Schenker and the Tonal Jazz Repertory: A Response to Martin

[1] If one were asked to summarize Steve Larson's approach to the analysis of tonal jazz, the first thing that would likely come to mind would be his belief in the applicability of Schenkerian analysis to this repertory. In fact, Larson strove as much as possible to approach jazz using as orthodox a form of Schenkerian theory as possible.(1) In his review of monographs by Forte 1995, Gilbert 1995, and Martin 1996, Larson carefully explained how deviations from Schenkerian orthodoxy by these authors were, in his own words, "more apparent than real" (Larson 1999, 114-17). More specifically, Larson's analytic methodology brought three modifications to Schenkerian theory into orthodoxy: (1) the frequent lack of in Gilbert's Urlinien and in Martin's "Common Bop Background Forms," (2) Martin's concept of "prolongation by arrival" (one replaced by the concept of the auxiliary cadence), and (3) the unresolved or unexplained appearance of dissonances by all three authors.[2] Martin's recent review of Larson's Analyzing Jazz: A Schenkerian Approach (Martin 2011a) along with the former's keynote address at the Dutch-Flemish Society for Music Theory conference (Martin 2011b), serve as a response to Larson's use of an orthodox Schenkerian methodology. Indeed, Martin's keynote ends with a list of modifications to Schenkerian theory that are implied by his analyses, these modifications consisting primarily of new forms of the Urlinie. His goal is to show that since tonal jazz works "can be found in which a conventional Schenkerian interpretation may be unconvincing," he hopes to show that "background paradigms differing from Schenker's provide superior readings" (Martin 2011b, 1).[3] From the publication history of these two men, there is clearly a difference of opinion between them on whether to use an orthodox or modified Schenkerian approach. This disagreement is not limited to these two scholars; a recent event has suggested that there is widespread disagreement between jazz scholars. At the recent Steve Larson Memorial Conference held at the University of Oregon at Eugene in March 2012, the penultimate paper was read by David Heyer, a former graduate student of Steve Larson during the latter's final years. In the question and answer session that followed the final three papers,(2) Dr. Heyer asked the audience, one composed almost exclusively of jazz theorists, how many of them recognized that sevenths and ninths were dissonant intervals in jazz; not a single hand was raised. It seems that one of the main tenets supporting Larson's use of orthodox Schenkerian theory is not widely accepted.[4] Thus, there is a schism in current tonal jazz research dividing those who employ orthodox or modified Schenkerian theory, with the majority of scholars-at least among those attending this conference-choosing the latter approach. Because Larson's voice has been silenced, this study is a response to Martin's call for the adoption of a modified form of Schenkerian theory, one labeled neo-Schenkerian in one of his more extensive graphs (Martin 2011a, 129). Rather than simply going over the same analytic ground that separated Larson and Martin, this study will focus on a revealing statement in Martin's keynote to which Larson ran out of time to respond in print:Typically, Schenkerian analysis privileges the three original prototypes to such an extent that they serve as models for the inference of implied tones, i.e., those missing from the music, but enhancing the coherence of an analytic level. I suggest that the analyst try to infer any missing notes from the harmonic and voice-leading events of the original melody (Martin 2011b, 17).The analytic problems associated with treating the original melody of the lead sheet as inviolate when it does not serve as the basis of improvisation will be explored throughout this paper, in conjunction with a careful reading of points made in Martin's article and the musical examples that support them. …