Jazz swing notation

Sometimes a well-meaning composer or arranger will try to approximate a jazz swing style notationally in this way:

dotted-eighth, sixteenth rhythmThis is wrong.

Sometimes he or she will take this approach:

12/8 rhythmAlso wrong. So is this one:

eighth notes with indication to tripletizeThe idea of “tripletizing” eighth-note rhythms is especially pervasive, and misleading if taught without nuance. Composers are sometimes guilty of this; so are conductors, arrangers, and educators.

The issue with each of these bad notational approaches is that they try to approximate characteristic jazz rhythms with symbols that are rooted in the rather different rhythms of classical music. But real jazz swing rhythms aren’t necessarily dotted or 12/8 or triplets. This leads to problems both for composers and performers.

For composers, using a 12/8 time signature or eighth-note triplets in 4/4 too easily drags the work into a compound-meter feel. And jazz swing is decidedly not in a compound meter: the rhythms are very much duple in nature. Authentic swing almost always has an underlying feel of two notes per beat, even though those notes are not equal in length. Extended or frequent passages with a compound-meter feel (three notes per beat) are dead giveaways of a failure to really absorb swing style.

For jazz-untrained performers, seeing dotted or compound-type rhythms on a page simply doesn’t provide fine enough information to accurately reproduce authentic swing style. It’s perhaps a bit like baking a cake from a recipe with each ingredient rounded off to the nearest tablespoon; the result will approximate a cake but likely won’t be especially successful. And even for the jazz-trained performer, sometimes the dotted or triplety notation can obscure the intended sound, something like typing a sentence into Google Translate, translating it into some other language, and then translating it back into English. (The result definitely loses fidelity.) Or, the poor notation can simply dull or distract from the jazz musician’s more authentic approach.

All of this, of course, begs the question of what precisely is the correct downbeat-upbeat length ratio for a true swing style, if not the 2:1 ratio of the triplety approach or the 3:1 ratio of the dotted approach. That question is larger in scope than I intend to fully tackle here, but I think it suffices to summarize with a few brief points:

  • Firstly, there’s no reason for it to be a mystery or a matter of “opinion;” using very simple technology we can measure exactly what jazz musicians are doing.
  • The ratios, if we measure them, are very, very far from consistent, even taken independently of factors like tempo. (There’s a popular but not-uniformly-supportable idea that the notes swing “harder” [greater ratio] at slower tempi and less hard [ratio nearer to 1:1] at faster tempi.) The precise ratios are an expressive, interpretive matter, and ultimately up to the performers.
  • The rhythms themselves are not the only factors that make swing sound like swing; articulation, phrasing, and other elements are also important, and also beyond the scope of my intended topic here.

What, then, is the best way to notate swing rhythms? I sort of like this one, though it’s not the one I ultimately recommend:

grace notesWhat I do like about the weird grace note approach is that it makes fairly clear the idea that the exact “downbeat” (quarter note) to “upbeat” (grace note) ratio is an interpretive matter. It also evokes what I find to be the most successful method of executing swing rhythms: think in quarter note pulses, and let the upbeats lead to the following downbeats. What I don’t like about this method is that it’s a hassle to write and to read.

My best recommendation is this:

eighth notes with "Swing" indicationNote the absence of the “two eighths equal triplet quarter-eighth” indication. This way is simple to read and write, reinforces the duple nature of swing rhythm, and doesn’t prescribe a specific ratio. One might hope that a jazz-untrained musician encountering this would seek out some good training or at least listen to some good swing recordings.

Happy swinging.

Similar Posts

  • Mormons and musicians

    Mormon Tabernacle Choir and organ pipes
    Photo, More Good Foundation

    Some of you know that I am a “Mormon“—a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I find that sometimes fellow musicians are curious about my faith and how it connects to my career in music, so I’d like to share a few thoughts.

    Music in LDS (Latter-day Saint) theology

    Mormons embrace the biblical Old and New Testaments and find in them reason to consider music, both vocal and instrumental, integral to worship:

    And David and all the house of Israel played before the Lord on all manner of instruments made of fir wood, even on harps, and on psalteries, and on timbrels, and on cornets, and on cymbals. (2nd Samuel 6:5, KJV)

    Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. (Colossians 3:16, KJV)

    Books of scripture unique to the LDS canon also promote music in worship. The Book of Mormon describes gatherings of the faithful in the ancient Americas:

    And their meetings were conducted by the church after the manner of the workings of the Spirit, and by the power of the Holy Ghost; for as the power of the Holy Ghost led them whether to preach, or to exhort, or to pray, or to supplicate, or to sing, even so it was done. (Moroni 6:9, emphasis added)

    The Doctrine and Covenants, a collection of revelations from the 19th and 20th centuries, includes divine sanction for music in worship:

    And it shall be given thee, also, to make a selection of sacred hymns, as it shall be given thee, which is pleasing unto me, to be had in my church.

