Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Duke Ellington Orchestra's performance at the 1956 Newport Jazz Festival is remembered chiefly for its hard-swinging rendition of “Diminuendo in Blue and Crescendo in Blue” with an extended “interval” of twenty-seven solo choruses by tenor saxophonist Paul Gonsalves. While that number generated much excitement and considerable publicity, the band's later rendition of “Jeep's Blues” has received wider critical acclaim. The slow-tempo performance runs for six choruses, and Johnny (“Jeep”) Hodges' solo is based on only a few distinctive figures. By skillfully ordering and varying those figures Hodges created a coherent and moving statement, one that can be explicated in terms of concepts associated with musical rhetoric. Previous studies have shown that jazz musicians often conceive their improvisations in rhetorical terms. This study provides transcriptions of the Newport Festival performance of “Jeep's Blues” and another recording made some thirty-six hours later in a New York recording studio. The festival performance is analyzed using concepts and methods adapted from rhetoric as well as musical form, phrase rhythm, and Schenkerian voice-leading analysis. My analysis demonstrates that much of Hodges's musical eloquence derives from the way he ordered, elaborated, repeated, varied, and articulated a few basic ideas. It also examines how Hodges used temporal pacing and dynamic shading to further enhance expression. After briefly comparing the festival performance to the studio recording, I consider how a more recent theory of rhetoric, that of “signifying” might apply to “Jeep's Blues.”
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".