Until recently, jazz theorists have directed most of their analytical efforts to unscrambling aspects of pitch rather than time, mimicking the analysis of art music. The perceptual limitations involved in extracting and char acterizing essential rhythmic nuances, as well as the limitations of standard music notation to convey these, have tended to deter rigorous study of the microrhythmic features of jazz performance. In pitch-oriented studies, tempo ral aspects have generally been neglected in favor of scalarand harmonic-re lated topics (e.g., Cogswell 1994;Hermann 2004 Johnson-Laird 2002; Kenny 1999; Larson 2002; Steedman 1984; Toiviainen 1995; Tymoczko 1997). A few other studies have addressed the interaction between the pitch and time domains, although issues of microrhythm are left largely unexplored (e.g., Berliner 1994;Haywood 1994;J?rvinen 1995). An important (and pioneering) exception is that of Pressing (1987), who recorded himself performing two free jazz improvisations and used a computer to extract timing, dynamics, and legatoness information. He found that some of the microrhythmic mechanisms sometimes interacted with melody and phrase structure. Microrhythms in jazz have begun to receive increasing attention from jazz scholars over the last decade, partly as a result of the widespread avail ability of inexpensive and easy to use sound-editing software, and partly as a result of a collective need to catch up with an already advanced pitch-based analytical tradition. However, just as most research on jazz theory has shown a unilateral preference for pitch-related topics, the growing body of work devoted to microrhythm in jazz risks neglecting the interaction between the pitch and time domains. Such is the case with studies where timing consider ations dominate the discussion and pitch information is either excluded from the discussion (Busse 2002; Collier and Collier 1994; Friberg and Sundstr?m 2002;Pr?gler 1995), displayed but excluded from the discussion (Ellis 1991),
Read full abstract