two consequences: it differentiates the last sub-phrase of the 8-phrase, and it
prevents the phrase from overlapping the harmony V7/ii in measure 34. Remember that
endings on beat 4.5 tend to anticipate the harmony of the following measure. If Parker had
ended the fourth 2-phrase on beat 33.4.5 in order to rhyme with the previous phrases, it would
71
By analogy, in a jazz waltz (3/4), it is typical for the rhythm section to imply a duple division
of the measure: | . . |.
72
have suggested that the 8-phrase ended on V7/ii, preventing it from sounding tonally closed.
Parker divides the choruss final 4-phrase asymmetrically (mm. 3537). The asymmetrical
division contrasts with the regularity of the 8-phrases division.
Figure 52. Parker, Chi Chi: Chorus 1 (mm. 1526). {24}
-1242
-42-

41
-21
-2-
-41
12-
In chorus 3 (fig. 54), irregular division of the 8-phrase begins to obscure the chorus-level
8/4 structure. The first 4-phrase opens with a pair of rhyming 1-phrases, but the phrase that
follows departs from this regularity: it extends across beat 43.1 and becomes a 2+2 combined
phrase, containing part of the next 4-phrase. Phrase combination thus unites the 8-phrase
across its first and second hypermeasures, as in chorus 1 (fig. 52). Once again, Parker
concludes the 8-phrase before the eighth measure of the chorus, avoiding the melodic
implication of V7/ii. In this chorus, unlike chorus 1 and 2, he does not reinforce the 8/4
grouping with an especially long IOI between the 8-phrase and the 4-phrase: the rest after beat
45.4, which separates the 8-phrase from the 4-phrase, is actually shorter than the rest after beat
43.3.
41-
24-
-2-
-42-
Though I interpret the segment in measures 41 to 43 as a 2+2 combined phrase, one

might also take it to be simply a 2-phrase that ends late, creating a double-accented 4-phrase in
measures 38 to 43 (imagine a dotted square ending bracket in measure 43). I reject this reading
because I tend to hear the ending in measure 43 as the start of a new melodic gesture. Also, the
approximate rhyme between the phrase endings in measures 43 and 45 suggests that these
endings be grouped into the same larger phrase, which is only possible if the segment in
measures 41 to 43 is divided among the two hypermeasures.
Chorus 4 (fig. 55) intensifies the irregularities of chorus 3. The 8/4 chorus-level phrase
rhythm is far weaker than before. The 8-phrase divides into two 4-phrases with a very weak
division between them (m. 55). For the first time, the 8-phrase crosses into the choruss eighth
measure, overlapping V7/ii in measure 58. Therefore, the final harmony of the 8-phrase points
forward to the downbeat of measure 59, and opens the ending: the 8-phrase no longer begins
and ends over tonic harmony. As in chorus 3, the IOI between the 8- and the 4-phrase is not
especially long (5859). Notice also the rhyming beginnings in measures 57 and 59. This rhyme
establishes a connection across the division between the 8-phrase and the 4-phrase, further
weakening the 8/4 structure.

44
-1
-1
-124
The last 4-phrase of chorus 4 begins late (m. 59). It also ends late, and combines across the
boundary of chorus 5: it ends in measure 62/3 as the first 1-phrase of the next chorus,
immediately answered by the next segment (6364). (See fig. 56.) The opening phrase rhythm
of chorus 5 is very similar to that of chorus 4. In choruses 4 and 5, the first 4-phrase is doubleaccented, and followed immediately by a short 2-phrase in the next hypermeasure. In chorus 4,
this 2-phrase is answered in measures 57 and 58, ensuring that measures 55 to 58 form a single
4-phrase. However, in chorus 5, the corresponding answering 2-phrase, begun in measure 68,
extends across the next hypermetrical boundary and forms part of a combined phrase that also
overlaps much of the final hypermeasure (6973). This combined phrase prevents the
emergence of 8/4 phrase rhythm, since it overlaps the place where the primary division would
have to fall.
41-
24
1-
242-
Above, I mentioned the possibility of 6/6 chorus-level phrase rhythm. Figure 57 places
the 6/6 structure against the metrical-harmonic scheme of the blues. The emergence of this
structure requires a prominent phrase division somewhere between beat 5.1 and beat 7.1 of the
chorussomewhere in the first two measures of the second hypermeasure. This yields two 6phrases, which divide between them the two-bar downbeats of the second hypermeasure: the
first 6-phrase overlaps beat I.1, the second 6-phrase overlaps beat III.1. The 6-phrases
themselves may be divided or undivided, as long as the division between 6-phrases is clear, and
the internal divisions of the 6-phrases are weak. When present, 6-phrases are shown with
double-square brackets, the same bracket-type as used for 8-phrases. (Context makes it apparent
which type I am indicating.) At a lower level, 6-phrases can arise from the union of three 2phrases, or the combination of a 4-phrase and a 2-phrase.
Figure 57. 6/6 chorus-level phrase rhythm.
1st 6-phrase
Clear division somewhere here
2nd 6-phrase
Chorus 5 (fig. 56 above) has the effect of wiping away the 8/4 structure present in the
first four choruses. This leaves chorus 6 (fig. 58A) to articulate the 6/6 structure. The longest
rest in the chorus separates the 6-phrases from one another. Figure 58B shows the complete
grouping structure. Notice the different composition of the 6-phrases: the first is the union of
three closely-knit 2-phrases, while the second combines a double-accented 2-phrase and a 4phrase. IOI reinforces the division between the 6-phrases: the rest in measure 80 is the longest
of the chorus. As is typical, Parker extends the solos final phrase into the next chorus. (In
contrast, choruses 1, 2, 3, and 5 all ended with a long rest.) This provides a clear signal that the
solo is over and prevents any loss of energy between soloists.
Figure 58. Parker, Chi Chi: Chorus 6. {24}

58A. mm. 7497.
4-
-2-
24
141
124-

m.
75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87
[4] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [4]
6:
][
4:
2:
[
[
][
][
][
]
4
So far, I have only considered Parkers improvised solo; the theme of Chi Chi (fig. 59)
also rewards phrase-rhythm analysis. It contains many points of ambiguity, and the seeds of the
6/6 structure that emerges in the final chorus. The themes phrase rhythm is highly ambiguous.
I divide it into three 4-phrases, in the order beginning-, double-, and end-accented, describing a
motion from consonance to dissonance. The structure of the last 4-phrase (mm. 1015) is
clearest: a pair of end-accented 2-phrases, divided by IOI in measure 12 (I consider the second
ending only). By concluding the theme with an end-accented phrase, Parker imbues the
beginning of the improvised solo with greater energy.
I analyze the themes first 4-phrase as 1+1+2, but I concede the weakness of the division in
measure 3, after the C on beat 3.3. It divides a dissonance from its resolution. I draw support
from Parkers articulation on the recording, which separates the C from the Bb and slurs the
Bb to the following G. But even if one disputes this low-level analysis, measures 1 to 4 still
constitute a complete 4-phrase.
Figure 59. Parker, Chi Chi: Theme (mm. 114). {24}

41-
-4
21
-24
124
The second 4-phrase (mm. 510) divides into asymmetrical 2-phrases. This doubleaccented 4-phrase is extremely unusual: both of its 2-phrases end on beat I.1 of a hypermeasure
(beats 6.1 and 10.1), four measures apart; but 2-phrases generally end only two measures apart.
Notice also how Parker does not play anything on beat 8.1. If the Bb had arrived on this beat,
instead of beat 8.1.5, it would strongly rhyme with beat 6.1. The syncopated delay of the Bb,
echoed by the D on beat 9.1.5, sustains the rhythmic energy of the 2-phrase. A metrically
consonant ending on beat 10.1 brings the 4-phrase to a close and resolves some of the rhythmic
tension. Two features of the theme hint at the chorus-level phrase rhythm 6/6: the long rest in
measures 6 and 7, which could divide a pair of 6-phrases, and the end-accentuation that
weakens the boundary between the second and third hypermeasures, which could unify the
second 6-phrase of a chorus (as in chorus 6, fig. 58A). (In the theme, the rhyme between
measures 5 and 7 goes against the potential 6/6 grouping structure, since this rhyme would
overlap the 6-phrase division.) Overall, Parkers solo shows remarkable long-range coherence,
possibly as a result of his extensive experience playing the blues.
Cannonball Adderley, Freddie Freeloader (1959)73
Alto saxophonist Julian Cannonball Adderley (19281975) entered the jazz scene in 1955, a
close contemporary of Bill Evans. He was immediately hailed as the successor of the recently
73
deceased Parker (Giddins & Deveaux 2009: 398). He joined Miles Daviss band in 1958. After
playing on Daviss seminal album Kind of Blue, which includes Freddie Freeloader, he formed
his own band and became known for a funky, soulful style in the 1960s (ibid.).
Freddie Freeloader (Davis) deviates from standard blues in the harmonies of its final
hypermeasure: |
| IV
| bVII
| bVII
|. First, there is a soulful VIV cadence
in place of jazzs usual iiV cadence. Second, and more significantly, the cadence resolves
deceptively, and the scheme ends without tonic closure. This alters the function of the choruss
final measures and their relationship to the next chorus: the ending of each chorus becomes a
point of harmonic tension, and depends on the beginning of the next chorus for its resolution,
creating a circular form.74
Adderleys strategy in this five-chorus solo is quite different from Parkers. He consistently
supports the division of each chorus into three hypermeasures, in alignment with the scheme.
The first two 4-phrases of every chorus end squarely within their hypermeasures, reinforcing
the choruss two strongest internal metrical divisions. But within this limited framework, the
lower-level phrase rhythm is remarkably diverse.
Though Adderley consistently supports the schemes internal metrical divisions, he
obscures the boundaries between choruses 1 and 2, and choruses 2 and 3. Figure 510 shows
two interpretations of the last hypermeasure of chorus 1 and first hypermeasure of chorus 2
(double-bars indicate hypermetrical boundaries). In the first chorus, the last hypermeasure
(mm. 912) contains three segments. Figure 510A presents the first two as a pair of long 1phrases that form a double-accented 2-phrase. The third segment of the passage (mm. 1113)
overlaps with the next phrase at the boundary between the choruses. As a melodic low-point,
the Bb on beat 13.1 makes a convincing pivot note. On this view, the first chorus ends with an
end-accented 4-phrase whose last note also launches the first 4-phrase of chorus 2. In the
alternative analysis (fig. 510B), the segments in measures 8 to 11 constitute an entire 4-phrase,
and there is a five-beat anacrusis to the first 4-phrase of the next chorus.
74
Larson et al (2009) discuss circular harmonic forms in two other tunes by Davis.
Figure 510. Adderley, Freddie Freeloader: Border of choruses 1 and 2 (mm. 816). 75 {1}
510A. Preferred analysis.
41
-2
141
21-
510B. Alternative analysis.
These alternatives represent very different hearings of this passage, centering on two
events: the phrase-ending in measure 11 and the Bb on beat 13.1. Under figure A, the ending
in measure 11, as a 2-phrase ending, is rather open, and more melodic content is required for
75
the hypermeasure to be occupied. (Imagine that there were no other segment after this ending:
would the hypermeasure sound incomplete?) Under figure B, the ending here is more closed
off, and the next segment initiates something new. The function of the Bb on beat 13.1 is even
more decisive: figure A suggests that the Bb is a crucial grouping boundary, an ending and a
beginning; figure B suggests that the only significance of the Bb is that it falls on a
hypermetrical downbeat, and that it is of no significance to the grouping structure. If one hears
the Bb as a grouping boundary then one will favor analysis A (as I do); if one takes the opposite
view, one will favor analysis B.76
Figure 511 shows the border between choruses 2 and 3. The third hypermeasure of
chorus 2 (mm. 2124) contains a similar collection of segments to the corresponding location
of chorus 1: two short segments followed by a long segment that continues into the next
chorus. The two short segments in both cases end very near beat III.1 of the hypermeasure
(beats 11.1 and 23.1). Indeed, in my analysis, the only significant difference is that the long
segment leading to chorus 3 turns out to be a combined phrase, blending into the prefix of
the next 4-phrase. Since this phrase barely extends into chorus 3 (m. 25), one might interpret it
simply as end-accented, entirely belonging to chorus 2 (imagine a dotted square bracket in m.
25). I interpret it as a combined phrase because of the parallel endings in measures 25 and 27.
As I have mentioned before, such parallelism suggests that these endings terminate parts of the
same larger phrase. To a listener hearing the performance for the first time, the parallelism
might cause a retroactive re-evaluation of the ending in measure 25. The D-Ab in measure 25
that was initially heard as simply the close of an end-accented 4-phrase, in light of the parallel
ending in measure 27, is reinterpreted as the opening gesture of a new hypermeasure. This
requires that the segment in measures 23 to 25 be a combined phrase, 2+prefix, part of a larger
2+4 combined phrase.
One other alternative seems plausible: if one hears the ending in measure 11 as open, but
hears no grouping boundary on the Bb, then the segment in measures 11 to 14 will be a 2+2
combined phrase.
76
Figure 511. Adderley, Freddie Freeloader: Border of chor. 2 and 3 (mm. 2028). {1}
41-
-14
12-
The phrase rhythm at the end of the solo (fig. 512) is nearly identical to that in choruses
1 and 2: a pair of 1-phrases followed by a 2-phrase that extends across the chorus boundary.
The D5 on beat 60.1 is the third of tonic harmony, and it occurs where tonic closure would
normally occur: the final measure of the scheme. But it is a dissonance over the local harmony,
Ab7the scheme itself forestalls any possibility of harmonic resolution in the solos final
measures. The solo comes to a consonant close only in measure 61, the first measure of the
next chorus. Indeed, in all three cases, Adderleys blurring of the chorus endpoint appears
inspired by the dissonant harmony of the schemes final measures. Just as the harmony remains
open until the next chorus begins, Adderleys phrasing pushes through the last measures of
these choruses.
Figure 512. Adderley, Freddie Freeloader: End of solo (mm. 5662). {1}
41-
-14-
In terms of phrase rhythm, choruses 3 and 4 end more consonantly than 1 and 2, with 4phrase endings in their final measures (figs. 513A and B, mm. 36 and 48). Notice how the
final 4-phrase of chorus 3 (mm. 3236) integrates the discrete segments of measures 20 to 24
into an undivided 4-phrase (fig. 511 above). In both passages, Adderley repeats a figure
sequentially over F7Eb7, before a sixteenth-note ascent over Ab7. Sixteenth-notes also appear
at the end of chorus 4 (fig. 513B, m. 47).
Figure 513. Adderley, Freddie Freeloader: End of choruses 3 and 4. {1}

513A. End of chorus 3 (mm. 3236).
421
513B. End of chorus 4 (mm. 4458).