    For my soul delighteth in the song of the heart; yea, the song of the righteous is a prayer unto me, and it shall be answered with a blessing upon their heads. (Doctrine and Covenants 25:12)

    If thou art merry, praise the Lord with singing, with music, with dancing, and with a prayer of praise and thanksgiving. (Doctrine and Covenants 136:28)

    Read More “Mormons and musicians”

  • Let audiences applaud at your classical music concerts. Or don’t.

    The question of when to permit applause at a classical music performance has already been discussed to death. In summary, some people believe that you should encourage applause only after a complete work is finished, because:

    • It allows the piece to be heard as a unified whole
    • It’s respectful to the musicians and/or audience
    • It’s current accepted concert etiquette
    • The performance might be recorded, streamed, etc. and the applause interferes

    But others believe it’s acceptable to let audiences clap between movements, or even during them, because:

    • Some classical composers would have expected and even encouraged it
    • Holding applause until the end is a relatively recent thing
    • Shaming concertgoers for expressing enthusiasm is rude, paints classical music audiences as elitist, and drives potential new attendees away
    • You’re allowed to clap, chat, sing along, eat/drink, or whatever at lots of other kinds of concerts

    I think neither stance can be fully the “right” one. Perhaps an analogy is helpful:

    I could eat dinner at a hamburger joint, or at an innovative Michelin-starred restaurant. These are potentially equally enjoyable and valid dining experiences. At the first place nobody would think it strange if I picked the onions out of my burger, or dipped my fries in some ketchup. At the other restaurant, a waiter might bring me unfamiliar dishes that require some explanation and even instructions in order to experience them as the chef intended.

    If I ask the waiter at the casual burger place for instructions on how to eat, I will probably get a strange look. And if I request some ketchup for my avant-garde cuisine, I’ll probably get the same.

    Rather than argue over the “correct” way to handle applause at concerts, we should consider what kind of experience we want our audiences (and musicians) to have, and communicate that. It’s okay to encourage people to applaud when they hear something they like. And it’s okay to ask them to remain silent until the end of the program. It’s even okay to ask for silence during one piece, and applause during another.

    Audience members may arrive with differing expectations, and nobody wants to feel awkward or annoyed. Help them out. Trust longtime classical music enthusiasts to be open to experiencing music in a less-rigid atmosphere when given permission, and trust your newcomers to be respectful when you explain your expectations in a non-condescending way.

    I suggest being clear about your preferred modes of audience feedback, and including these expectations in the printed program and announcing them from the stage at each and every performance. Let’s not put the burden on audiences to somehow know the “correct” way to behave. Let’s use our musical taste and expertise to interpret individual performance situations for them, the same way we select and interpret the repertoire.

    [Applause/boos here. Thank you.]

  • Why do some instruments transpose?

    I find it difficult to explain to the uninitiated the concept of “transposing” instruments. The what is confusing. The why is worse.

    To get the what across, I usually have to resort to an example: “Okay, so it works like this. If I am playing an alto saxophone, and I see an F-sharp on the page, I think ‘F-sharp,’ and do the correct fingering for F-sharp, and then I blow into the instrument and an A comes out.”

    Sometimes a visual representation is useful (here are transpositions for some common woodwind instruments):

    Instruments Written pitch Sounding pitch
    Piccolo
    Down an octave

    Up an octave
    Clarinet in E-flat
    Down a m3

    Up a m3
    Flute, Oboe
    (non-transposing)
    Bassoon
    (non-transposing)
    Clarinet in B-flat, Soprano saxophone
    Up a M2

    Down a M2
    Clarinet in A
    Up a m3

    Down a m3
    Alto flute
    Up a P4

    Down a P4
    English horn
    Up a P5

    Down a P5
    Alto saxophone
    Up a M6

    Down a M6
    Contrabassoon
    Up an octave

    Down an octave
    Tenor saxophone, Bass clarinet
    Up a M9

    Down a M9
    Baritone saxophone, Contrabass clarinet in E-flat
    Up an octave and a M6

    Down an octave and a M6

    This system is, shall we say, “difficult:”

    • Composer/arranger/copyist: “What was that transposition for alto flute again? A fourth, I think, but was it a fourth down or a fourth up? Or was it a fifth?”
    • Conductor: “Let’s see, the alto saxophones have an E and a B, the tenor has a D-sharp, and the baritone has a D-natural. So that chord would be, um…”
    • Educator: “Okay, everybody play a B-flat scale. I mean, ‘concert’ B-flat. So C for clarinets and tenor saxophones, G for altos and baritones, E-flat for English horn… or is it F for English horn?…”
    • Gigging musician: “I need to buy the fakebook in E-flat. Hmm, and I guess I also need the B-flat, in case I play clarinet on anything. I wonder if I’ll need the C book for flute, too? Wait, let me make a phone call.”

