Jazz is a strangely unique kind of music. Although to some it might sound like a lullaby, boring or calming, jazz has endless complexities. Because of these complexities jazz complicates the rules of art and music, and muddles definitions that scholars attempt to create.
Miles Davis’s Kind of Blue (1959) transformed jazz from a structured form to an open, exploratory art. As most music heads know, Kind of Blue is the top selling jazz album of all time, it is in everyone’s collection. To an outsider’s eye, it might be confusing why there is such a reverence for a dusty old jazz album, but there are many things about its creation and execution that make it unique. Davis did not call for rehearsals and told his musicians almost nothing about what to play. Instead of complete scores, the album uses the technique of “modal sketches,” in which each performer was given only a set of scales as a base for improvisation. When using the technique of modal sketches, there are five main modal scales that a musician uses. During improvisation the modes, or musical scales change slowly. In 2014, the jazz group Mostly Other People Do the Killing (abbreviated to MOPDtK) decided to adapt Davis’s famous work: a note-for-note reperformance of Kind of Blue, calling the recreation Blue. It is said that this album is almost indiscernible from the real thing. Curiosity got the best of me and I purchased Blue on BandCamp to see for myself. While it is common for jazz musicians to reperform songs, they typically improvise solos in between the main melody (known as the “head”). Similarly, it is common for jazz musicians to reperform and interpret songs, but applying this to a whole album for recording purposes is basically unheard of. Taking an improvised work and putting it into notational form, MOPDtK reperformed it such that it is almost indiscernible from the original work. Blue has polarized listeners, who question if it is necessary – or even morally right – to reperform an existing jazz album so it is almost indistinguishable from the original. How does this reperformance interrogate, change, and challenge the reproduction of music in the tradition of jazz?
By first analyzing types of covers of songs this will help to determine what Blue should be categorized as. Researcher P.D. Magnus claims that covers can be separated into two categories: mimic covers, which replicate the song, and rendition covers, which reimagine the song. Because of the nature of jazz, mimic covers, in the way Magnus defines them, do not technically exist. Jazz covers feature musicians soloing over existing jazz songs. They do not typically involve replicating the entire song, this then creates a brand new piece of music. However, Blue is more than an album of mimic covers because of how MOPDtK chose to directly reperform other artists’ solos, deviating from these typical jazz covers Magnus describes.
An analysis of types of art could also determine if Blue should be considered a piece of music at all. There are ways to categorize different types of art based on how it is created. Nelson Goodman’s categorization of different art traditions explains how different art forms follow different rules. With classical music as his first reference, he defines all music as two-step and allographic, conversely arts that are opposite to music would be considered one-step and autographic. Two-step art is art that has instructions or a score in order to complete the work, like classical music which is first notated, then performed, it is created or completed jointly (Goodman 118). But this definition doesn’t apply to improvised jazz. Music is allographic because if it were reperformed or covered it would not be considered a forgery or theft of property. In contrast, Goodman defines painting as one-step, as it is a non-notational art form; a painter simply paints the painting, and the work is completed (Goodman 113). Not only is painting one-step, it is also autographic: if someone copied a painting from an artist it would be considered forgery. Jazz bends the limits of Goodman’s definitions as, given its improvisational style, it is one-step, non-notational, and autographic. Goodman’s analysis of music does not address the complexities of the jazz tradition and overlooks the complexities that other genres present.
Even if one were to accept Goodman’s definition of one-step and two-step arts, the jazz tradition still remains fuzzy. Because Kind of Blue was created in the moment, with barely any rehearsal or instruction, it should be categorized as one-step, and thus, like a painting, not meant to be replicated. The momentary nature of Kind of Blue would also make it autographic. The musicians’ experiences and lives led up to the creation of the album, making it a direct self-expression. If one followed the rules above by treating jazz like painting, it would then be wrong to reperform. Although MOPDtK’s reperformance of Kind of Blue was likely not morally wrong, it is clear that this is not the norm in the jazz tradition. Because the jazz tradition places such a large emphasis on improvisation, no artist would expect their solos to be reperformed and recorded for a second commercial release.