4-
-21
In every chorus, Adderley divides the first 4-phrase into two parts. But other factors
distinguish one chorus from the next: where and how these 4-phrases begin, and where they are
divided. While the first 4-phrase is divided in every chorus, only in choruses 1 and 2 are the
resultant sub-phrases roughly equal in length.
I analyze the chorus-level phrase rhythm of choruses 4 and 5 as 8/4. Figure 514 shows
the 8-phrases. In chorus 4 (fig. A), both 4-phrases are divided into a prefix and a main phrase.
The melodic and prosodic similarities between these phrases create a highly unified 8-phrase.
Chorus 5 presents a more interesting case: melodic parallelism between the 4-phrases, especially
their opening segments, but different phrase rhythm. The first 4-phrase (mm. 4852) opens
with a prefix outlining the tritone AbD. The main portion of the phrase (mm. 5052)
concludes with an elaboration of the same tritone. The second 4-phrase is more symmetrically
divided. But melodically, these phrases still end with a tritone. Thus, Adderley couples melodic
repetition with phrase-rhythm development, as the second 4-phrase expands what was a prefix
into a 2-phrase. In terms of hearing, the prefixes that end in measures 37, 41, and 49 act as
calls to attention, setting up the listener for the main part of the 4-phrase; the 2-phrase in
measures 52 to 53 is more independent and balanced with the remainder of the 4-phrase.
Figure 514. Adderley, Freddie Freeloader: 8-phrases in choruses 4 and 5. {1}

514A. Beginning of chorus 4 (mm. 3644).
42-
421-
514B. Beginning of chorus 5 (mm. 4856).

421-
41
21-
I have neglected many details of this solo, especially with regard to prosody. There is great
variety in the prosody, both across the solo and between successive phrases. I will point out a
single example, the first 8-phrase of chorus 4 (fig. 514A). The constituent 4-phrases of this 8phrase carefully balance unity and variety. As I mentioned above, each divides into a prefix and
a longer second segment. The prosody of the prefixes is nearly identical, but in the second 4phrase, Adderley expands the second segment by three beats, adding to the beginning and end.
This slight modification, along with the faster rhythm in measures 42 and 43, lessens the
symmetry between these 4-phrases, while still maintaining a connection.
The relatively slow tempo of Freddie Freeloader (= 138) lets Adderley explore many
rhythmic divisions and subdivisions not seen in other solos. It also seems to shift his focus
from the 4-phrase level to lower levels, at which his solo has endless variety. Finally, his
frequent blurring of chorus-level boundaries reflects the schemes circular harmonic structure.
Sonny Rollins, Tenor Madness (1956)77
Tenor saxophonist Sonny Rollins (1930), like Adderley and Evans, entered the jazz world in
the 50s, after the flowering of bebop. In the mid-50s he became the premier hard bop tenor,
the period and style in which this recording was made. During the long and fruitful career that
has followed (and continues to this day), his style has evolved to incorporate jazz trends,
including 60s avant-garde and 70s fusion.78
In his eight-chorus solo on Tenor Madness, Sonny Rollins uses all of the chorus-level
phrase rhythms seen so far: 8/4, 4/8, 6/6, and 4/4/4 all make an appearance. Overall, the
chorus-level phrase rhythm breaks down as follows, by chorus:
1. 8/4
2. 8/4
3. 6/6
4. 4/8
5. ?
6. 6/6
7. 4/8
8. 4/4/4
The 8/4 and 4/4/4 configurations are most consonant with the scheme, and appear at the
beginning and end of the solo; more dissonant structures appear in the middle.
The first and second choruses feature consonant 8/4 phrase rhythm, as in the opening of
Parkers solo. In chorus 1 (fig. 515), the 8-phrase emerges through the repetition of the motive
D(b)Bb in a series of four 2-phrases. The long IOI after this 8-phrase reinforces the choruss
main point of division (mm. 78), as does the faster rhythm of the undivided 4-phrase that
concludes the chorus (mm. 811).
Rollins maintains the same 8/4 phrase rhythm in chorus 2 (fig. 516), but reverses which
phrases are divided: here, the final 4-phrase, rather than the 8-phrase, is divided into
motivically and metrically parallel 2-phrases. The 8-phrase (mm. 1219) consists of three
segments, two of which overlap. In both of the first two choruses, Rollins ends the 8-phrases in
77
78

Extracted from Giddins & Deveaux 2009: 36668 and Martin & Waters 2002: 23132.
the seventh measure of the chorus (as in the first two choruses of Chi Chi), placing distance
between it and the following 4-phrase and avoiding V7/ii.
Figure 515. Rollins, Tenor Madness: Chorus 1 (mm. 112).79 {30}
2-
-1
21
-42-
Figure 516. Rollins, Tenor Madness: Chorus 2 (mm. 1224). {30}

142
41-
-4-
-2-
Choruses 4 and 7 contain the only examples of chorus-level 4/8 phrase rhythm in this
chapter (figs. 517, 518). The challenge of creating this structure lies in unifying the 8-phrase.
It does not sit easily in the blues harmonic structure (see fig. 51 above): it begins in the second
hypermeasure, in the middle of the tonic-prolonging motion to subdominant, then overlaps
both the return to tonic and the cadence at the choruss end. Chorus 4 demonstrates
remarkable symmetry of phrase rhythm: the first and last 4-phrases have the same prosody, and
79
the double-accented middle 4-phrase is placed exactly in the middle of the chorus. At the next
level of phrase rhythm, the second and third 4-phrase form an 8-phrase through middleground
voice-leading. The melody of measures 40 to 47 trace a chromatic descent from G5 to D5. At
the end of the second 4-phrase (beat 45.1), this descent has only reached Eb5, demanding
resolution to D. During measures 41 to 45, the regular pace of this chromatic descentone
half-step per measuremakes the arrival on Eb5 seem inevitable, once the phrase continues
past beat 43.1.
12-
44
12-
Chorus 7 (fig. 518) presents the inverse phrase rhythm to chorus 4: two double-accented
4-phrases surrounding an un-accented 4-phrase. In this chorus, motivic and voice-leading
connections overcome IOI to form the chorus-level 4/8 grouping structure. The first 4-phrase
contains three rhyming segments, labeled A, B, and C. Each segment functions like an
anacrusis to a two-bar downbeat, overlapping the three two-bar downbeats of the 4-phrase as a
whole. Despite this symmetry, I hear segment A as a prefix, not a 2-phrase like the others,
because of its placement largely outside of the hypermeasure.80
Recall a similar passage in Evanss My Romance (fig. 429B), in which Evans used three
successive rhyming 2-phrases. Odd numbers of rhyming phrases always lead to somewhat
paradoxical analyses, due to the assumption of symmetry built into the analytical system.
80

12
14
14
B
1-
-1-
41-
14
Segments D and E constitute an un-accented 4-phrase, united by the motive of a

descending seventh chord, first Eb-7 (segment D), then D-7 and D7 (segment E). Segment F
continues this motive and the middleground chromatic descent, moving to C-7. As a whole,
the chorus contains seven discrete segments, none greater than two measures in length; Rollins
employs rhyme, motive, and voice-leading to create a 4-phrase and 8-phrase level.
In chorus 8, no grouping structure emerges above the 4-phrase level (see p. 251). Long
rests separate the 4-phrases from one another. The melodic and rhythmic independence of the
three 4-phrases prevent any 8-phrase from emerging. The simplicity of phrase rhythm in this
final chorus balance Rollinss shift to sixteenth-notes.
Choruses 3 and 6 (fig. 519) employ the phrase rhythm 6/6, introduced in Chi Chi. In
chorus 3, there are six discrete segments, divided into two groups of three by a six-beat rest.
That rest is the defining feature of the chorus. Though chorus 6 (fig. 519B) has a lengthy rest
in the same place as chorus 3, it only has one 6-phrase, in its second half. Figure 519C shows
its grouping structure. The chorus opens with a 2+4 combined phrase begun in the previous
chorus, precluding any clear 6-phrase boundary at the start. (See figure 520, below, for the
prior context of this combined phrase.) Both chorus 3 and 6 feature a phrase-ending in their
eleventh measure (beats 35.1 and 71.1). In the former case, I analyze this as a 2-phrase ending,
but in the latter, as a 4-phrase ending. Several factors lead me to hear the ending in measure 71
as more final than that in measure 35. It ends on scale degree 3, reinforcing tonic more clearly
than scale degree 5; it ends in a relatively low register; and most importantly, the segment that
comes after the phrase ending in measure 71 seems to lead in a new direction, due to the
sudden ascent and change in rhythm, whereas the segment that comes after the ending in
measure 35 continues the same downward trajectory as the previous segment, and begins with
the F5 on which that segment ended.
Figure 519. Rollins, Tenor Madness: 6/6 chorus-level phrase rhythm. {30}
519A. Chorus 3 (mm. 2436).
4-
-2
14
21-
42
519B. Chorus 6 (mm. 5972).

142-
-4-
242
519C. Grouping structure of chorus 6 (includes last two measures of chorus 5).
m.
59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 74
[2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [4]
6:
4:
2:
2+4
][
The design of chorus 5 is unique (fig. 520). Melodically, the chorus comprises a pair of
motives, labeled a and b (mm. 4853), repeated once in their entirety at the subdominant
level (mm. 5458), and then once more, partially, back in tonic (mm. 5960). This incomplete
final appearance leads into the next chorus without pause, as a combined phrase (see fig. 5
19B for its conclusion). There are two remarkable things about the melody in this chorus: its
rhythmic regularity, and its total dissonance with the meter. The internal measurements of the
motive-pair ab are consistent: in both appearances of the complete pair, motive b begins exactly
1.3 measures (one measure and three beats) after motive a. The time-span between motive-pairs
is also consistent: there are 5.2 measures (five measures and two beats) between a1 and a2, and
between a2 and a3. A3 begins exactly eleven measures after a1.
Figure 520. Rollins, Tenor Madness: Chorus 5. {30}
520A. mm. 4860.
b1
a1
a2
b2
a3

m. 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61
[4] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [4]
4:
2:
4
2
][
]
2
][
][
2+2
][
2+4
This regularity is all the more astonishing in light of its extraordinary dissonance with the
scheme. The 5.2-measure figure is very much out of alignment with the meter. I mentioned
that the second appearance of the figure is transposed from the tonic to the subdominant level.
This echoes the schematic harmonic motion in measure 5 from tonic to subdominant. But the
subdominant version of the figure arrives too late, in measure 54, only just before the return to
tonic in measure 55. Rollins sustains Db, the seventh of Eb7, until it becomes the flatted third
of Bb. It is a clich of the blues to play a melodic figure in the opening measures, and then
transpose it to the subdominant in measure 5 of the scheme to mirror the harmonic scheme
(mirroring the standard lyrical design AAB). Rollins distorts this clich by having the second
appearance of the figure arrive late, resulting in harmonic and metrical misalignment between
melody and scheme. The phrase rhythm of chorus 5 is thereby built on a conflict between the
internal regularity of the melody and the metrical regularity of the schemea form of metrical
dissonance, in as much as it involves a conflict between opposing rhythmic regularities.
The conventional 2-phrase and 4-phrase brackets cannot capture the choruss internal
regularity, but they can show the resulting relationship between phrasing and hypermeter.
Figure 520B depicts the grouping structure.
Of the three soloists analyzed here, Rollins demonstrates the greatest variety of choruslevel phrase rhythm. In eight choruses he implies five distinct structures, through a
combination of rhyme, motive, and voice-leading. Taken together, these three solos show that
the shallowness of the blues metrical scheme does not confine musicians phrase rhythm, but
rather inspires innovation. Musicians generate a level of phrase-rhythm between the four-bar
level and the chorus-level, without the support of the schematic meter. (Or, in Adderleys case,
accept the shallow chorus-level structure and focus on lower levels.) I return to this technique
in chapter 7, in the context of a scheme whose meter is far shallower than that of the blues.
165
Chapter 6: Metrically Atypical Schemes

Introduction
Many schemes do not fit within the three categories discussed in the previous chapters. In this
chapter, I discuss three schemes that depart in various ways from these models. I focus on
metrical departures, rather than harmonic or thematic. (For example, Stella By Starlight has
an unusual harmonic/thematic design but retains eight-bar hypermeter; it is not metrically
atypical.)
I assume that many atypical schemes derive from more common models. When common
models are taken broadly, as three-part (AABA), two-part (ABAC), or one-part (blues), many
unusual schemes can be connected to them. This is the case with the three schemes analyzed
below. Departures from metrical regularity fall into two categories: extension and abbreviation.
It is quite common to find a four-bar extension in the final section of a thirty-two-bar scheme,
expanding an eight-measure section to twelve measures (e.g., All the Things You Are, East of
the Sun, etc.). Several phrase rhythms may fill the resulting twelve-measure section: 8/4, 4/8,
6/6, 4/4/4. Each of the examples below includes an extension. Sonny Rollinss Airegin, a
modified ABAC form, includes a four-bar extension in section B; the A sections of Ill
Remember April and the B section of Witchcraft (both modified AABA forms) include
eight-measure extensions.
Schemes may also include shortened sections (less than eight measures) or the elimination
of sections altogether: abbreviation. Ill Remember April is in ABA form: an A section has
been removed from its first part (cf. Stablemates by Benny Golson). Strode Rode, a
modified AABA scheme by Sonny Rollins not analyzed here, has a 4bar bridge.
It may seem that alterations involving the addition or subtraction of a four-bar
hypermeasure prevent the emergence of an eight-bar (sectional) metrical level, reducing the
perceptual salience of sectional downbeats. But recall the qualitative difference between highlevel beats and low-level beats, discussed in chapter 1. The time-span between eight-bar beats is
greater than the maximum span at which we can perceive temporal regularity (around 5 or 6
Chapter 6: Metrically Atypical Schemes 166
seconds).81 Beats at this level arise through accumulation of perceptible beats, rather than
direct perception. Once the listener becomes familiar with the scheme, the downbeat of a
twelve-bar section may be perceived with similar ease to the downbeats of eight-bar sections,
and do not jeopardize the metrical integrity of the scheme. Harmonic and melodic
reinforcement of sectional boundaries strengthens this capacity.
For each solo analyzed here, I first summarize the metrical, harmonic, and thematic design
of the scheme and its implications for sectional form. Specifically, I determine the number of
sections and how each may be internally divided. Then I discuss how the soloists phrase
rhythm interacts with form on small and large levels. As before, the central question at the
chorus-level is whether the soloist reinforces or contradicts the schematic form. Particularly
interesting is the question of conservative versus liberal approaches to unusual form. These
schemes are less familiar to player and listener than the thirty-two-bar and twelve-bar forms.
This unfamiliarity may cause a musician to follow the form rigidly, since the novelty of the
form holds greater inherent interest (and places greater demands on the performers to
maintain the scheme). Or it may inspire the musician to follow the lead of the scheme and
depart from metrical norms. The solos below illustrate both techniques.
Sonny Rollins, Airegin (1954) 82
Airegin (composed by Rollins himself) is a thirty-six-measure ABAC scheme in which section

B is twelve measures long rather than eight. Figure 61 shows the metrical-harmonic scheme.
Sections B and C have distinct thematic content from the A sections. Tonally, the schemes
first half moves from tonic to a half-cadence in F minor; the second half modulates to the
relative major (Ab). This pattern is common in schemes that begin in the minor mode (cf.
Youd Be So Nice to Come Home to (Porter) How Deep Is the Ocean? (Berlin)).
81
82
London 2004: 46, cited in chapter 1.

