This article examines three improvisations by the Miles Davis Quintet from their recording The Complete Live at the Plugged Nickel 1965 through the lens of a new theory of musical interaction. It shows how the quintet favored divergent over convergent interactional strategies in the interpersonal, referent, role, and style domains in its quest to create what one band member called “anti-music.” Volume 25, Number 3, September 2019 Copyright © 2019 Society for Music Theory [1] Miles Davis’s second “great” quintet, which consisted of Davis on trumpet, Wayne Shorter on tenor sax, Herbie Hancock on piano, Ron Carter on bass, and Tony Williams on drums, reassembled at the end of 1965 after a seven-month hiatus. During their break, Shorter, Hancock, Carter, and Williams had a creative outlet composing new music and recording for Blue Note Records. When the quintet began performing again in November, Davis’s bandmates found themselves dissatisfied with the band’s touring repertoire, which consisted mostly of jazz standards and original compositions popularized by Davis’s earlier ensembles. According to Hancock, “even within our very creative and loose approach to the music, everybody did things according to certain kinds of expectations. I knew if I did this, Ron would do that, or Tony knew that if he did this, I would do that. It became so easy to do that it was almost boring” (Mercer 2004, 108–9). As a result, Davis’s bandmates decided to approach a set of late December dates at Chicago’s Plugged Nickel club with the goal of subverting each other’s typical expectations as much as possible. Williams described this approach as “anti-music”: “whatever someone expects you to play, that’s the last thing you play” (Mercer 2004, 109; italics original).(1) By happenstance, Davis’s producer Teo Macero recorded seven sets over two nights, December 22 and 23, at the club, which were released in 1995 as The Complete Live at the Plugged Nickel 1965. (2) [2] In this article, I will examine three improvisations from the Plugged Nickel recordings through the lens of a new theory of musical interaction. This theory is based on a way of hearing a musical source as being composed of separate parts that influence or intervene in each other’s paths. The processes of influence and intervention that occur between these parts are based on each part’s projection of similar or dissimilar continuative events, or what I call convergence and divergence. These analyses of convergence and divergence will often occupy the immediate back-and-forth occurring between different players—the interpersonal domain—but they can also extend to three other interactional domains: referent, role, and style. In this way, musical interaction can be understood not only as a process of motivic exchange, but also as a negotiation of surrounding musical and social structures. Using this framework, I describe how the quintet often adopted divergent interactional strategies in these domains. In the three analyses, I will show how the