    (And that’s just the system used for the modern band and orchestral instruments!) Read More “Why do some instruments transpose?”

  • Counting rhythms with a non-quarter-note pulse

    Sometimes my students are stymied by rhythms like this:

    subdivisions

    These rhythms are really not at all difficult to play—to actually execute—for an intermediate-level student. The problem is just one of unfamiliar notation. It is usually related to the all-too-common misconception that the rhythmic pulse is always equal to a quarter note. If you approach this example with a quarter-note pulse in mind, the rhythms are indeed rather complex.

    But even an intermediate student should be quite at ease playing subdivisions of a beat into twos, threes, and fours. For a student with the pulse-is-always-a-quarter-note mentality, that means this specifically:

    subdivisions-1

    So the key is to reframe the “difficult” rhythm so that it breaks down into subdivisions of two, three, and four. One way would be to rewrite it like this, using more familiar notation:

    subdivisions-2

    But often it’s enough for my students just to mark up the original to show an eighth-note rhythmic pulse:

    subdivisions-3

    If I walk them through marking the first few measures, they can often finish the project without much additional help. At that point, they are surprised to discover that the rhythms are really much simpler than they first appeared (and that 32nd notes are not necessarily “fast”).

    For me this issue comes up most often in the Romantic-period etudes I have my students play, most especially the oboe etudes by Ferling (which my saxophonists also play) and the 32 clarinet etudes by Rose (which are mostly based on the Ferling etudes), but also some of the Milde bassoon etudes and Andersen flute etudes.

    In each of these cases, by far the most common occurrence of a non-quarter pulse is the eighth note pulse, and some editions of these indicate an eighth-note based metronome marking (which should be a big hint to a student). In general, my students handle this less-familiar notation with ease once they learn to watch out for etudes or repertoire movements that have 32nd-note rhythms, and to count those with an eighth-note pulse. (The clarinetists run into this early in the Rose 32, as the first and third etudes begin with seeming quarter-note-pulse rhythms, then surprise the student with 32nd-note passages later.)

    A 16th-note pulse is also not unheard of (I run across this most often in Baroque repertoire), and certainly others are possible. “Cut time” (2/2) time signatures also fall into this category, though they seem to alarm my students less because they are generally easy enough to count in 4/4; they do sound much more poised if I can convince them to use a true half-note pulse.

    In summary:

    • If an etude or repertoire piece has 32nd-note rhythms, try counting with an eighth-note pulse. If it has 64th notes, try a sixteenth-note pulse, and so on.
    • If the composer or editor provides a metronome marking, notice what note duration is suggested (for ♩ = 50, count in quarters, but for ♪ = 100, count in eighths).
    • If it helps, mark in the pulse to reveal the familar two, three, and four subdivisions.
    • Don’t panic!
  • What really went wrong? Leaning into problem spots

    I have a recurring teaching challenge with my saxophone students who are tackling the altissimo register for the first time. They play a passage, and when they get to the altissimo note, if it doesn’t respond perfectly, they immediately stop playing. When I ask why, they look puzzled. “The note didn’t come out.”

    “Well, what did come out?” I might ask.

    More puzzlement. Sometimes I have to prompt them to play it again, and remind them to play it long enough to really hear it.

    “A weird honk,” they might finally conclude. Or “a terrible squeak.”

    “That’s a note,” I point out. It might be too low (honk) or too high (squeak). But it has a pitch, right? It isn’t the note we wanted, but it was something. And understanding what something it is helps us know what to try next. If it was a honk, the instrument responded at a too-low partial, and if it was a squeak, it responded at a too-high partial. There’s work to do to fix it, but we’re much farther along than we were the diagnosis was only as specific as “failure.”

    This approach is helpful with a variety of woodwind-playing problems. Don’t bail and declare failure at the first appearance of a problem. Try leaning into it. What does the problem really sound like? Can you make the problem happen again, on purpose? If you change something about your approach, does the sound change (even if it just changes to a different problem)? All of this information is potentially useful in finding a reliable, repeatable solution.