Figure 61. Airegin (Rollins): Metrical-harmonic scheme.

A1:
||: F-
C7 |
F-
B:
|| Db |D-7 G7 |
|C#-7 F#7 || B
|| Bb-7 |Bb-7Eb7 |
Ab
| G-7b5 C7 ||
A2:
same as A1
C:
|| Db |
D7 |
C-7 |
F7 || Bb- |
F7 |
Bb- |
Bb- ||
| C-7 F7 |
Bb |
Bb |
Ab |
C7
F7 || Bb-7 |
Eb7 |
:||
Section A1 presents a four-bar phrase in tonic immediately repeated in the subdominant.

The first eight measures of section B present a series of tonicizations descending chromatically,
of C, B, and Bb. Bb persists for two measures, creating a point of rest within the B section. The
sections final four measures conclude with a turnaround in F, after a brief tonicization of bIII.
The point of rest on Bb divides section B, 8/4.
Section A2 repeats A1 verbatim. Section C moves immediately towards the key of Ab. The
Db harmony in the sections first measure is best interpreted as IV of Ab, an interpretation
reinforced by the subsequent move to D7. By convention, a chromatically ascending bass
begun on a hypermetrical downbeat implies scale degree 4scale degree #4scale degree 5, and
generally foreshadows a tonic cadence six measures later, as happens here. Though the final
four measures of sections B and C are harmonically identical, the context makes the arrival on
Ab in section C stronger than the one in section B. In his solo, Rollins tends to downplay both
arrivals on Ab, implying a global tonic of F minor rather than Ab.83
In his three-chorus solo, Rollins consistently respects boundaries within each half-chorus,
while employing end-accentuation and combination to contradict the boundaries between
choruses and half-choruses. That is, his phrase rhythm reinforces the divisions between sections
A1 and B, and A2 and C, but not higher-level divisions. The phrase rhythm of Miles Daviss
solo on Airegin, which precedes Rollinss on the recording, follows roughly the same pattern.
This is a striking inversion of the typical approach, in which the soloist respects the schemes
highest boundaries, while obscuring those within each section. Another unusual feature of the
If Ab is tonic, then is it prolonged by arrival, since its status is not revealed until the end.
Martin (1988: 15) discusses tonics prolonged by arrival, as in Sweet Georgia Brown and
other schemes with severely off-tonic beginnings. While Ab may be the tonic of the scheme of
Airegin, Rollinss solo does not follow this interpretation: he never lends melodic support to
the cadence in Ab.
83
solo are the strong similarities between the phrase rhythm within a given section, across
multiple choruses.
I first consider the A sections, shown in figures 62 through 67. Rollins indicates the
end of each with a very long IOI, usually at least four beats. Every A section is divided into 4phrases, with no overlap or combination; in all but one, the second 4-phrase is shorter than the
first, and it is un-accented (section 2A2, fig. 65, is the exception). Rollins frequently overlaps
the boundary at the beginning of the A section. The consonant, predictable phrase rhythm
within each A section balances the dissonance of the overlapped beginning.
Unlike every other A section, in section 1A1 (fig. 62), the first 4-phrase is end-accented.
The phrase culminates with the tonicization of iv on beat 5.1: Rollins maintains or increases
the dynamic intensity during the long notes in measures 3 and 4, creating anticipation for this
arrival. The first 4-phrase points strongly to iv, the second reinforces this key. They form a
textbook 8-phrase. Both begin late in their hypermeasures, and their endings rhymethough at
the non-metrical distance of three measures, not two or four (beats 5.1 and 8.1). The first
phrase also contains an internal rhyme, with slight modification, in measures 4 and 5.
Figure 62. Rollins, Airegin: Section 1A1 (mm. 18).84 {29}
-24
-21
Figure 63 shows the end of section 1B and the entirety of section 1A2. A 4+4 combined
phrase overlaps the chorus midpoint, so that section 1A2 opens with a phrase that began in the
previous hypermeasure. Dominant harmony spans the two beats on either side of beat 21.1, the
midpoint of the chorus. Rollinss melody makes no indication of this hypermetrical downbeat,
or the schematic half-cadence that ended the first half of the scheme one measure earlier. As in
section 1A1, the second 4-phrase of 1A2 is un-accented. The melody in the first hypermeasure
of section 1A2 prolongs tonic (mm. 2124), so that the move to the subdominant in measures
84
25 to 28 sounds like an answer, as in the scheme. Contrast this with section 1A1 (fig. 62), in
which the melody emphasized the attainment of the subdominant.
Figure 63. Rollins, Airegin: Section 1A2 (and portion of 1B, mm. 1728). {29}
-12421
12-
Section 2A1, the first section of chorus 2 (fig. 64), closely resembles section 1A2 (63). It
opens with the second half of a 4+4 combined phrase, and an elaboration of dominant
harmony straddles the chorus downbeat (beat 37.1), just like the downbeat of section 1A2. In
measures 40 and 24, the melody reaches a similar climax. The second 4-phrases of each section
(mm. 4243 and 2627) are identical in prosody and essential voice-leading. When two A
sections within the same chorus have such similar phrase rhythm, it supports the schematic
structure through the implication of a reprise. I observed this pattern in Charlie Parkers
Yardbird Suite and Bill Evanss My Romance. But here, sections 1A2 and 2A1 are
separated by a chorus boundary. The parallelism does not support the chorus-level two-part
structure, but creates unity at a higher level.
Figure 64. Rollins, Airegin: Section 2A1 (mm. 3744). {29}
421
12-
A 4+4 combined phrase overlaps the midpoint of chorus 1 and the downbeat of chorus 2,
the downbeats of two successive A sections (figs. 63 and 64). Rollinss treatment of
subsequent A-section (half-chorus-level) downbeats is more consonant. The downbeat of
section 2A2 (fig. 65, m. 57) is punctuated by the final note of an end-accented phrase, the
final phrase of the choruss first half. Although it is dissonant with the metrical scheme, this
phrase-ending still calls attention to the sectional downbeat. A phrase-ending similarly accents
the downbeat of section 3A1, shown in figure 66. In both figures, the subsequent 4-phrase
(mm. 5760 and 7486) is un-accented, causing it to sound like an echo of the metrically
strong phrase-ending that preceded it (mm. 57 and 73).
Figure 65. Rollins, Airegin: Section 2A2 (and preceding portion of 2B, mm. 5364) . {29}
-12
-14
-121
42
The constituent 4-phrases of section 2A2 (fig. 65, mm. 5764) are constructed in parallel
with one another. Both have suffixes, and their main portions have rhyming endings (mm. 59,
63). However, the second 4-phrase is beginning-accented, not un-accented, weakening the
parallelism and distinguishing this A-section from the others.
Figure 66. Rollins, Airegin: Section 3A1 (and preceding portion of 2C, mm. 7380) . {29}
-21-
-121
Figure 67 shows section 3A2 along with the preceding portion of section 3B. Rollinss
treatment of the sectional downbeat, beat 93.1, is superficially similar to that in figures 65 and
66: the ending of a segment coincides with the downbeat. But the overall phrase rhythm here
is more consonant than in those examples. Specifically, the segment-ending in measure 93 is
only the end of a prefix, and belongs to the 4-phrase that follows; in the other examples, the
ending on the sectional downbeat terminated an end-accented 4-phrase that occupied the
preceding hypermeasure: the superimposition of 4-phrase ending and hypermetrical beginning
created phrase-rhythm dissonance. The different phrase rhythm in figure 67 hinges on the
existence of a plausible 4-phrase division in measure 91, supported by melodic interval, a strong
beat (the backwards influence of beat 93.1), and Rollinss articulation (not entirely evident in
the transcription). But even here, Rollins does not respect the schematic half-cadence, instead
treating measure 92 as an anacrusis to the next downbeat.
Figure 67. Rollins, Airegin: Section 3A2 (and prec. portion of 3B, mm. 89100). {29}
-12-
142-
-12-
In addition to similarities in phrase rhythm, common melodic features permeate the A

sections. The figure AbF concludes the first 4-phrase of each A section after section 1A1. It
even appears in section 1A1, mid-phrase (fig. 62: m. 4). The voice-leading of the second 4phrases is identical in figures 63, 64, 65, and 66: an elaboration of motion from F5 to
Db5, a prolongation of iv.
The twelve-measure B sections are even more closely related. All the B sections include
two main segments, an 8-phrase and a 4-phrase, echoing the themes division of this section
into two groups, 8/4. The 4-phrases are shown in figures 63, 65, and 67, discussed above.
Figure 68 compares the 8-phrases of each B section, alongside the theme. This section of the
theme (fig. 68A) is constructed from three overlapping appearances of the bracketed motive,
outlining the scale degree pattern (4)543 in C, B, and Bb. The grouping structure is
unclear. In fact, it is debatable whether any divisions should be drawn within this phrase.
These are obscured by both the overlapping motives and the harmony. Each local tonic is
preceded by its iiV in the preceding weak measure, giving each two-bar downbeat a onemeasure anacrusis. This creates end-accentuation at the two-bar level. Rollinss solo preserves
the themes voice-leading but exploits the grouping structures ambiguities.
Figure 68. Rollins, Airegin: Comparison of B sections. {29}
68A. Theme (numbers below the staff show downbeat strength).
68B. Section 1B, first eight measures (mm. 916).
68C. Section 2B, first eight measures (mm. 4552).
68D. Section 3B, first eight measures (mm. 8188).
In all three choruses (figs. B, C, D), I have analyzed the phrase rhythm of this passage as
four successive 2-phrases. These phrases differ in the details. I have bracketed appearances of
the motive 5(4)3, corresponding to the motive of figure A (the theme). The motive
articulates motion from dominant to tonic in each key. A central feature of the grouping
structure is whether or not Rollins separates the motive among two phrases. The harmonic
orientation of the motive, VI, thus corresponds with the harmonic orientation of the phrase:
if the motive is undivided, the phrase will articulate motion from dominant to tonic; if the
motive is divided, the grouping structure will undercut this motion. Figure 69 summarizes the
results, showing that no two choruses are alike. Several other features stand out. First, each
motive appears at least once divided, and once intact. Second, the first two 2-phrases, which
form a 4-phrase, always have parallel harmonic orientation. This increases the coherence of the
resulting 4-phrase, making it easier to perceive.
Figure 69. Relation of harmony and motive to phrase rhythm.

Chorus 1:
(fig. 68A)
Motive 1
][
Motive 2
][
VI
][
VI
][
I, V
][
Chorus 2:
][
][
][
(fig. 68B)
Motive 1
][
Motive 2
I, V
][
I, V
][
I, V
][
][
][
][
Chorus 3:
(fig. 68C)
[
I, V
][
][
[Motive 1][
Motive 2
][
][
I, V
][
Motive 3
][
VI
]
]
Motive 3
][
Motive 3
][
VI
As should be clear from this analysis, my phrase-rhythm analysis of these passages depends
on IOI and meter far more than motive: when the two come into conflict, I readily divide the
motive across phrases. I hear motive and segmentation as independent aspects of the music,
sometimes mutually reinforcing, sometimes not. Two of the 4-phrase divisions in figure 68
bear clarification. The first is in measure 48 (fig. C). This division is motivated chiefly by
parallelism and strong beat (beat 49.1). The first 2-phrase of the example consists of a threenote scalar passage. When the parallel passage is heard at the end of the 4-phrase in measure
48, it suggests a parallel ending. Even more compelling, to my ears, are the rhyming beginnings
in measure 48 and 50. If the listener is in doubt about whether to place a division in measure
48, the unmistakable rhyme in measure 50, in the same syncopated rhythm, may cause a
retroactive awareness of the parallel beginning in measure 48.
The other questionable 4-phrase division is in measure 84 (fig. D). This division is
motivated by astrong beat (85.1). A 4-phrase division here also causes close correspondence
between the opening gesture of each 2-phrase: in order, the 2-phrases begin on Ab, G, F#, and
F, with this note followed by a rapid descent. I find this gesture highly suggestive of parallel
phrase-beginnings.
Rollinss phrase rhythm in the B-section suggests a different view of the scheme from the
one I presented above. There, I argued that the scheme is a modified ABAC, and that the fourmeasure extension in the B section delays but does not alter the sections essential harmonic
goal, a half-cadence in F minor. According to this view, the twelve-measure B section presents a
single, continuous motion towards this goal. In his solo, Rollins instead emphasizes the
coherence of the sections first eight measures, as though these measures were a self-contained
section, ending on IV. He treats the remaining four measures as an extended anacrusis to the
next A section.
An analogy might be drawn with a compositional procedure common in thirty-two-bar
ABAC form. Sometimes the B section tonicizes a distantly related key, and the medial halfcadence is replaced by a turnaround that abruptly returns to the original key. Figure 610
shows the harmonies from the middle portion of The Touch of Your Lips (Noble). The
scheme begins in C major but tonicizes E major (III#) in the B section. The example shows this
tonicization and the abrupt return to C major at the beginning of the next section. Similarly,
Rollins plays the final four measures of the B section not as motion towards a (back-relating)
half-cadence, but as an extended turnaround, leading forward to the downbeat of the next A
section. IV, not V, is the true harmonic goal of the B section, always highlighted by Rollins
with an 8-phrase ending. The rest of the section is an expanded link from Bb major back to F
minoras though the abrupt turnaround of figure 610 were expanded to five measures.
Therefore, the twelve-measure B section of Airegin can be seen as an expansion of an eightmeasure prototype, in which the tonicization of IV is followed with a similar turnaround.
Figure 611 shows my recomposition of the B section along these lines.
Figure 610. Midpoint of The Touch of Your Lips (Noble).
m.
13
Section:
End of B
| E/B C#7
14
15
16
|| 17
|| A2
| F#7 B7
| E
| D-7 G7
|| C
Figure 611. Recomposition of Airegin, section B.