quintet chose to depart from, yet still retain traditional aspects of, jazz practice in their search for “anti-music.” Before and After the Plugged Nickel [3] It took Davis some time to form his new quintet, and his process of doing so reveals much about his goals. (3) In response to two-thirds of his previous rhythm section departing to form their own group in late 1962, Davis first focused his efforts on finding their replacements, with Carter joining first, and then Williams and Hancock by the end of 1963 (Szwed 2002, 235–38). With these selections, Davis had, for the first time, hired musicians of a younger generation in an attempt to harness their creativity and willingness to embrace the burgeoning avant-garde jazz style (Carr 1998, 187).(4) On their first few gigs, the new rhythm section approached their accompaniment of George Coleman, Davis’s tenor saxophonist at the time, differently than their accompaniment of Davis. Davis quickly noticed, as Hancock described in an interview with Ben Sidran: I remember, before we recorded the album E.S.P., . . . Tony Williams, Ron and I would play differently behind George than we would behind Miles. Behind Miles, we would play in a way that was more reminiscent of what we were accustomed to hearing behind Miles. . . . [T]his one gig we’re playing in Detroit, and behind George we would really open up. Sometimes not even play the time. We’d play all kinds of figures and things, rhythmic figures behind George, do things that were considered more toward the avant-garde. . . . And one day Miles said, “Why don't you play behind me the way you play behind George?” . . . So we started doing that stuff. I mean, playing with the rhythms and doing all kinds of wild things behind Miles. Things that we never heard on Miles’s records before. And in the beginning, I remember, Miles started bobbing and weaving and trying to find a place in that stuff. . . . By the third day, not only was he not bobbing and weaving, I was the one bobbing and weaving, and trying to find my place, ’cause Miles had it then. He found a way to play in that context that had me trying to figure out what he was doing. (Sidran 1995, 265; italics original) In selecting these musicians for his new rhythm section, Davis desired the discomfort that it caused him, which in turn would provoke change after his comparatively fallow period of the early 1960s.(5) [4] After settling on his new rhythm section, Davis spent some time deciding on the fifth member, a seat he wanted filled by a tenor saxophonist in the mold of his first “great” quintet of the mid 1950s. While Coleman had been with Davis since just prior to Carter’s joining in 1963, by 1964 Coleman was growing weary of Davis’s profligate lifestyle and intensive touring schedule, and the new rhythm section, in particular Williams, did not find Coleman’s playing adventurous enough (Szwed 2002, 241). At Williams’s urging, Davis next hired Sam Rivers, “an acknowledged figure in the avant-garde” who proved a bit too experimental for