Through reperforming Kind of Blue, MOPDtK created a controversy of purpose and boundaries. Why would someone listen to Blue when Kind of Blue already exists? When comparing both recordings, they are barely distinguishable. MOPDtK calculated their reperformance to replicate Kind of Blue as closely as possible, opposite of the process of creating Kind of Blue. Despite their many takes, no performer on Blue will ever be able to perfectly replicate the playing on Kind of Blue. MOPDtK tried to replicate everything, especially the non-notational aspects of the music, the feel, the tenor, the timbre all conveyed effortlessly by the original musicians. Band leader Moppa Elliot acknowledges this, saying, “…as far as playing the transcription goes, no matter how closely we transcribe it, or how meticulous we are about our details, it is impossible to play Kind of Blue exactly the way those guys played Kind of Blue”(PopMatters 2014). Both albums are legitimate, but only one of them is original. Is it possible to listen to Blue without hearing Kind of Blue? At the same time, Blue gives access to Kind of Blue that has never existed; by providing something to compare Kind of Blue to, one could argue MOPDtK actually highlights the genius of Kind of Blue. Through this reperformance MOPDtK forces audiences to pay more attention to the non-notational aspects of jazz, and therefore allow one to appreciate Kind of Blue even more as a result. Still, MOPDtK are imposing notation onto Kind of Blue, an album that critically lacks notation. Imposing notation onto Kind of Blue destroys part of the magic that is found in the non-notated aspects of performance like timbre, feel, and tone. Creating notation also allows future musicians to follow instructions on how to reperform Kind of Blue. With these instructions they treat a jazz album like a classical score. Through reperformance, MOPDtK draws audience attention to listen to what makes Kind of Blue better. Because of the reperformance, people now are able to detect properties that Blue lacks. Does Blue’s main purpose wind up just elevating Kind of Blue? Kind of Blue draws out what Blue lacks, and Blue highlights the creative genius of Kind of Blue. Perhaps the albums have found themself in a mutualistic relationship.
Comments on the SoundCloud page for Blue praise the skillful cloning, while others accuse MOPDtK of creating a soulless, pointless piece of music. Although there is a noticeable difference, and it’s not uncommon for fans to revere musicians, and hold a special place in their hearts for the art and artist, are the SoundCloud comments actually basing their opinions on anything other than just love and reverence for the original? Are they dismissing Blue because of the status that the original holds? One of the comments claims that Blue is “…lacking any soul whatsoever — like robots”(SoundCloud 2014). Does the soul of Kind of Blue disappear when the same music is played by different people? Passionate SoundCloud comments could be explained by listeners idolizing the original recording and musicians of Kind of Blue. Listeners may be oppositional to Blue simply because it threatens the aura of Kind of Blue. Blue is “The stripping of the veil…the destruction of the aura” (Benjamin 23-24). When a classical score is performed, there is something added to the music through different musicians, but when Kind of Blue is reperformed people argue that MOPDtK stripped it of something. Is MOPDtK breaking down the illusions and aura of the original recording by notating and reperforming it?
Blue also brings into question ideas of authorship. Foucault’s analysis of the author function helps to understand why people are offended by the covering of Kind of Blue. If someone had heard neither album and listened to Blue, would you tell them they were listening to Blue by MOPDtK or Kind of Blue by Davis? Both statements would be simultaneously accurate and inaccurate. The name “Miles Davis” possesses an author function (Foucault) because of his fame, but MOPDtK does not. Davis’s reputation, importance, and impact all give his name an author function based on Foucault’s analysis whereas MOPDtK do not have such an established reputation. Because Davis has an author function, this could explain why people differentiate Blue and Kind of Blue by an inexplicable feel. In the Blue SoundCloud comments, people argued that this performance was robotic, soulless, and meaningless, without giving any reason for these claims. Foucault’s analysis of the author function demonstrates “…the author function today plays an important role in our view of literary works…”(Foucault 150). Although Foucault was specifically discussing how the author function impacts works of literature, the author function is present in all kinds of art. Much of the push back against Blue could be explained through the author function that “Miles Davis” holds (Foucault). Davis has been individualized and given status – he is a sacred figure in the world of jazz and music – which could explain why people felt offended when a random band reperforms such a sacred album.
MOPDtK argue they wanted to write their own transcription in order to learn the vocabulary of Kind of Blue and be able to listen closer and in a different way. Reperforming this album allowed them to think about “…playing music as this bodily thing. When you’re having to take into account the fingering someone used, and the bodily gesture that’s necessary…the real mystery of it became physical, became the physical bodies, the people playing it, how this guy’s fingers hit these keys” (PopMatters). Unlike Classical music, Kind of Blue required manual translation; the musicians couldn’t just follow instructions from a composer. By learning all the vocabulary from the musicians of Kind of Blue, MOPDtK are able to notice more of the complexities of the music. Blue helps to interrogate Kind of Blue. By re-embodying the same piece of music Blue digs up elements and little nuances that have yet to be digested. Blue is not just a technical demonstration but also a creative act of using resources and tools of music in a new way.