611A. Original (Rollins). ((iiV) applies to subsequent harmony.)
m.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 || 21
Section: B
|| A2
Db (iiV) C (iiV) B (iiV) Bb Bb (ii V) Ab (iiV) || F611B. Hypothetical eight-measure prototype for B.
m.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 || 17
Section: B
|| A2
Db (iiV) C (iiV) B (iiV) Bb (iiV) || FAll of the eight-measure C sections contain weak or nonexistent 4-phrase divisions,
directing attention from the hypermetrical to the sectional level of the scheme. A combined
phrase overlaps the midpoint of section 1C, and a single 8-phrase overlaps the midpoint of
section 2C (fig. 612A and B), continuing into the next chorus. This is the opposite strategy
from that seen in Charlie Parkers multi-chorus solos on Ornithology and Chi Chi, in
chapters 4 and 5. Parker tended to leave a large rest at the end of each chorus but the last. This
gap invites the listener to ask, What will he do next? It also gives Parker a chance to catch his
breath and begin the next chorus with a fresh idea. Parker made no effort to disguise or
obscure the gap between choruses. Here, Rollins reserves his longest and most dramatic phrases
for the chorus boundaries. This contradicts the scheme and gives the solo a relentless quality.
Figure 612. Rollins, Airegin: C sections. {29}
612A. Section 1C (mm. 2936).
-144
612B. Section 2C (mm. 6572).

1244
612C. Section 3C (mm. 100108).
421-
41-
-1-
Section 3C concludes the solo (fig. 612C). Although I identify a 4-phrase division in
measure 104, it is obscured by the short IOI in measure 104 and the similar melodic gesture on
either side of the division, marked with arrows.
In his solo on Tenor Madness, Rollinss phrase rhythm showed great diversity from
chorus to chorus. In Airegin, he takes the opposite approachperhaps because of the
metrically unusual scheme. The phrase rhythm of each section, especially section B, shows
remarkable consistency from chorus to chorus. Rollins reinforces the schemes unusual
metrical design by emphasizing the boundaries within each half-chorus: between section A1
and B, between the two portions of section B, and between sections A2 and C. He
compensates for this consonance by overlapping every half-chorus and chorus-level boundary.
Bill Evans, Witchcraft (1959)85
The scheme of Witchcraft (Coleman) is a modified AABA form (fig. 613). Its first half
retains the metrical design of thirty-two-bar AABA form, but deviates from typical harmonic
procedure: section A2 opens on the subdominant (using the same motivic material as A1) and
closes with a half-cadence in tonic, elaborating motion from predominant to dominant. The
sixteen-measure bridge deviates from standard harmonic and metrical procedure. Though its
second eight-measure group is fairly conventionaltonicization of iii, then ii, leading to a halfcadenceits first eight measures take place over a dominant pedal-point, extending the
dominant that ended section A2.86 These eight measures are unusual both for their very
existence and for the fact that extend the last harmony of section A2one expects a bridge to
begin with a harmonic digression (the schematic melody and lyrics do digress at this point).
Alternatively, one might view the bridge as having two discrete sections, B1 and B2, eight
measures each. The lack of harmonic activity in its first eight measures, however, leads me to
treat the bridge as a single, extended section. Section A3 serves its usual role of reprise,
intensified here because of the lengthy bridge and because section A2 did not repeat section A1
literally: A3 is only the second appearance of the opening theme in tonic, rather than the third,
as in a typical AABA form.
Figure 613. Witchcraft (Coleman): Metrical-harmonic scheme.
Parentheses show secondary function.
A1:
A2:
IV |
B:
| I/^5
| CT7 | CT7 |
IV |
iv
| bVII | bIII
| ii/^5 |
| I/^5
| (V) |
| bIII
ii
| I/^5
| ( ii | V ) |
B (cont.): |
iii
iii
| (V) |
ii
ii
ii
A3:
| CT7 | CT7 |
ii
iii
ii
|
|
Melodically, Witchcraft preserves the formal guideposts of traditional AABA form. But
these deviations from standard harmonic practice suggest that it is not a three-part form, unlike
85

That is, Evanss version uses a dominant pedal in the first half of the bridge. The scheme is
sometimes realized with this section as a prolongation of tonic, suggesting a different choruslevel structure. Certainly the dominant pedal creates greater harmonic drama.
86
most AABA schemes. Section A2 ends with a half-cadence, prolonged by the bridge. There is
no medial authentic cadence; indeed, there is no authentic cadence of any kind until the end
of the scheme. This points towards a two-part interpretation aligned with the Schenkerian view
of AABA form: A1 A2 B / A3. However, Evanss two-chorus solo does not support this
interpretation. Instead, the chorus-level phrase structure of both choruses has three parts, A1
A2 / B / A3.
In chorus 1, prosody creates a link between the 8-phrases of sections A1 and A2 (fig. 6
14). The four segments of section A1 all have similar prosody: a long anacrusis to a strong
downbeat, either I.1 or III.1. The result is a pair of beginning-accented 4-phrases constructed
from end-accented 2-phrases. The first segment of section A2 (mm. 910) continues the endaccented prosody of the previous four segments, establishing a connection across the sectional
division. But the next segment (mm. 11 ff.) breaks the parallelism. Therefore, the solo opens
with five successive segments of similar prosody. (I noted a similar passage in My Romance,
ch. 4.) The first 8-phrase is constructed in perfect parallel, 2/2/2/2but there is a dangling
phrase (mm. 910) separated from the 2-phrases with which it rhymes. I analyze this as a prefix
because the phrase that follows far outweighs it in length. The 4-phrase division within section
A2 (m. 13) is extremely weak, suggested only by melodic interval and the strength of beat 14.1.
This balances the well-separated segments of section A1 and distinguishes the A sections. A
long rest at the end of A2 reinforces the division before the bridge, one of the primary divisions
of the three-part form.
End-accentuation and common prosody also unite section 1B (fig. 615). Five out of
seven phrases have the prosody [-1-]. The first three 2-phrases rhyme, but in another example of
frustrated parallelism, the fourth 2-phrase goes further than expected, ending on the downbeat
of the bridges second half. (Compare this with section 1B of Daviss Oleo, shown in figure
35.) While no rest supports the phrase-division in measure 26, the melodic sixth and rapid
ascent that begins on beat 26.1.5 suggest a boundary, albeit a weak one. This boundary is also
reinforced by the melodic and metrical beginning-rhyme between beats 26.1.5 and 30.1.5. The
final two segments of the bridge (mm. 3033) match the contour and prosody of the opening
segments (mm. 1823): the bridge begins and ends with arching un-accented 2-phrases,
contrasting with the end-accented 2-phrases so prominent in section 1A1.
Figure 614. Evans, Witchcraft: Sections 1A1 and 1A2 (mm. 117).87 {10}
-2
-4
12-
14
121
-4
42-
Figure 615. Evans, Witchcraft: Section 1B (mm. 1833). {10}

-1-
-1-
-1-
-14
-121
-1-
-1-
Evans uses contour carefully. He consistently begins sections with an ascending melody
and ends them with a descending melody. Consider the boundary between sections 1A1 and
1A2 in figure 614. Section 1A1 concludes with a descending fifth, while section 1A2 begins
with a rapid ascent. Evans uses downward contour before the first choruss most significant
87
boundaries (A1 A2 / B / A3), and upward contour after. (See mm. 1618 and 3334, in
figures 614, 615, and 616.)
Evans also uses contour to obscure the boundary between chorus 1 and chorus 2. Figure 6
16 shows section 1A3. The low point at the end of chorus 1, in measure 40, does not coincide
with a plausible ending point for the choruss final phrase. Relative to the low point, the 8phrase division after beat 41.1 comes too late. The melody seems to trail off and lose focus
leading up to this division, rather than coming to a clear end. At beat 41.2.5, the shift to
sixteenth-notes suggests renewed energy, and the melody begins ascending more rapidly. But
the division in measure 41 is very weak, coming in the middle of an ascending passage, and
barely separates the choruses. The first chorus thus ends on a note of uncertainty.
Figure 616. Evans, Witchcraft: Section 1A3 (mm. 3451). {10}
-12421
As in chorus 1, Evans divides chorus 2 into three partsA1 A2 / B / A3. He blurs the
internal boundaries of the first two parts through phrase combination. Figure 617 shows the
first part, sections 2A1 and 2A2. The chorus opens with a rhyming pair of 2-phrases, just like
the first chorus. This feature mirrors the theme, which also opens with rhyming 2-phrases. But
Evans modifies the prosody, making an allusion rather than a reference: the prosody of the
themes 2-phrases is [-1-][-1-]; in Evanss first chorus, it is [-4][-2]; in chorus 2, [-4-][-2-].
On beat 48.2.5, near the end of section A1, Evans introduces a new motive before the
phrase has reached a satisfactory end. The motive intrudes in the final portion of the 4-phrase
and continues into the next hypermeasure, creating a combined phrase across the sectional
boundary. It unites sections A1 and A2. (It even returns in the bridge, after a phrase division in
measure 57 created by IOI.) In chorus 1, Evans united the opening pair of A sections by
continuing a feature of section A1end-accented 2-phrase prosodya few measure late, into
section A2. Here, he unites the A sections by introducing a conspicuous motive a few measures
early, before the end of section A1. In both cases, tension arises through the contradiction
between the schematic point of division, at the sectional downbeat, and the point of division
arising from a change in some musical parameter (prosody or motive).
Figure 617. Evans, Witchcraft: Sections 2A1 and 2A2 (mm. 4157). {10}
-4-
-2-
-441
-2-
-4-
-21
Figure 618. Evans, Witchcraft: Section 2B (mm. 5873). {10}
-24
4-
12
14
121-
Figure 618 shows the second part of chorus 2. On the basis of IOI alone, there should be
no phrase division at beats 59.4 and 61.4. But I hear the final notes of measures 59 and 61,
just after these divisions, as one-note anacruses to a set of sixteenth-notes (echoes of the first
note in measure 58). The first 4-phrase thus neatly divides into four 1-phrases. Evans does not
stop at four: he opens the next 4-phrase with a fifth repetition of the figure (m. 62), cutting
across the hypermetrical downbeat. For the second time in the solo, a figure appears an odd
number of times, frustrating parallelism and creating dissonance with the scheme.
While Evans employed end-accentuation at the midpoint of section 1B (fig. 615, m. 26),
he employs pseudo-end-accentuation at the midpoint of section 2B (fig. 618, m. 66). The
phrase-ending in measure 66 might be interpreted as mere end-accentuation, rather than
combination (imagine a dotted square bracket here). But the end-rhyme between measures 66
and 68, reinforced by melody and harmony, suggests that these segments both belong to the
portion of the bridge in A minor. The ascending melodic gesture on beat 66.1 is also suggestive
of a beginning rather than an ending. This scheme, like Airegin, has a built-in harmonic
anacrusis: measures 64 and 65, iiV of A minor, are harmonically grouped with measures 66 to
68; measure 69 (V of G) similarly groups with measure 70. Evanss grouping structure reflects
this. The combined phrase in measures 63 to 66 seems to become an anacrusis somewhere in
measure 64 or 65.
Complicating matters, Evans uses another odd set of rhyming endings, in measures 66,
68, and 70. The analysis in figure 618 groups the first two of these together but excludes the
third. The alternative analysis in figure 619 groups the second and third rhymes together but
excludes the first. Here, measures 66 to 70 contain an end-accented 4-phrase divided into endaccented 2-phrases. The phrase in measures 70 to 73 is an un-accented 4-phrase that resolves
the dissonance of the previous hypermeasure. The key difference to hearing is whether the
segment in measures 68 to 70 sounds like an ending (fig. 618) or a beginning (619)?
Figure 619. An alternative analysis of Witchcraft, mm. 6673. {10}
The phrase rhythm of section 2A3 is relatively consonant (fig. 620). Evans passes over the
schematic cadence in measure 80 to connect smoothly with the next solo, as he did in My
Romance (chapter 4).
Figure 620. Evans, Witchcraft: Section 2A3 (mm. 7492). {10}
2-
44
The scheme of Witchcraft presents both harmonic and metrical oddities, relative to the
usual AABA form. It might be taken as a two- or a three-part form: A1 A2 B / A3 or A1 A2 / B
/ A3. An improvised solo on such a tune constitutes an argument for one interpretation or the
other. In both choruses of his solo, Evans presents a case for the three-part interpretation,
exaggerating the choruss two main sectional divisions and blurring the boundaries within each
of the three parts. But his solo could just as easily have taken the opposite view, by downplaying
the boundary before the bridge. In previous analyses, I showed how the soloist supported or
contradicted the schematic form; when playing on a formally ambiguous scheme, the soloist
can advocate for one interpretation over another.
Brown, Ill Remember April (1956) 88
In his short life, Clifford Brown (19301956) earned a reputation as one of the greatest of all
trumpet players (Martin & Waters 2002: 229). He played a prominent role in some of the
most important hard bop ensembles of the 50s, including Art Blakeys Jazz Messengers, and
the Clifford Brown-Max Roach Quintet, in which group he was joined by Sonny Rollins. His
solo on Ill Remember April, accompanied by this group, demonstrates his ability to
[negotiate] impossibly fast tempos with easeon this performance, 290 quarter-notes per
minuteas well as his penchant for long, sinuous phrases that begin and end unpredictably
(Martin & Waters 2002: 228).
The scheme of Ill Remember April (Johnston) is in ABA form, with each section lasting
sixteen measures (fig. 621). Harmonically, the A sections are closed and the B section is open,
as in the prototypical AABA form. Each A section elaborates a single harmonic motion IVI,
with the first eight measures occupied by a tonic pedal. The B sections eight-measure halves
achieve two distinct harmonic goals: a cadence in Bb in the first half (bIII), and a half-cadence
in the main key to close the section (as in the typical AABA form). The ensembles
arrangement of the opening theme reinforces the three-part form: sectional boundaries are
marked by a change in rhythmic feel and the primary melodic instrument: straight eighthnotes and trumpet in the A sections; swing eighth-notes and saxophone in the B section.
Figure 621. Ill Remember April (Johnston): Metrical-harmonic scheme.
A1:
A1(cont): |
ii
| ( ii
B:
| ( ii
B(cont): |
A2:
ii
| V ) |
ii
| V ) | bIII
| (V) | ( ii
| V ) | bIII
| bIII
| V ) | VI#
| ii V
| ( ii
Same as A1
While Rollins and Evans both respected the sectional boundaries of their unusual
schemes, Brown consistently obscures the ternary form of Ill Remember April.89 He creates
phrase-rhythm dissonance with phrase combination and extremely long phrasesthe longest
88