Davis’s tastes (Szwed 2002, 245). When Davis heard that Wayne Shorter was dissatisfied with his work with Art Blakey’s Jazz Messengers, he convinced the tenor player to join his band, and by September 1964 the quintet was fully formed. With Shorter, Davis found a middle path between Coleman and Rivers: “Wayne had always been someone who experimented with form instead of someone who did it without form. That’s why I thought he was perfect for where I wanted to see the music I played go” (Davis 1989, 273).(6) Davis wanted experimentation, but he wanted experimentation within, not outside of, the constraints of contemporary jazz style. [5] The new quintet recorded their first studio album, E.S.P., in January 1965. While heralded at the time as an important change of direction for Davis, the album received a somewhat mixed review in Down Beat magazine from trumpeter Kenny Dorham (Waters 2011, 83–84; Szwed 2002, 252–53). Waters characterizes the album as revealing a group in transition: “many of the celebrated facets of the later studio recordings are not yet in evidence on E.S.P. There are no examples of ‘time, no changes,’ compositions, which began to appear only on the quintet’s second studio recording, Miles Smiles” (2011, 83),(7) and which was more widely praised (127).(8) Soon after recording E.S.P., Davis was forced to put the group on leave while he recovered from a series of operations to alleviate persistent hip ailments. During this break, Davis’s bandmates would, in concentrated sessions, rehearse new music for three or four days and record an album for Blue Note on one final day (Mercer 2004, 104). The personnel on each recording varied widely, but Shorter, Hancock, Carter, and Williams frequently appeared on one another’s records (Waters 2011, 125). Herbie Hancock recorded his influential album Maiden Voyage (1965) during the quintet’s hiatus, as did Tony Williams Spring (1966), and Shorter The All Seeing Eye (1966), The Soothsayer (1979), and Etcetera (1980). These recordings gave the four younger members of the quintet a venue for their new compositions and a taste of full creative control over their music. [6] After reassembling in November 1965 for a series of live club dates, the quintet returned to Davis’s staple repertoire, abandoning the new music they had recorded on E.S.P. As they traveled to Chicago for an engagement at the Plugged Nickel,(9) Davis’s bandmates began to feel constrained, which Davis acknowledged in his autobiography: My playbook, the songs we would play every night, started to wear down the band. People were coming to hear those tunes that they had heard on my albums; that’s what was packing them in the door: “Milestones,” “’Round Midnight,” “My Funny Valentine,” “Kind of Blue.” But the band wanted to play the tunes we were recording which we never did live, and I know that was a sore point with them. (1989, 278) It is possible to imagine an alternative history in which the group disbanded at this point. Given the creative freedom Shorter, Hancock, Carter, and Williams had just experienced, as well as their excitement around the new material they had recorded for E.S.P., returning to Davis’s old repertoire, even if financially expedient, might have been too much for them to bear. Their decision, then, to take on Williams’s “anti-music” for the Plugged Nickel dates, came at a critical juncture.