Because Blue is more focused on the philosophical implications and process of Kind of Blue, would the reperformance better fall under the umbrella of performance art or even conceptual art? Both performance art and jazz both possess non-notational qualities, and will be slightly different with each reperformance. Performance art is defined by the Tate Modern as “Artworks that are created through actions performed by the artist or other participants, which may be live or recorded, spontaneous or scripted” (Tate Modern). Performance artworks are copyrighted through contracts and intellectual property, meaning that “…the performance artist can outline a set of specific instructions and restrictions…” (Tate Modern). The Sol LeWitt wall drawings bent the rules of the tradition it was thought to exist within, in a similar fashion to Blue. Because of their unique rules and ephemeral nature, the LeWitt drawings were copyrighted almost like a performance art piece as the drawing of the work makes it a “…work of action…”(Akram and Gibson 2020) much like performance art. Although the LeWitt drawings are conceptual art rather than performance, they help to define the boundaries of genres of art. LeWitt expands on conceptual art, “In conceptual art the idea of concept is the most important aspect of the work…The idea becomes a machine that makes the art…”(LeWitt 12). With the imposed notation acting as the idea, the members of MOPDtK become the machine that executes the instructions. Blue is more than just a reperformance, it is a reperformance that redefines traditions and genres of art and music.
Blue functions more as a theoretical thought experiment for the artists to bend the rules of their tradition. Blue calls into question ideas of originality, reperformance, the jazz tradition, Blue should be considered a work of conceptual art before it is considered jazz. Like painting, jazz would best fit into the category of a one-step autographic work, which Kind of Blue aligns with. However Blue falls into the two-step category, and becomes allographic. Blue does not serve a real-world purpose, if someone wanted to listen to Kind of Blue they would listen to Davis’s recording. It does not possess the essential qualities of jazz, it is neither improvisational nor original. Like the LeWitt drawings, Blue obfuscates the boundaries of the tradition it is assumed to exist in. Blue transforms Kind of Blue from one-step to two-step where the LeWitt drawings transformed a painting into a two-step process. Blue and the LeWitt drawings are similar in that they are almost performance art, both pieces question the impermanence of art in different ways, despite the focus not being a performance, but rather an end product, either a wall drawing or an album. Therefore, by directly defying the rules of the jazz tradition, Blue should not be considered a work of jazz, but rather a work of conceptual art.
Written by Mary Luce
Bibliography
Akram, Razwana, and Elinor Gibson. “Performance Art: The Legal Issues behind the Ownership of ‘invisible’ Art.” Simons Muirhead Burton, 17 Nov. 2020, www.smb.london/news/performance-art-the-legal-issues-behind-the-ownership-of-invisible-art/. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
“All Blues – Mostly Other People Do the Killing.” SoundCloud, soundcloud.com/bk-music-pr/all-blues-mostly-other-people-do-the-killing. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
Banks, Georgia. “Reperformance: A Dedication.” VICTORIA COLLEGE OF THE ARTS THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE, 2015.
Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, and Other Writings on Media. Edited by Michael William Jennings et al. Trans. by E. F. N. Jephcott et al., The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008.
Borges, Jorge Luis, and Andrew Hurley. Collected Fictions. Penguin Books, 1999.
The Council on Business & Society. “Why We Think Life Was Better in the ‘Good Old Days.’” Council on Business & Society Insights, 6 Apr. 2023, cobsinsights.org/2023/04/06/why-we-think-life-was-better-in-the-good-old-days/.
Foucault, Michel. What Is an Author? 1979.
Goodman, Nelson. “Art and Authenticity .” The Bobbs-Merrill Company , Indianapolis, Indiana, 1968, pp. 99–123.
Gridley, Mark, et al. “Three Approaches to Defining Jazz.” The Musical Quarterly, vol. 73, no. 4, 1989, pp. 513–31. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/741817. Accessed 8 Dec. 2024.
Kania, Andrew. “The Philosophy of Music.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 30 Oct. 2023, plato.stanford.edu/entries/music/.
Lewitt, Sol. Paragraphs on Conceptual Art: Sentences on Conceptual Art. 1999.
LeWitt, Sol. Sentences on Conceptual Art Sol Lewitt. Danilo Montanari Editore, 2008.
Lieberman, Charlotte. “Why We Romanticize the Past.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Apr. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/smarter-living/why-we-romanticize-the-past.html.
Magnus, P.D., “Kind of Borrowed, Kind of Blue” (2016). Philosophy Faculty Scholarship. 53.https://scholarsarchive.library.albany.edu/cas_philosophy_scholar/53
Sartwell, Crispin. “Aesthetic Dualism and the Transfiguration of the Commonplace.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 46, no. 4, 1988, pp. 461–67. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/431283. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
Seaver, Nicholas Patrick. “A Brief History of Re-Performance.” A Brief History of Re-Performance, Massachusetts Institute of Technology , 2010, https://cmsw.mit.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/146381116-Nick-Seaver-A-Brief-History-of-Re-Performance.pdf.
Tate. “Performance Art.” Tate, www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/p/performance-art. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
PopMatters Staff , et al. “Kind of, Kind of Blue: A Conversation with Mostly Other People Do the Killing, PopMatters.” PopMatters, 15 Sept. 2014, www.popmatters.com/185662-kind-of-kind-of-blue-a-conversation-with-mostly-other-people-do-the-2495616921.html. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
Leave a Reply