For comparison: Rollins, whose two-chorus solo on Ill Remember April follows Browns,
respects sectional and chorus boundaries in four out of five instances.
89
phrase is twelve measures long. There are no end-accented phrases, which is typical of Brown at
a fast tempo.
Chorus 2 is more dissonant than chorus 1. The first chorus opens with an 8-phrase, a
rarity in this solo (fig. 622A). In the more dissonant second chorus, a single combined phrase
spans the first nine measures of section A1 (fig. B), overlapping the sections midpoint. Brown
includes a long passage of 3/2 dissonance at the eighth-note level, echoing the phrase-rhythm
dissonance in miniature. (The phrase even includes a quotation from Chopins Minute
Waltz.) Later in the section, the weak 2-phrase division in measure 15 (fig. A) is absent from
the corresponding place in chorus 2 (fig. B, m. 63), replaced by a stream of eighth-notes.
Figure 622. Brown, Ill Remember April: Sections 1A1 and 2A1. 90 {4}
622A. 1A1 (mm. 117).
142
-21-
-4-
-1-
-141
-24
90
622B. 2A1 (mm. 5065).
-2
144
In other cases, chorus 2 presents a modified version of chorus 1. In measures 12 to 15,

Brown employs a 2+2 combined phrase. In chorus 2, what was the first part of this combined
phrase becomes a long anacrusis. The phrase-beginning in measure 60 corresponds to that in
measure 12it begins on beat III.4 of the hypermeasure rather than beat III.3but the context
supports the different interpretation.
Figure 623 shows the junction of sections A1 and B, illustrating Browns
characteristically dissonant treatment of this passage. He blurs the sectional boundary (mm. 18
and 66) with a combined phrase, denying closure to the A section. The phrase itself is also
similar in both choruses: the section B downbeat (beats 18.1 and 66.1) coincides with a peak in
melodic contour, on a note that is dissonant with the local harmony. Even the melody that
follows the sectional downbeat is similar in both choruses. In chorus 2, Brown blurs the
sectional division even further by introducing Bb, a characteristic note of C-7, one measure too
early, over G major harmony (m. 65). (Compare this to the first hypermeasure of section A1 in
both choruses (fig. 622: mm. 4 and 53), where Brown similarly suggests the shift from G
major to G minor before the scheme calls for it.)
Figure 623. Brown, Ill Remember April: Junction of sections A1 and B. {4}
623A. mm. 1426.
623B. mm. 6273.
Brown continues the combined phrase all the way to the bridges first cadence, six
measures later (mm. 24 and 72), crossing another hypermetrical downbeat in the process (beats
22.1 and 70.1). The tonicization of Bb (mm. 24, 72) is the first point of simultaneous
harmonic and melodic closure in each chorus. In chorus 1 (fig. 623A), Brown highlights beat
22.1 through melodic contour and consonance: the note on this beat initiates upward motion
from the root of the local harmony, C-7. He also accents beat 24.1, the moment of tonic
resolution, by ending his phrase within this beat. But in chorus 2 (fig. B), these events each take
place two beats later: Brown overlaps the hypermetrical downbeat, beat 70.1, with an
arpeggiated diminished-seventh chord, and his melody arrives on C-7 occurs on beat 70.3; in
measure 72, he adds a short tail after the cadence, extending the phrase through beat 72.3.
Figure 624 continues directly from figure 623, showing the second half of the bridge
and the junction with section A2. After tonicizing Bb, Brown reinforces the passing
tonicization of G four measures later (mm. 29 and 76). He places a 4-phrase division at this
point. However, this tonicization occurs in the middle of an eight-bar hypermeasure, so it lacks
the metrical stability of the tonicization of Bb, which came at the end of an eight-bar
hypermeasure.
Perhaps the greatest difference between the choruses is in Browns treatment of the
schematic half-cadence, in measures 33 and 81. In the first chorus, Brown pauses briefly at the
tonicization of E (fig. 624A, m. 32), but undercuts this moment through sequential repetition
of the same figure in measure 33, over the half-cadence. This makes the tonicization of E sound
like an intermediate step towards this larger goal, shared with the scheme. He punctuates the
half-cadence with an 8-phrase division. In the more dissonant second chorus, Brown suppresses
the half-cadence with an end-accented phrase (fig. 624B, m. 82), overlapping the beginning of
section 2A2.
Figure 624. Brown, Ill Remember April: Junction of sections B and A2. {4}
624A. Chorus 1 (mm. 2537).
41-
-1
121-
-4-
-12
624B. Chorus 2 (mm. 7385).

42-
-141
-1
Figure 625 presents the final section of each chorus. Again, chorus 2 is more dissonant.
A combined phrase runs across the section midpoint in both choruses (mm. 42, 90). But in
chorus 1, the change in motive and rhythm on beat 42.2 gives some reinforcement to the
hypermetrical downbeat, while in chorus 2, Brown begins a new motive in measure 87 and
continues it through beat 90.3, further obscuring the hypermeter. In both cases, the combined
phrase obscures the eight-bar level and focuses attention on the sixteen-bar section. The
melodic ending in measure 48 coincides with the schematic arrival on tonic, but the
conclusion on scale degree 5, approached chromatically from below, is tonally unstable. As in
Charlie Parkers solos, a long IOI separates the choruses and reinforces this highest-level formal
boundary, leaving the listener eager for the next chorus to begin. At the end of the solo, Brown
avoids overlapping beat 96.1, the moment of schematic arrival on tonic. Instead, he concludes
the solo with an end-accented phrase leading to the downbeat of the next chorus, in the
stereotyped fashion. Figure 625C compares the grouping structures of these sections. Even
though both contain phrase combination, chorus 2 is far more dissonant, reflected in its
shallower grouping structure.
Figure 625. Brown, Ill Remember April: Section A2. {4}
625A. Section 1A2 (mm. 3449).
-12
-442
-42
625B. Section 2A2 (mm. 8298).

41
-14
625C. Comparison of grouping structures.

m. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
[4] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [4]
4:
][
4+4
][
m. 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
[4] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [4] [1] [2] [1] [4]
2:
][
2+4+2
1:
][
[
2+2
2+1
][
][ 1 ]
The high level of dissonance in Browns solo obscures the schemes three-part structure.
Brown reinforces the schematic three-part structure in only two out of five possible places, both
in chorus 1: the half-cadence after section B, and the boundary between choruses. The
additional dissonances in chorus 2, where chorus 1 had closed phrases, make the chorus-level
structure extremely irregular and entirely dissonant with the scheme. The bulk of chorus 2
comprises four long phrases, each of which crosses an eight- or sixteen-bar downbeat. To a
listener sensitive to the schemes metrical and harmonic punctuation marks, Browns solo
presents an intensely dissonant counterpoint.
192

In this chapter, I present some extensions to the approach outlined in the preceding chapters.
First, I describe a method for teaching phrase rhythm to melodic improvisers, building from
the 2-phrase to the 8-phrase level. It derives from the approach described above, but it could be
taught to a student (and by a teacher) who did not understand the analytical method in every
detail. Second, I attempt to adapt the method to two unusual situations: performances at a very
slow tempo, when the tactus appears to shift to the eighth-note; and a modal scheme whose
schematic metrical structure is very shallow, consisting only of two-bar hypermeasures: John
Coltranes version of Richard Rodgers My Favorite Things.
A Pedagogy of Phrase Rhythm
The goal of this pedagogical method is to increase awareness and control of phrase rhythm in
melodic improvisation. Through this, phrase rhythm becomes another tool for the
construction of artful, engaging solos. Like harmony or voice-leading, phrase rhythm is a
component of any solo, whether or not the soloist is aware of it; gaining this awareness is
therefore of great value to improving improvisation.
The goal of the method, like any other, is not that the musician be self-conscious about
phrase rhythm in performance. Rather, the underlying assumption is that conscious attention
to phrase rhythm in a practice environment will ultimately affect improvised performance, even
without conscious attention during performance. In the same way, the deliberate repetition of
scales and melodic patterns allows the musician to employ these devices unconsciously in
performance.
The sophistication of an improvisers phrase rhythm is independent of mastery of scales,
harmony, motive, voice-leading or metrical dissonance. It is easy to imagine a student with
imperfect control of harmony, who nonetheless learns to employ combined phrases, endaccented phrases, phrase overlap, etc. in subtle and intricate fashion. Indeed, it might be very
rewarding for such a student, who may feel limited in other areas, to gain control over phrase
rhythm.
193
There are many conceivable methods to teaching phrase rhythm rooted in the approach of
the preceding chapters. My intention here is to present one method, not exclude others. But
no matter the specific method, it seems essential to instill three abilities:
1. Sensitivity to hypermeter. The student must perceive the passage of two-, four-, and
eight-bar hypermeasures with little effort.
2. The ability to employ rests both within and between phrases.
3. The ability to play coherent phrases of any length, stopping and ending at any time.
The method consists of a series of graduated exercises, progressing from lower to higher
levels of grouping structure. I developed the exercises of the method using myself as the
student; any competent improviser should similarly be able to learn these techniques
independently. For beginning students an outside teacher would be necessary. The method is
appropriate for all musicians who have reached the level of improvising entire choruses, and
who can improvise melodic content at will, without much forethought. The student first
acquires control over consonant, low-level phrase rhythmbeginning-accented 2-phrasesand
continues from there. Experienced players will probably advance more quickly than beginners,
but everyone proceeds through the same course. Figure 71 lists the exercises. Figure 72
places the same exercises in a networked hierarchy, illustrating how each exercise builds on the
foundation of the previous exercises. Numbers next to each box in figure 71 indicate the
relevant exercise. Together, these figures summarize the method described below.
Practice occurs while improvising continuously over a thirty-two-bar scheme, playing
multiple choruses as necessary. In the musical examples, I show possible realizations of the
exercises over Rhythm changes. A medium or fast tempo is best, in order to make the
hypermeter easy to perceive.
194
Figure 71. Eight graduated exercises for practicing phrase rhythm.

1. 2-phrase: beginning- [21], end- [12], and un-accented [-1-].
a. Use a single type for an entire chorus, then switch to the next type.
b. Use a single type for sixteen measures, then switch. Continue through
multiple choruses.
c. Use a single type for eight measures (four phrases), then switch.
d. Use a single type for four measures (two phrases), then switch.
e. Switch between types with every phrase, or at the teachers cue.
2. Division into 1-phrases.
a. Repeat exercise 1, but divide each 2-phrase into two 1-phrases.
i. For beginning-accented 2-phrase: 1-phrase begin on beat 1, end on
beat 3.
ii. For end-accented 2-phrase: 1-phrases begin on beat 3, end on beat 1.
iii. For un-accented 2-phrase: 1-phrases begin on beat 2, end on beat 4.
b. Play a series of four-measure sentences: 1-phrase, 1-phrase, 2-phrase, where all
phrases are either beginning-, end-, or middle-accented.
3. 4-phrase: beginning- [421], end- [124], un- [121], and double-accented [44].
a. Use a single type for an entire chorus, then switch to the next type.
b. As in exercise 1, try switching between types at progressively smaller metrical
intervals: sixteen, eight, and four measures. Use the following order of types:
beginning-, un-, double-, un-accented.
4. Asymmetrical division of the 4-phrase.
a. Working with a single 4-phrase type, place a division somewhere early in the
phrase to create the pattern short-long. Try with every type, following the
plan in exercise 3.
b. Working with a single type, place a division somewhere late in the phrase to
create the pattern long-short. Try with every type, following the plan in
exercise 3.
5. Eight-measure sentences: select an appropriate pair of 2-phrases and a 4-phrase that
form an eight-measure sentence. Employ this structure continually through several
choruses. Repeat with a different structure.
6. Phrase overlap: an eight-measure hypermeasure may incorporate phrase overlap in four
different ways. Practice each one, using it continually through several choruses.
a. 4O4 (4-phrase overlaps 4-phrase)
b. 4O2/2 (4-phrase overlaps 2-phrase / 2-phrase)
c. 2/2O4 (2-phrase / 2-phrase overlaps 4-phrase)
d. 2/2O2/2 (2-phrase / 2-phrase overlaps 2-phrase / 2-phrase)
7. Combined phrase: an eight-measure hypermeasure may incorporate a combined phrase
in four different ways, analogous to those in exercise 6. Practice each one.
8. Imitation
a. Record the phrase rhythm of a solo by another performer. Then follow this
phrase-rhythm plan in an improvised solo, ignoring the original melody.
b. Follow the plan on other schemes that have the same metrical structure.
195
Figure 72. The pedagogical program.