(10) By making their mantra “whatever someone expects you to play, that’s the last thing you play” (Mercer 2004, 109; italics original), the quintet adopted an interactional stance that I will characterize as “divergent” rather than “convergent.” While their studio recordings removed many of the constraints of contemporary jazz styles, their live performances maintained these constraints but interacted divergently with them. As Davis put it, “[i]nstead of developing the new music live which we were playing on records, we found ways to ma

中文翻译：

---

制作“反音乐”：Miles Davis 五重奏《The Complete Live at the Plugged Nickel 1965》中的不同互动策略

本文从新的音乐互动理论的角度考察了 Miles Davis 五重奏在他们录制的 The Complete Live at the Plugged Nickel 1965 中的三首即兴创作。它展示了五重奏如何在人际、所指、角色和风格领域中偏爱发散而不是收敛的互动策略，以寻求创造一个乐队成员所说的“反音乐”。第 25 卷，第 3 期，2019 年 9 月 版权所有 © 2019 音乐理论协会 [1] 迈尔斯·戴维斯的第二个“伟大”五重奏，其中包括小号上的戴维斯、男高音萨克斯上的韦恩·肖特、钢琴上的赫比·汉考克、贝斯上的罗恩·卡特，以及托尼·威廉姆斯 (Tony Williams) 演奏鼓，在中断七个月后于 1965 年底重新组装。在休息期间，肖特、汉考克、卡特和威廉姆斯有一个创意渠道，为 Blue Note Records 创作新音乐和录音。当五重奏组在 11 月再次开始演出时，戴维斯的乐队成员发现他们对乐队的巡演曲目不满意，这些曲目主要由戴维斯早期的乐团流行的爵士乐标准和原创作品组成。根据汉考克的说法，“即使在我们对音乐非常有创意和松散的态度下，每个人都按照某种期望做事。我知道如果我这样做，罗恩会那样做，或者托尼知道如果他这样做，我也会那样做。它变得如此容易，以至于几乎令人厌烦”（Mercer 2004, 108-9）。因此，戴维斯的乐队成员决定在芝加哥的 Plugged Nickel 俱乐部安排一组 12 月下旬的约会，目的是尽可能地颠覆彼此的典型期望。威廉姆斯将这种方法描述为“反音乐”：“无论别人希望你演奏什么，那是你最后演奏的东西”（Mercer 2004，109；斜体原文）。(1) 巧合的是，戴维斯的制作人 Teo Macero 在 12 月 22 日和 23 日的两个晚上在俱乐部录制了 7 集，这些集于 1995 年作为 The 1965 年在 Plugged Nickel 上完成现场演出。 (2) [2] 在这篇文章中，我将通过一种新的音乐互动理论来研究 Plugged Nickel 录音中的三个即兴创作。该理论基于一种将音乐源视为由相互影响或干预彼此路径的独立部分组成的方式。这些部分之间发生的影响和干预过程基于每个部分对相似或不同的连续事件的预测，或者我称之为收敛和发散。这些对趋同和分歧的分析通常会占据不同参与者之间发生的直接来回——人际领域——但它们也可以扩展到其他三个交互领域：指称、角色和风格。通过这种方式，音乐互动不仅可以被理解为动机交流的过程，而且可以被理解为对周围音乐和社会结构的协商。使用这个框架，我描述了五重奏如何在这些领域经常采用不同的交互策略。在这三个分析中，我将展示五重奏如何选择离开爵士乐实践的传统方面，但仍然保留爵士乐实践的传统方面，以寻求“反音乐”。Plugged Nickel 之前和之后 [3] 戴维斯花了一些时间来组建他的新五人组，他这样做的过程揭示了他的目标。(3) 为了回应他之前的节奏部分的三分之二在 1962 年底离开组建自己的团队，戴维斯首先集中精力寻找他们的替代者，卡特首先加入，然后是威廉姆斯和汉考克到 1963 年底（ Szwed 2002, 235-38)。有了这些选择，戴维斯第一次聘请了年轻一代的音乐家，试图利用他们的创造力和意愿来拥抱新兴的前卫爵士乐风格 (Carr 1998, 187)。(4) 在他们的最初几个演出时，新的节奏部分接近了戴维斯当时的男高音萨克斯手乔治科尔曼的伴奏，与戴维斯的伴奏不同。正如汉考克在接受 Ben Sidran 采访时所描述的那样，戴维斯很快注意到：我记得，在我们录制专辑 ESP 之前，. . . 托尼·威廉姆斯 罗恩和我在乔治身后的表现与我们在迈尔斯身后的表现不同。在 Miles 身后，我们会以一种更让人联想到我们习惯于在 Miles 身后听到的方式进行比赛。. . . [T]他在底特律的一场演出，在乔治身后我们真的会敞开心扉。有时连玩的时间都没有。我们会扮演各种各样的人物和事物，乔治背后有节奏的人物，做一些被认为更前卫的事情。. . . 有一天迈尔斯说：“你为什么不像在乔治身后那样在我身后踢球？” . . . 所以我们开始做那些东西。我的意思是，在迈尔斯背后玩节奏并做各种疯狂的事情。我们以前从未在迈尔斯的唱片中听到过的事情。我记得，一开始，迈尔斯开始摇摆不定，并试图在这些东西中找到一席之地。. . . 到第三天，他不仅没有摇摆不定，而且我是那个摇摆不定的人，并试图找到我的位置，因为当时迈尔斯已经找到了。他找到了一种在那种情况下演奏的方法，让我试图弄清楚他在做什么。（Sidran 1995, 265；斜体原文）在为他的新节奏部分选择这些音乐家时，戴维斯希望这会给他带来不适，而这反过来又会在他 1960 年代初期相对闲置的时期之后引发变化。 (5) [4]在确定了他的新节奏部分后，戴维斯花了一些时间决定了第五名成员，他想要一个男高音萨克斯演奏家在他 1950 年代中期的第一个“伟大”五重奏的模具中占据一席之地。