Exercise numbers corresponding with figure 71 appear in boxes.
Imitation
of noteworthy solos
8-phrase
Pair
4/4
Sentences
2, 2 / 4
4-phrase
Paired
2/2
Undivided
Beg-acc., end-acc.,
un-acc., double-acc.
2-phrase
Beg-acc., end-acc., un-acc.
Start Here
Division (1-phrase)
Overlap
4+4, 4+2/2, 2/2+4, 2/2+2/2
Combination
Same groupings as overlap
Asymm. Div.
Long-short,
short-long
The Two-Measure Level (Exercises 1, 2)
Figure 73 shows some hypothetical realizations of exercise 1, which focuses on the 2-phrase
level. 2-phrases come in three types: beginning-accented, end-accented, and un-accented. In
example 73A, the student has played a series of beginning-accented 2-phrases; in 73B, endaccented; in 73C, un-accented; in 73D, the student has switched between the three types
196
with every phrase, the most advanced stage of the exercise. (Though the examples show only a
few phrases, the student would continue through a thirty-two-bar chorus or more.)
Figure 73. Exercise 1: 2-phrases.
73A. Beginning-accented (exercise 1a).
73B. End-accented (exercise 1a).
73C. Un-accented (exercise 1a).
73D. Switching types between every phrase (exercise 1e).
Before this can be done, the student must be able to perceive the alternation of strong and
weak downbeats: two-measure hypermeter. This can be accomplished through counting,
conducting, or other methods. The student will probably have an intuitive grasp of this already.
197
Then the student learns to think of downbeats as either [2] or [1], depending on their strength.
This lays the foundation for prosodic notation, which makes it much easier to describe phrases.
As described in figure 71, the student first plays a single type continually until
comfortable, before switching between the types during improvisation. At first, the student
might feel most comfortable beginning and ending each particular type at exactly the same
point in the hypermeasurefor example, every beginning-accented phrase might begin on the
two-bar downbeat and end on the next downbeat. This is acceptable at first, but encourage the
student to vary the beginning and ending points within each type as soon as possible.
I have said nothing about the melodic content of the phrases. It does not really matter
what the student plays during a phrasescalar passages, arpeggiations, motivic repetition,
paraphrase of the schemeas long as each phrase seems to end rather than stop. This has more
to do with articulation than harmony, as long as the phrase ends on a chord tone or plausible
extension. (So, for example, a phrase ending over C major harmony could end on any white
note except F.) Regardless of melodic content, facility with phrase rhythm requires that the
student be comfortable beginning and ending a phrase on any harmony and at any point in the
metrical scheme. If these abilities are lacking, then these exercises will help instill them.
In exercise 2, the student divides each 2-phrase into 1-phrases, switching between phrasetypes as in exercise 1. Figure 74A shows a series of divided, beginning-accented 2-phrases;
figure 74B, end-accented; figure 74C, un-accented. The precise beginning and ending
locations of the 1-phrases are prescribed. As in exercise 1, the student first grows comfortable
with each type, then practices switching between the types at smaller intervals, ultimately
switching with every phrase.
Figure 74. Exercise 2: 1-phrases.
74A. Beginning-accented 2-phrases, w/ prescribed 1-phrases:
All 1-phrases span beat 1 to beat 3 (exercise 2a).
198
74B. End-accented 2-phrases, w/ prescribed 1-phrases:

74C. Un-accented 2-phrases, w/ prescribed 1-phrases:

74D. 1/1/2 sentences (exercise 2b).
Finally, in exercise 2b, the student constructs four-measure sentences, featuring the
grouping structure 1/1/2. This is shown in figure 74D with beginning-accented 2-phrases, but
could also be done with the other types. This exercise also begins shifting the students
attention to the four-bar level of the meter, since the sentence is four measures long.
The Four-Measure Level (Exercises 3, 4)
Exercise 3 introduces the undivided 4-phrase. First, the student must be able to perceive fourbar hypermeter with little effort. Again, a mixture of intuition, counting, and conducting will
facilitate this; learning to play 4-phrases depends on (and improves) this ability. The teacher
may wish to use the labels [4], [2], and [1] for downbeats of various strength; once learned, they
make describing the phrases far easier. The concepts of beginning-, end-, and un-accented 4phrases should translate smoothly from the 2-phrase level. The only new phrase-type at this
199
level is the double-accented 4-phrase, which begins and ends with a four-bar downbeat. Within
each type, the student should experiment with prosody. For example, beginning-accented
phrases can include [421], [42], [1421], and [142]. The student might discover this variety
independently; if not, the teacher can provide prompts, such as, Try making it end sooner, or
Add a long anacrusis this time.
As in exercise 1, the student cycles among the four types, first switching between types at
every chorus, then at progressively smaller intervals (described fully in figure 71). Figure 75
shows the beginning of a hypothetical improvisation in which the student switches types at
every phrase. (Note that certain successions of types are impossible: a beginning-accented
phrase cannot follow an end-accented or double-accented phrase, since the latter types end on
the four-bar downbeat with which the beginning-accented phrase would have to begin.) In this
exercise, there can be a tendency for the student to cram phrases very close together, with short
rests in between. But beginning-, end-, and un-accented phrases can all be very short; remind
the student to use short versions of these phrases in order to create breathing space.
Figure 75. 4-phrases, switching types at every phrase:
Beginning-, double-, end-, and un-accented (exercise 3b).
In exercise 4, the student attempts to divide 4-phrases asymmetrically. (Symmetrical

division has already been tackled in exercise 1, at the 2-phrase level.) The student learns two
200
patterns, short-long and long-short.91 Working with one or the other pattern, the student
proceeds through exercise 3, using asymmetrically divided 4-phrases in place of undivided 4phrases.
As an advanced exercise at this stage, the student can devise a phrase plan of twelve to
twenty measures in length and employ it cyclically in continuous improvisation over a scheme.
For example, the student might use the following twelve-measure plan:
1. a beginning-accented 4-phrase, divided short-long;
2. a pair of end-accented 2-phrases;
3. an un-accented 4-phrase, undivided.
Figure 76 shows the first sixteen measures of a hypothetical realization of this plan. By the last
line, the cycle has begun to repeat: the last line shows another beginning-accented 4-phrase,
asymmetrically divided, the same phrase-type that began the exercise. The exercise would
continue past this point cycling through the same plan. This allows the student to experience
phrase-rhythm variety while maintaining close control, and forces the student to employ a given
phrase-type at several different locations in the scheme (since the cycles of the plan do not line
up with the metrical time-spans of the scheme).
Figure 76. A twelve-measure phrase plan, repeated cyclically: Beginning-accented 4-phrase,
divided short-long; pair of end-accented 2-phrases; un-accented 4-phrase.
According the method of the previous chapters, asymmetrically divided 4-phrases can result
from two distinct means: the addition of a prefix or suffix to a longer segment; or the division
into asymmetrical 2-phrases. This distinction is unnecessary in a pedagogical context.
91
201
The Eight-Measure Level (Exercises 5, 6, 7)
The 2/2/4 sentence provides a good introduction to the eight-measure level (exercise 5). This
structure often appears in the improvisations of skilled musicians. The student selects a
combination of two 2-phrases and a 4-phrase and then employs the resulting eight-measure
structure repeatedly throughout one or more choruses. By employing different phrase-types, a
wide variety of structures are possible. This exercise starts to develop the taste of the student for
certain phrase types over others, and increases awareness of eight-bar hypermeter. Figure 77
shows one possible sentence structure: an end-accented 2-phrase, an un-accented 2-phrase
(forming an un-accented 4-phrase), and a beginning-accented 4-phrase.
Figure 77. A sentence structure, to introduce the 8-phrase level (exercise 5).
Exercise 6 introduces phrase overlap. Overlap requires two phrases to be linked by a pivot
note on a four-bar downbeat. The student learns of it in the context of four different eightmeasure phrase structures: as a link between a pair of undivided 4-phrases (4O4); as a link
between a 4-phrase and a 2-phrase (requiring an additional 2-phrase thereafter to fill the eight
measures: 4O2/2); as a link between a 2-phrase and a 4-phrase (requiring an additional 2phrase before: 2/2O4); and as a link between 2-phrases (requiring additional 2-phrases before
and after: 2/2O2/2). Figure 78 shows the last case, 2/2O2/2. The crucial element is a clear
pivot note. At this level, it is unnecessary to specify prosody of the constituent phrases.
Attention to this aspect will only be a distraction. The ability to vary prosody comes from
exercises devoted to lower levels.
202
Figure 78. Phrase overlap, in 2/2O2/2 structure (exercise 6).
The last exercise at this level teaches combination (exercise 7). The student follows the
same eight-bar patterns as in exercise 6 (phrase overlap), but this time, instead of a phrase
overlap, the phrases on either side of a four-bar downbeat are smoothly blended. Attention
must be paid that the student does not accidentally employ a pivot note through excessive
attention to the hypermetrical downbeat; the impression of a single, continuous phrase can be
heightened through continuity of motive or contour across this point. Figure 79 shows an
example combined phrase, embedded in the 2/2+2/2 pattern. It is instructive to compare this
figure with figure 78, especially the area around the four-bar downbeat.
Figure 79. Phrase combination, in 2/2+2/2 structure (exercise 7).
(Compare with figure 78.)
Exercise 8: Phrase-rhythm imitation
The first seven exercises establish a phrase-rhythm vocabulary. Each exercise focuses on
phrasing at a different level2-phrase, 4-phrase, or 8-phrasebut neglects other levels. For
continued improvement, the student must continue practice at these levels. But with this
vocabulary in place, the student can also tackle a more advanced task: phrase-rhythm imitation.
Since the beginnings of jazz recording, students have learned and imitated the solos of
performers they admire. Notated transcriptions aid this process but are not essential; a good ear
is far more valuable than a good transcription. Typically, students focus on imitating harmonic
203
or rhythmic vocabulary, specific licks, or rhythmic feel. The practice of imitation can extend
to phrase rhythm as well. As in most sorts of practice, the goal is not for the student to quote
consciously the work of others while performing; rather, through deliberate practice, aspects of
the noteworthy performers style penetrate the students subconscious, and spontaneously
come to the surface.
To imitate a performances phrase rhythm, a student first determines the phrase rhythm,
with or without the aid of a transcription. The prosodic notation is probably the most efficient
way to notate phrase rhythm. It might also be plotted out on measured staff paper, with four or
eight measures per line. The student then uses the phrase rhythm as a model for an improvised
solo, following it as closely as possible while altering or ignoring the melodic content (exercise
8a). The model solo does not even have to be on the same scheme as the students
improvisation, so long as the metrical structure is the same (exercise 8b). For example, figure 7
10 shows the opening of Sonny Rollinss solo on Moritat, side-by-side with the opening of a
solo on Rhythm changes that employs the same phrase rhythm.
Figure 7-10. Imitation of noteworthy solos (exercise 8).
710A. Rollins, Moritat: mm. 1-8. {32}
-12
-42-
710B. A hypothetical solo employing the same phrase rhythm.
204
The pedagogy of phrase rhythm is not intended to replace current pedagogical methods,
but to complement them. The result will be students with much greater facility in this
underappreciated aspect of jazz improvisation.
Analytical Extensions: Tactus-Shifting
The phrase-types can describe phrase rhythm at a wide range of tempos. It is not unusual for
quarter-note tempos in jazz to exceed 300 bpm. At these speeds, 1-phrases are rare, and there
are a greater number of 8-phrases and combined phrases, but the analytical system retains its
power. At very slow tempos, especially when the tactus shifts from the quarter-note to the
eighth-note, it is practical to shift the entire system to the half-note level: a 4-phrase is one
that lasts four half-notes rather than four measures. Figure 711 shows the opening of Clifford
Browns solo on I Dont Stand a Ghost of a Chance, a tactus-shifted ballad. As his solo
begins, the entire ensemble switches to a double-time feel: the tactus shifts from the quarternote to the eighth-note. To eschew 32nd-notes and make the transcription easier to read, in
figure 711A I notate the example with quarter-notes in place of eighth-notes: a thirty-twomeasure scheme becomes a sixty-four-measure scheme. Figure 711B shows the example
without notating the shift, as it originally appears in Baker 1982.
Figure 711. Tactus-shifting (Brown, I Dont Stand a Ghost of a Chance, opening). {3}
711A. With notated tactus-shift.
205
711B. Without notated tactus shift.
I Dont Stand a Ghost Of A Chance

Words by Bing Crosby and Ned Washington
Music by Victor Young
Copyright 1932 by Chappell & Co. and Mills Music, Inc.
Copyright Renewed
Figure 711A illustrates the usefulness of notating the tactus shift. Browns solo opens
with four 2-phrases, the first of which are further divided into 1-phrases. If I had not re-notated
the example to reflect the tactus shift, it would not be possible to show these as 1-phrasesthey
would be 1/2 phrases, lasting only half of a measure. Recall Reichas comment, quoted in
chapter 1, that metrically short phrases are best at slower tempos. A tactus-shift allows phrases
that really last only half a measure to seem to fill an entire measure: they last four tactusbeats. The notation should reflect this.
Modal Jazz
In the foregoing analyses, I have focused on schemes that are metrically predictable to a deep
level, twelve measures or more. In this section, I explore the possibilities for adapting my
approach to schemes with shallower metrical hierarchies, as are typical of 60s jazz.92 I apply the
Many modal schemes actually follow the metrical norms of tonal jazz, being constructed
from four-bar hypermeasures and larger units. In this regard, consider Miles Davis
Milestones (a forty-measure tune whose form resembles Witchcraft), Kind of Blue,
another Davis tune in thirty-two-bar AABA form, Herbie Hancocks Maiden Voyage, McCoy
Tyners Four by Five, and many others. (In Four by Five, only the scheme used during the
variation choruses conforms to tonally normative four-bar hypermeterthe metrical scheme of
the theme is more unusual.) Solos on these schemes can be analyzed using the orthodox
92
206
theory to a test case: John Coltranes solo on a 1963 version of My Favorite Things (Rodgers),
a tune that became Coltranes calling card.93 The scheme Coltrane follows is not metrically
regular above the two-bar level.
Tenor saxophonist John Coltrane (19261967) is of great importance to the history of
modern jazz. He first came to prominence in the mid-50s as a member of Miles Daviss band.
Gary Giddins and Scott Deveaux summarize his career as follows: His musical impact
eventually equaledsome would argue, surpassedthat of Davis. Coltrane became the most
intrepid explorer of modal jazz and a cultural-ethical leader of avant-garde jazz in the 1960s
(2009: 425). This recording provides a sample of Coltranes mature style.
In Richard Rodgers original scheme, a sixteen-measure theme appears twice in E minor,
then once in E major, before a final section introduces a new melody and modulates to a
conclusion in the relative major, G. Coltranes realization is famously liberal in its treatment of
this scheme. This performance, from the 1963 album Afro Blue Impressions, opens with an
introduction and then Coltranes initial statement of the sixteen-measure theme in E minor.
But after this initial statement, Coltrane almost completely abandons Rodgers scheme, playing
a long solo over a repeated two-chord, two-measure vamp: | E-7 | F#-7 |. Then the sixteenmeasure theme returns, still in E minor, followed by a longer solo on the two-chord vamp
| Emaj7 | F#-7 |, mirroring the original schemes motion to the parallel major.
The solos in this performance, from Coltrane and other members of the ensemble, are of
unpredictable, inconsistent length. Between solos, the sixteen-measure theme functions like a
ritornello, reuniting the ensemble. To indicate to the ensemble that the solo is over, the soloist
simply begins to play the sixteen-measure theme on the downbeat of the two-measure harmonic
scheme. Since the first few measures of this melody sound correct over the harmonies of the
vamp, the ensemble has two measures to respond to the soloist. By the time the theme has
proceeded to a point where the harmonies must change, requiring the coordination of the
rhythm section, the ensemble is aware that the theme has returned and ready to follow along.
The open format of these solos is typical of modal jazz, a style that became widespread in
the 1960s, and of which Coltranes My Favorite Things is a canonical example. It poses a
approach outlined in the previous chapters, which assumes the existence of four- and eight-bar
hypermeter.
93
207
challenge to my analytical method, which depends on the recurrence of large metrical units. I
conclude this chapter with an phrase-rhythm analysis of Coltranes first solo, and some
speculations about the general applicability of the method to modal jazz.
Coltranes first solo is exactly sixty-four measures long. At first, this led me to suspect he
was following a sixteen- or thirty-two-bar scheme, despite the outward appearance of only a twomeasure vamp. But his second solo is 136 measures long, which is divisible by eight only, not
sixteen. Other solos are similarly irregular. Therefore, I believe the sixty-four-measure length of
the first solo is coincidental, and does not stem from some hidden higher-level scheme. But
even though there is no metrical scheme above the two-measure level, 4-phrases and 8-phrases
are ubiquitous. (Below, I explain how they emerge.) Melodic units larger than eight measures
also arise, a product of motivic development and reference.
I have divided the solo into four sixteen-measure sections, lettered A through D. Figure 7
12 shows the first section, which contains two 8-phrases. Each 8-phrase is divided into
beginning-accented 4-phrases. The first three 4-phrases employ neighbor motion around B. In
the second 4-phrase (mm. 48), Coltrane introduces slight syncopation (m. 5), not enough to
divide the phrase further. In the third 4-phrase (812), the slight rhythmic variation develops
into the 1-phrase rhyme in measures 8 to 10. The beginning of the next 2-phrase in measure 10
also rhymes with the beginning in measure 8, a rhyme at the two-measure level that unifies the
4-phrase. In the final 4-phrase of the section (mm. 1214), Coltrane abandons the neighbornote motive, although the phrase, like those before it, ends on the note B3.
In other analyses, the presence of four- and eight-bar hypermeasures in the scheme was a
requirement for the identification of 4-phrases and 8-phrases. Since the scheme here does not
operate above the two-measure level, these phrase-types must be understood differently.
Coltrane creates them through motive, rhyme, and relative IOI, in the same way that Parker,
Adderley, and Rollins created 6- and 8-phrases in the twelve-bar blues. In figure 712, the first
two 4-phrases of Coltranes solo have rhyming endings, creating an eight-bar unit. The next two
4-phrases form an 8-phrase through the short IOI between them, relatively long rest that
follows them, and similar endings on the pitch B. As in classical music, Coltranes grouping
structure generates hypermeter: a series of 4-phrases creates a four-bar level of the meter, which
can just as easily be destroyed later on through contradictory phrasing. In other words, the 4phrase level of phrase rhythm becomes more or less synonymous with the four-bar level of the
208
meter (granting the possibility of end-accentuation and other slight misalignments). There is no
schematic four-bar level to overrule Coltrane, should he wish to play a six-bar phrase. On the
other hand, he cannot employ phrase rhythm that is dissonant with the four-bar metrical level
he has created, without destroying that level in the process. Coltrane explores these possibilities
later in the solo.
Figure 712. Coltrane, My Favorite Things: Section A (mm. 116).94 {6}
In the next sixteen-measure section, shown in figure 713, Coltrane again employs a pair
of 8-phrases, but begins to weaken the boundaries between them with shorter IOI and crossphrase motivic connections. The overall phrase rhythm of the section is remarkably similar to
section A: two undivided 4-phrases, and a 4-phrase divided 1/1/2, which extends into a long,
undivided 4-phrase. But section B also has several points of ambiguity. First, there is the
rhythmic motive that links measures 24, 25, and 26, overlapping an 8-phrase boundary (shown
with an arrow). I have analyzed the first instance of this motive as a suffix to the 4-phrase in
measures 20 to 24, suggesting a 4-phrase boundary just after beat 24.3. (Even though the
schematic meter does not contain four-bar downbeats, Coltranes use of five consecutive 494
209
phrases in the preceding music establishes a four-bar level of the meter, hence the expectation
for a 4-phrase boundary leading into beat 25.1.) But rhyme and motive suggest treating the
three notes in measure 24 as part of the 4-phrase that follows. This suggests a plausible
alternative analysis of measure 24, as a prefix to the following 4-phrase, with the preceding 8phrase coming to an end in measure 23.
Figure 713. Coltrane, My Favorite Things: Section B (mm. 1732). {6}
The ambiguity of measure 24 weakens the division between 8-phrases. Four measures
later, the combined phrase across beat 29.1 marks the first occasion when Coltrane does not
articulate a four-bar level with phrase division. Another motivic connection weakens the next 8phrase boundary, in measure 32. The motive, a turn followed by a descent in skips, is indicated
with arrows. Figure 714 shows how the solo continues. Though the motivic connection cuts
across an 8-phrase boundary, I do not believe there is a plausible alternative analysis. The 8phrase ending in measure 31 is quite strong, with echoes of the ending of section A (fig. 712,
m. 15) in the long B3. The motivic connection does not result in ambiguous phrase rhythm, as
it did in measure 24.
210
Section C opens with three parallel 2-phrases, repeating the sixteenth-note motive that
concluded section B (fig. 714). The dotted-quarter on beat 33.1, a relatively long note,
reinforces the four-bar downbeat. The fifth phrase of the section, begun in measure 41,
continues beyond figure 714. It opens on a pivot note on beat, whose longer rhythmic value
reinforces the four-bar level. But the phrase overlap weakens the eight-bar level. After this
point, Coltrane begins to weaken the four-bar level.
Figure 714. Coltrane, My Favorite Things: Section C (mm. 3244). {6}
Starting at the phrase overlap in measure 41, the phrase continues past another four-bar
downbeat without pausing, beat 45.1 (see fig. 715). The quarter-note on this beat might be
taken to weakly accent this possible four-bar downbeat, but it echoes the quarter-note on beat
43.1, which only articulated the two-measure level. There is no reason to treat the note on beat
45.1 as more significant. Therefore, by measure 46, the four-bar level has been weakened
through lack of melodic reinforcement. In the following measures, a competing four-bar level
emerges, displaced by two measures from the original. (Any competing four-bar level could only
be displaced by two measures, since it must remain congruent with the two-bar level of the
scheme.)
211
Figure 715. Coltrane, My Favorite Things: End of C, beg. of D (mm. 4556). {6}
The 2-phrases of measures 47 to 56 are obvious. More difficult, however, is the question
of whether and how a higher-level phrase structure emerges. Such a structure depends on an
accented two-bar downbeat that stands out from other two-bar downbeats, as a plausible fourbar downbeat. After a period of ambiguity, beat 47.1 is the first such downbeat. Starting on this
beat, Coltrane uses slower rhythmic values and begins a new gesture: a gradual ascent by one
step per measure. These changes mark beat 47.1 as the first beat of a new four-bar level. Since
this four-bar downbeat arrives unexpectedly, I have shown the corresponding 4-phrases with
light brackets. Nothing in measures 49 to 52 contradicts this level. But nothing in measure 51
actively reinforces this level either, leaving it vulnerable to reassessment.
In measure 53, a seventh repetition of the same rhythmic motive begins on the tonic pitch
E, at a louder dynamic level than before. Coltrane also ties the E on beat 53.3 into the
following measure (an echo of measure 47). These factors establish beat 53.1 as a four-bar
downbeat, in contradiction with the four-bar level that began on beat 47.1. It may seem
impossible for events that take place after beat 53.1 to establish that beat as a four-bar
downbeat. But remember, since there is no schematic four-bar level, it is Coltranes phrasing
alone that can establish one. Factors that establish the significance of any particular 2-phrase
also establish the significance of the relevant two-bar downbeat. Since beat 53.1 is already a
two-bar downbeat (because of the scheme), the greater salience of the 2-phrase that begins in
measure 53 retroactively establishes beat 53.1 as a possible four-bar downbeat. As shown in
figure 716, this four-bar level receives reinforcement in measure 57, when Coltrane reaches
212
the peak of a larger gesture, B4, and begins a stepwise descent. Like the ascent in measures 47
to 50, this descent is broken into 1-phrases. The last of these in measure 60 combines with the
final 4-phrase of the solo. In its length and metrical location, the final phrase of the solo echoes
the phrases in measures 12 to 15 and 27 to 31 (figs. 712 and 713), each of which concluded
a sixteen-measure section.
Figure 716. Coltrane, My Favorite Things: End of D (mm. 5764). {6}
The lack of a schematic four-bar level in this performance limits the possibilities for
dissonance between grouping structure and schematic meter. Instead, the schematic meter
presents Coltrane with an unbroken flow of two-bar downbeats. On this flow, he can
superimpose a 4-phrase and 8-phrase level through IOI, rhyme, motive, and other factors. As in
classical music, a series of 4-phrases generates a corresponding four-measure hypermetrical level.
To put it another way: whenever Coltrane accents a particular two-bar downbeat, through a
proximate grouping boundary, a new motive, a louder dynamic, or other factors, it stands out
as a possible four-bar downbeat. If it receives confirmation four measures later, a four-bar level
emerges in the metrical hierarchy. Thus, while this scheme takes away the possibility for
extreme phrase-rhythm dissonance, it gives the performer the ability to create hypermetrical
levels, so long as they align with the lower levels present in the scheme. The performer can also
employ hypermetrical shifts and ambiguity.
Viewed in this way, the appearance of 4-phrases and 8-phrases in this performance is
hardly anomalous, or a vestige of Coltranes earlier career improvising over metrically
conventional schemes. Rather, it is the near-inevitable result of attempting to create groups
longer than two measures. Hypermeasures of odd length (e.g., three or five measures) would be
impossible to sustain against the two-measure vamp. Because of their consonance with the two-
213
bar level of the schematic meter, 4-phrases emerge almost on their own when playing on such a
scheme. 8-phrases result from the same process, carried one level further.
Dissonance at the 4-phrase and four-measure level emerges not through conflict between
meter and grouping, but through conflict between competing versions of this level. Coltrane
explores this possibility in measure 47, with the emergence of a new four-measure level. Based
only on the present analysis, metrical reinterpretationthe erasure and re-establishment of
hypermetrical levelsseems likely to be one of the more interesting aspects of phrase rhythm in
this style. I leave it to later studies to examine phrase rhythm in modal jazz more thoroughly.
This example suggests that such an undertaking could be quite fruitful.
214
Works Cited
Aebersold, Jamey. 1978. Charlie Parker Omnibook. Atlantic Music Corp.
Baker, David. 1980. The Jazz Style of Sonny Rollins: A Musical and Historical Perspective. Miami:
Studio 224.
JAZZ STYLE OF SONNY ROLLINS, THE
Musical and Historical Perspectives by David N. Baker
Copyright 1980 STUDIO 224
c/o WARNER BROS. PUBLICATIONS U.S. INC.
All Rights Reserved
Used by Permission of ALFRED MUSIC PUBLISHING CO., INC.
. 1982. The Jazz Style of Clifford Brown: A Musical and Historical Perspective. Miami: Studio
224.
JAZZ STYLE OF CLIFFORD BROWN, THE
Musical and Historical Perspectives by David N. Baker
Copyright 1980 STUDIO 224
c/o WARNER BROS. PUBLICATIONS U.S. INC.
All Rights Reserved
Used by Permission of ALFRED MUSIC PUBLISHING CO., INC.
Benadon, Fernando. 2006. Slicing the Beat: Jazz Eighth-Notes as Expressive Microrhythm.
Ethnomusicology 50/1: 7398.
. 2009. Time Warps in Early Jazz. Music Theory Spectrum 31.1: 125.
Berliner, Paul F. 1994. Thinking in Jazz: The Infinite Art of Improvisation. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Cadwallader, Allan, and Gagn, David. 1998. Analysis of Tonal Music: A Schenkerian Approach.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Caplin, William. 1998. Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental Music of
Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. Oxford University Press.
. 2002. Theories of Musical Rhythm in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. In
The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, Thomas Christensen, ed. New York:
Cambridge University Press. 657694.
Cone, Edward T. 1962. The Uses of Convention: Stravinsky and His Models. The Musical
Quarterly 48/3: 28799.
. 1968. Musical Form and Musical Performance. New York: Norton.
Works Cited
215
Cooper, Grosvenor and Meyer, Leonard. 1960. The Rhythmic Structure of Music. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Crook, Hal. 1991. How to Improvise. Rottenburn N, Germany: Advance Music.
Dobbins, Bill. Date Unknown. Bill Evans on Riverside. Unpublished collection of transcriptions,
distributed by Robert Wason for a class on Bill Evans in the spring of 2009.
Downs, Clive. 2000/2001. Metric Displacement in the Improvisation of Charlie Christian.
Annual Review of Jazz Studies 11: 3968.
Dunn, Tony. 2009. Negotiating Changing Metric Structures: Metrical Dissonance and
Metrical Attention in a Jazz Performance. Paper given at Society for Music Theory
Annual Meeting, Montreal.
Eckert, Stefan. 2000. Ars Combinatoria, Dialogue Structure, and Musical Practice in Joseph Riepels
Anfansgrnde zur musicalischen Setzkunst. PhD Thesis: SUNY Stony Brook.
Folio, Cynthia. 1995. An Analysis of Polyrhythm in Selected Improvised Jazz Solos. In
Concert Music, Rock, and Jazz Since 1945: Essays and Analytical Studies, eds. Elizabeth
West Marvin and Richard Hermann, 103134. Rochester: University of Rochester
Press.
Forte, Allen. 1995. The American Popular Ballad of the Golden Era 19241950. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Giddins, Gary, and Deveaux, Scott. 2009. Jazz. New York: Norton.
Gioia, Ted. 1997. The History of Jazz. New York: Oxford University Press.
Givan, Benjamin Marx. 2003. Django Reinhardts Style and Improvisational Process. PhD Thesis:
Yale.
Gridley, Mark. 2006. Jazz Styles: History and Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.
Hanninen, Dora. 2001. Orientations, Criteria, Segments: A General Theory of Segmentation
for Musical Analysis. Journal of Music Theory 45/2: 345433.
Hasty, Christopher. 1997. Meter As Rhythm. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hepokoski, James, and Darcy, Warren. 2006. Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types, and
Deformations in the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata. New York: Oxford University Press.
Works Cited
216
Hodson, Robert, and Buehrer, Ted. 2004. Metric Dissonance in Jazz: The Stride Piano
Performances of Thelonious Monk and James P. Johnson. Paper given at annual
meeting of the Society for Music Theory, furnished by the author.
Israels, Chuck. 1985. Bill Evans (19291980): A Musical Memoir. The Musical Quarterly
71/2: 109115.
Kenny, Barry. 1999. Structure in Jazz Improvisation: A Formulaic Analysis of the
Improvisations of Bill Evans. Annual Review of Jazz Studies 10: 163194.
Kernfeld, Barry Dean. 1995. What to Listen For in Jazz. New Haven: Yale University.
Koch, Heinrich Christoph. 1983. Introductory Essay on Composition, trans. Nancy Baker. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Komar, Arthur J. 1971. Theory of Suspensions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Krebs, Harald. 1999. Fantasy Pieces: Metrical Dissonance in the Music of Robert Schumann. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Larson, Steve. 1987. Schenkerian Analysis of Modern Jazz. PhD dissertation. University of
Michigan.
. 1993. Dave McKennas Performance of Have You Met Miss Jones? American Music
11/3: 283315.
. 1996A. The Art of Charlie Parkers Rhetoric. Annual Review of Jazz Studies 8: 141166.
. 1996B. Strict Use of Analytic Notation. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy 10: 3171.
. 1997. Triple Play: Bill Evans Three-Piano Performance of Victor Youngs Stella By
Starlight. Annual Review of Jazz Studies 9: 4556.
. 1998. Schenkerian Analysis of Modern Jazz: Questions About Method. Music Theory
Spectrum 20.2: 209241.
. 1999. Swing and Motive in Three Performances by Oscar Peterson. Journal of Music
Theory 43/2: 283314.
. 2005. Composition Versus Improvisation? Journal of Music Theory 49.2: 24175.
. 2006. Rhythmic Displacement in the Music of Bill Evans. In Structure and Meaning in
Tonal Music: Festschrift in Honor of Carl Schachter, eds. Poundie Burstein and David
Gagn, 10322. Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press.
Works Cited
217
, Keith Waters, Steven Strunk, and Henry Martin. 2009. Circular Thinking: A
Roundtable on Blue in Green and Nefertiti. Paper presented at the Society for
Music Theory Annual Meeting, Montreal.
Lester, Joel. 1986. The Rhythms of Tonal Music. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University
Press.
Lerdahl, Fred, and Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. A Generative Theory of Tonal Music. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Lewin, David. 1969. Behind the Beyond. Perspectives of New Music 7/2: 5972.
London, Justin. 1999. Hastys Dichotomy. Music Theory Spectrum 21/2: 26074.
. 2004. Hearing in Time: Psychological Aspects of Musical Meter. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Mankowski, Forrest Woody, transcriber. 2008. Best of Sonny Rollins. Milwaukee: Hal Leonard.
Martin, Henry. 1996. Charlie Parker and Thematic Improvisation. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow
Press.
Martin, Henry, and Waters, Keith. 2002. Jazz: The First 100 Years. Belmont, CA:
Walworth/Thomson Learning.
Marx, Adolph Bernhard. 1854. General Music Instruction (Allgemeine Musiklehre). Tr. George
Macirone. London: J.A. Novello.
Mehegan, John. 19591965. Jazz Improvisation, vols. 14. New York: Watson-Guptill.
Mirka, Danuta. 2009. Metric Manipulations in Haydn and Mozart. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Nelson, Robert U. 1949. The Technique of Variation: A Study of the Instrumental Variation Form
from Antonio de Cabezn to Max Reger. Berkeley: UC Press.
Owens, Thomas. 1974. Charlie Parker: Techniques of Improvisation. PhD Thesis: UCLA.
. 1995. Bebop. New York: Oxford University Press.
Price, Tim. 1995. The Julian Cannonball Adderley Collection. Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard.
The Real Book, Sixth Edition. 2005. Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard Corporation.
Reeves, Scott. 1989. Creative Jazz Improvisation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Works Cited
218
Reicha, Anton. 2000. Treatise on Melody, trans. Peter M. Landey. Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon
Press.
Rothstein, William. 1989. Phrase Rhythm in Tonal Music. New York: Schirmer Books.
Schachter, Carl. 1980. Rhythm and Linear Analysis: Durational Reduction. The Music Forum
V: 197232.
. 1987. Rhythm and Linear Analysis: Aspects of Meter. The Music Forum VI: 160.
Schiff, Ronny, transcriber. 2000. Coltrane Plays Standards. From the Artist Transcription
Series. Milwaukee: Hal Leonard Corp.
Schuller, Gunther. 1958. Sonny Rollins and the Challenge of Thematic Improvisation. The
Jazz Review 1/1: 611.
Smith, Gregory. 1983. Homer, Gregory, and Bill Evans: The Theory of Formulaic Composition in the
Context of Jazz Piano Improvisation. PhD dissertation. Harvard University.
Strunk, Steven. 1979. The Harmony of Early Bop: A Layered Approach. Journal of Jazz Studies
6: 453.
Sutcliffe, W. Dean. 2010. Binary form. From Oxford Music Online,
www.oxfordmusiconline.com/
subscriber/article/grove/music/03093?q=binary+form&search=quick&pos=
1&_start=1#firsthit. Accessed 10/28/10.
Temperley, David. 1999A. The Question of Purpose in Music Theory: Description,
Suggestion, and Explanation. Current Musicology (Spring, 1999): 6685.
. 1999B. Syncopation in Rock: A Perceptual Perspective. Popular Music 18/1: 1840.
. 2001. The Cognition of Basic Musical Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
. 2003. End-Accented Phrases: An Analytical Exploration. Journal of Music Theory 47:
125154.
. 2008. Hypermetrical Transitions. Music Theory Spectrum 30: 305325.
Terefenko, Dariusz. 2004. Keith Jarretts Transformation of Standard Tunes. PhD dissertation.
University of Rochester.
. 2009. Jazz Transformations of the ii7V7I Progression. Current Research in Jazz 1.
Tirro, Frank. 1967. The Silent Theme Tradition in Jazz. Musical Quarterly 53.3: 313334.
Works Cited
219
. 1974. Constructive Elements in Jazz Improvisation. Journal of the American Musicological