虽然科尔曼在卡特于 1963 年加入之前就一直与戴维斯在一起，但到 1964 年科尔曼已经厌倦了戴维斯挥霍无度的生活方式和密集的巡演日程，而新的节奏部分，尤其是威廉姆斯，认为科尔曼的演奏不够冒险（Szwed 2002, 241）。在威廉姆斯的催促下，戴维斯接下来聘请了山姆·里弗斯，“公认的前卫人物”，事实证明他对戴维斯的口味来说有点过于实验性（Szwed 2002, 245）。当戴维斯听说韦恩·肖特对他在 Art Blakey 的 Jazz Messengers 的工作不满意时，他说服男高音演奏家加入他的乐队，到 1964 年 9 月，五重奏组已经完全成型。有了 Shorter，戴维斯在科尔曼和里弗斯之间找到了一条中间道路：“韦恩一直是一个尝试形式的人，而不是一个没有形式的人。这就是为什么我认为他非常适合我想看到我演奏的音乐的地方”（戴维斯 1989, 273）。(6) 戴维斯想要实验，但他想要的是内部实验，而不是外部实验，当代爵士乐风格的限制。[5] 新五重奏于 ​​1965 年 1 月录制了他们的第一张录音室专辑 ESP。虽然当时被誉为戴维斯的重要方向改变，但这张专辑在 Down Beat 杂志上得到了小号手 Kenny Dorham（沃特斯 2011 , 83–84; Szwed 2002, 252–53)。沃特斯将这张专辑描述为揭示了一个转型中的群体：“后期录音室录音的许多著名方面还没有出现在 ESP 上。没有‘时间，没有变化’的例子，这些作品开始只出现在五重奏的第二张录音室录音，Miles Smiles”（2011 年，83），（7），获得了更广泛的赞誉（127）。（8）在录制 ESP 后不久，戴维斯被迫让乐队休假，同时他从一系列系列中恢复过来缓解持续性髋关节疾病的手术。在这段休息时间里，戴维斯的乐队成员会集中精力排练三四天的新音乐，并在最后一天为 Blue Note 录制一张专辑（Mercer 2004, 104）。每张唱片中的人员差别很大，但肖特、汉考克、卡特和威廉姆斯经常出现在彼此的唱片中（Waters 2011, 125）。赫比·汉考克在五重奏中断期间录制了他有影响力的专辑 Maiden Voyage (1965)，还有 Tony Williams Spring (1966)、Shorter The All Seeing Eye (1966)、The Soothsayer (1979) 和 Etcetera (1980)。这些录音为五重奏组的四名年轻成员提供了他们新作品的场所，并让他们体验了对音乐的完全创造性控制。[6] 在 1965 年 11 月为一系列现场俱乐部约会重新组合后，五重奏回到了戴维斯的主要曲目，放弃他们在 ESP 上录制的新音乐 当他们前往芝加哥参加 Plugged Nickel 的订婚活动时，(9) 戴维斯的乐队成员开始感到拘束，戴维斯在他的自传中承认：我的剧本，我们每晚播放的歌曲，开始磨损乐队。人们来听他们在我专辑中听到的那些曲调；这就是把它们装进门的原因：“里程碑”、“午夜圆”、“我有趣的情人”、“有点蓝”。但是乐队想要演奏我们从未现场演奏过的我们正在录制的曲调，我知道这对他们来说是一个痛点。(1989, 278) 可以想象另一种历史，该团体此时解散。鉴于肖特、汉考克、卡特和威廉姆斯刚刚经历的创作自由，以及他们对为 ESP 录制的新材料感到兴奋，回到戴维斯的旧曲目，即使在经济上是权宜之计，也可能让他们无法承受。然后，他们决定在 Plugged Nickel 约会中采用威廉姆斯的“反音乐”，这是在一个关键时刻。（10）通过使他们的口头禅“无论别人希望你演奏什么，那都是你演奏的最后一件事”（默瑟2004, 109；斜体原文），五重奏采用了一种互动的立场，我将其描述为“发散”而不是“趋同”。虽然他们的录音室录音消除了当代爵士乐风格的许多限制，但他们的现场表演保留了这些限制，但与他们产生了不同的互动。正如戴维斯所说，“[我]没有开发我们在唱片上播放的新音乐现场，而是找到了 回到戴维斯的旧曲目，即使在经济上是权宜之计，也可能让他们无法承受。然后，他们决定在 Plugged Nickel 约会中采用威廉姆斯的“反音乐”，这是在一个关键时刻。（10）通过使他们的口头禅“无论别人希望你演奏什么，那都是你演奏的最后一件事”（默瑟2004, 109；斜体原文），五重奏采用了一种互动的立场，我将其描述为“发散”而不是“趋同”。虽然他们的录音室录音消除了当代爵士乐风格的许多限制，但他们的现场表演保留了这些限制，但与他们产生了不同的互动。正如戴维斯所说，“[我]没有开发我们在唱片上播放的新音乐现场，而是找到了 回到戴维斯的旧曲目，即使在经济上是权宜之计，也可能让他们无法承受。然后，他们决定在 Plugged Nickel 约会中采用威廉姆斯的“反音乐”，这是在一个关键时刻。（10）通过使他们的口头禅“无论别人希望你演奏什么，那都是你演奏的最后一件事”（默瑟2004, 109；斜体原文），五重奏采用了一种互动的立场，我将其描述为“发散”而不是“趋同”。虽然他们的录音室录音消除了当代爵士乐风格的许多限制，但他们的现场表演保留了这些限制，但与他们产生了不同的互动。正如戴维斯所说，“[我]没有开发我们在唱片上播放的新音乐现场，而是找到了 然后，他们决定在 Plugged Nickel 约会中采用威廉姆斯的“反音乐”，这是在一个关键时刻。（10）通过使他们的口头禅“无论别人希望你演奏什么，那都是你演奏的最后一件事”（默瑟2004, 109；斜体原文），五重奏采用了一种互动的立场，我将其描述为“发散”而不是“趋同”。虽然他们的录音室录音消除了当代爵士乐风格的许多限制，但他们的现场表演保留了这些限制，但与他们产生了不同的互动。正如戴维斯所说，“[我]没有开发我们在唱片上播放的新音乐现场，而是找到了 然后，他们决定在 Plugged Nickel 约会中采用威廉姆斯的“反音乐”，这是在一个关键时刻。（10）通过使他们的口头禅“无论别人希望你演奏什么，那都是你演奏的最后一件事”（默瑟2004, 109；斜体原文），五重奏采用了一种互动的立场，我将其描述为“发散”而不是“趋同”。虽然他们的录音室录音消除了当代爵士乐风格的许多限制，但他们的现场表演保留了这些限制，但与它们产生了不同的互动。正如戴维斯所说，“[我]没有开发我们在唱片上播放的新音乐现场，而是找到了 那是你玩的最后一件事”（Mercer 2004, 109；斜体原文），五重奏采用了一种互动的姿态，我将其描述为“发散”而不是“收敛”。虽然他们的录音室录音消除了当代爵士乐风格的许多限制，但他们的现场表演保留了这些限制，但与他们产生了不同的互动。正如戴维斯所说，“[我]没有开发我们在唱片上播放的新音乐现场，而是找到了 那是你玩的最后一件事”（Mercer 2004, 109；斜体原文），五重奏采用了一种互动的立场，我将其描述为“发散”而不是“收敛”。虽然他们的录音室录音消除了当代爵士乐风格的许多限制，但他们的现场表演保留了这些限制，但与他们产生了不同的互动。正如戴维斯所说，“[我]没有开发我们在唱片上播放的新音乐现场，而是找到了