Society 27/2: 285305.
Waters, Keith. 1996. Blurring the Barline: Metric Displacement in the Piano Solos of Herbie
Hancock. Annual Review of Jazz Studies 8: 1937.
White, Eugene K. 2003. Binary and ternary form. In The Harvard Dictionary of Music Fourth
Edition, Don Michael Randel, ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 100102.
Yeston, Maury Alan. 1974. The Stratification of Musical Rhythm. PhD dissertation. Yale
University.
220

Modern re-releases are given when the originals may be hard to locate.
Adderley, Julian Cannonball (under Miles Davis). 1959. Kind of Blue. Columbia CL 1355.
{1} Freddie Freeloader, by Miles Davis. In Price 1995.
Brown, Clifford. 1954. Clifford Brown and Max Roach. EmArcy MG 36036.
Also on Clifford Browns Finest Hour. Verve 314 543 6022.
{2} Joy Spring, by Clifford Brown. In Baker 1982.
and Max Roach. 1954. Brown and Roach Incorporated. EmarCy MC 36008.
{3} Ghost of a Chance, by Victor Young. In Baker 1982.
. 1956. Clifford Brown and Max Roach at Basin Street. EmArcy MG 36070.
{4} Ill Remember April, by Gene de Paul. In Baker 1982.
(under Sonny Rollins). 1956. Sonny Rollins Plus 4. Prestige PRLP 7038.
{5} Valse Hot, by Sonny Rollins. In Baker 1982.
Coltrane, John. 1963. Afro Blue Impressions. Pablo Live 2620101.
{6} My Favorite Things, by Richard Rodgers. In Schiff 2000.
Davis, Miles. 1954. Bags Groove. Prestige PRLP 7109.
{7} Oleo, by Sonny Rollins. Authors transcription.
Evans, Bill. 1958. Everybody Digs Bill Evans. Riverside RLP 12291.
{8} Night and Day, by Cole Porter. Authors transcription.
. 1959. Portrait in Jazz. Riverside RLP 12315.
{9} Someday My Prince Will Come, by Frank Churchill. Authors transcription.
{10} Witchcraft, by Cy Coleman. In Dobbins.
. 1961. Explorations. Riverside RLP 351.
{11} How Deep Is the Ocean? by Irving Berlin. In Dobbins.
{12} Nardis, by Miles Davis and Bill Evans. In Dobbins.
. 1961. Sunday at the Village Vanguard. Riverside RLP 376.
{13} Solar, by Miles Davis. In Dobbins.
. 1961. Waltz for Debby. Riverside RLP 399.
{14} My Romance, by Richard Rodgers. In Smith 1983.
. 1963. Bill Evans Trio At Shellys Manne-Hole. Fantasy OJCCD 2632.
{15} All the Things You Are, by Jerome Kern. Authors transcription.
Getz, Stan. Stan Getz and the Oscar Peterson Trio. Verve MGV 8251.
{16} Pennies From Heaven, by Arthur Johnston. Authors transcription.
Hersch, Fred. 2001. Songs Without Words. Nonesuch 796122.
{17}
Con Alma, by Dizzy Gillespie.
Parker, Charlie. 1946. Charlie Parker on Dial, Vol. 1. Spotlite (E) SPJ 101.
{18} Moose the Mooche, by Charlie Parker. In Aebersold 1978.
{19} Ornithology, by Charlie Parker. In Aebersold 1978.
{20} Yardbird Suite, by Charlie Parker. In Aebersold 1978.
. 1947. Charlie Parker on Dial, Vol. 4. Spotlite (E) SPJ 104.
{21} Dewey Square, by Charlie Parker. In Aebersold 1978.
1947. Alternate Masters, Vol. 1. Dial LP 904.
{22} Scrapple from the Apple, by Charlie Parker. In Aebersold 1978.
{18} through {22} also appear on The Legendary Dial Masters, vols. 12.
Stash Records ST-CD-23 and ST-CD-25.
. 1950?. Liveology (2005 reissue). Re/Empire Musicwerks 545 450 6632 Re.
{23} Ornithology, by Charlie Parker. In Owens 1974.
. 1952. Nows the Time. Verve MGV 8005.
{24}
Chi Chi, by Charlie Parker. In Aebersold 1978.
{25}
Cosmic Rays, by Charlie Parker. In Aebersold 1978.
{26}
Kim (No. 2), by Charlie Parker. In Aebersold 1978.
{27}
Nows the Time, by Charlie Parker. In Aebersold 1978.
Powell, Bud. The Amazing Bud Powell, Vol. 1. Blue Note BLP 1503.
{28}
Wail, by Bud Powell. Authors transcription.
Rollins, Sonny (under Miles Davis). 1954. Bags Groove. Prestige PRLP 7109.
{29}
Airegin, by Sonny Rollins. In Mankowski 2008.
. 1956. Tenor Madness. Prestive PRLP 7047.
{30}
Tenor Madness, by Sonny Rollins. In Baker 1980B.
. 1956. Saxophone Colossus. Prestige PRLP 7079.
{31}
Blue Seven, by Sonny Rollins. In Mankowski 2008.
{32}
Moritat, by Kurt Weill. Authors transcription.
{33}
St. Thomas, by Sonny Rollins. In Mankowski 2008.
. 1956. Sonny Rollins Plus 4. Prestige PRLP 7038.
{34}
Valse Hot, by Sonny Rollins. In Mankowski 2008.
221

Rhythm in Jazz

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rhythm in Jazz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

On Phrase Rhythm in Jazz

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

Chapter 1: Meter and Grouping in Jazz

Chapter 2: The Analytical Method

Part II: Applications

Chapter 3: Thirty-Two-Bar Schemes in AABA Form

Chapter 4: Thirty-Two-Bar Schemes in ABAC Form

Chapter 5: The Twelve-Bar Blues

Chapter 6: Metrically Atypical Schemes

Chapter 7: Some Pedagogical and Analytical Extensions

Index of Recordings and Transcriptions

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Notations

Appendix B: Complete Transcriptions and Analyses

12. Metrical projection.

13. A projective hierarchy.

14. Hypermetrical analysis of Haydn's Symphony no. 104/I.

15. A metrical mistake.

16. Motive vs. hypermeter.

17. One phrase or two?

18. What are the second level groups?

19. Voice-leading vs. grouping.

22. Segmentation factor 2: strong beat.

23. Segmentation factor 4: motive.

24. A formula, not a motive.

25. A formula becomes a motive through repetition.

26. Conflicts among grouping factors.

27. The short form of prosodic notation.

28. Accent borrowing.

29. Effects characteristic of swing articulation of 8 th-notes.

210. No borrowed accent.

211. Metrical time-spans and associated phrase-types.

212. The beginning-accented 4-phrase.

213. The end-accented 4-phrase.

214. Not a 4-phrase.

215. Where to place 4-phrase brackets: solid v. dotted.

216. Some un-accented 4-phrases.

217. The double-accented 4-phrase.

218. Comparison of 4-phrase types.

219. The 2-phrase.

220. Where to place 2-phrase brackets: solid v. dotted.

221. Asymmetrical 2-phrase division.

222. A challenging case.

223. The 1-phrase.

224. Sentence-structure, 1/1/2.

225. No overlapped downbeats.

226. The beginning-accented 8-phrase.

227. An 8-phrase made from four 2-phrases

228. Davis, Oleo, mm. 132.

230. Phrase overlap.

231. Grouping structure in a phrase overlap.

232. A 2+4 combined phrase.

233. Grouping structure, figure 234.

235. A common source of ambiguity.

236. Combination or end-accentuation?

237. End-accentuation that resembles combination.

238. Ambiguous phrase rhythm.

239. Phrase division without pause.

32 through 36. Davis, Oleo

37, 38. Parker, Moose the Mooche.

39 through 312. Parker, Yardbird Suite.

313, 314. Parker, Dewey Square.

315 through 319. Powell, Wail.

42 through 412. Getz, Pennies From Heaven.

413. Ornithology (Parker): Metrical-harmonic scheme.