    Additionally, this approach encourages an attitude of curiosity and exploration, rather than self-judgment. That’s a much more fun and productive way to practice. It lets you finish your practice session eager to try again tomorrow, rather than dreading more failure.

    Run toward your problem spots, not away from them, and see what they can teach you.

  • Jazz chord symbols: a primer for the classically-trained

    Printed jazz music often uses chord symbols to indicate the music’s underlying harmony. As with the Roman numeral system used in classical music theory, jazz chord symbols may be used as a tool for analysis. But they are also used for performance, like Baroque figured bass notation,Ā with the musicians using the symbols as a framework for improvising melodies and/or accompaniments. In jazz, the symbols are Ā generally non-specific with respect to inversion, and players of chord-capable instruments (such as piano or guitar) in jazz are accustomed to making independent choices about inversion and voicing. Depending on the situation, printed jazz music may include written notes only, or notes plus chord symbols, or even chord symbols alone.

    SimpleĀ major triadsĀ aren’t common in most “modern” (post-1940) jazz. But in the rare cases that they do appear, they are indicated with a single note name:

    jazz chord symbol: simple triad
    C major

    The letter “C” above the staff is the chord symbol. The notes shown on the staff here are the corresponding pitch classes, stacked in root position in the thirds familiar to students of classical theory, though a jazz musician, composer, or arranger would rarely voice a chord in this way.

    Almost always, there should some variety of seventh specified, using the numeral 7 (and when it isn’t specified, it is often implied). By convention, using the 7 alone with a note name indicates the loweredĀ seventh:

    jazz chord symbol:  seventh
    C seventh

    Read More “Jazz chord symbols: a primer for the classically-trained”

15 Comments

  1. Great comments Bret! I use this approach as well, and it seems to help beginners think about swing in the right way. It frees them up in regards to the mathematical rigidity of notation, allowing the interpretive characteristic of grace notes (along with listening and transcribing) to be a guide for the swing style, rather than attempting an exact notation system.

  2. I teach swing rhythms to my students largely through example. Typically the only verbal description I give is that swing has a long-short pattern of eighths, as opposed to the even eighths found in other styles. To that end, I definitely prefer that last approach to swing rhythm notation over the others.

  3. I think the best jazz notation has two elements: 1) straight 8ths with no articulation markings, and 2) a player who has listened to enough swing music that he/she has internalized the feel.

    With those two elements, you’ll get perfect jazz swing. I’ve played big-band charts that were written this way, and everyone in the sax section knew how to play them instinctively.

    No matter how formal a piece of written music is, it is always an approximation of what the composer intended to be played. A player’s interpretation is always going to be a factor. Swing is one of those rhythms that can’t be written down, and thus is at the mercy of the player—who either can swing or can’t.

  4. I’m glad I bumped into this web page because I feel the same way about the notation. No triplets, no dotted notes, but just ‘Swing’. (Using the ‘swing’ option of my computer software proves that it is the right thing to do, it performs it very well.)
    But now I have this problem transcribing this piece:
    https://youtu.be/LVkgvYY-TTM
    The pianist switches constantly between ‘Swing’ and ‘No Swing’.
    Is something like this the only option?
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/vic7of169pzc4k3/Example.png?dl=0

      1. Thank you for the ‘even 8ths’ option. I’ll use that one.

      2. Working on this piece, http://annemievanriel.be/site/LessonPriv/LessonMoonWaltzNeet.htm I would like to know your opinion.
        The waltz definitely is 3/4 as waltzes are, with a swing in the eights.

        But from measure 44 I didn’t feel comfortable anymore using all those triplets and swing switching. To me a triplet is not supposed to be used all the time, in that case another time signature is preferable.
        So I restart using the 9/8, which, I agree, is wrong for a swing. What do you think?

  5. Is the ratio of the golden mean not the key to jazz rhythms? It falls between 1/4-1/8 and dotted 1/4-1/8—a little closer to the 1/4-1/8. The implications for understanding jazz rhythms within a broader scientific spectrum are mind-stimulating, no?

  6. Bret, thank you for posting this about swing notation, my nemesis for about six years. I had a good training up through high school in standard music notation, then started reading swing when I was 61. It still throws me for a loop, and no matter how much I keep trying to sight read it, I don’t hear it in my head the way it’s intended. Hearing it done right several times seems to help, but kills the sight reading. Any ideas?

  7. Thank goodness I’ve been doing it the way you recommend! But I have a specific question. The piece I’m writing out parts for (an original) has the swing feel, except for one bar, where I want that phrase to be played in tight staccato eighth notes with no swing, and I’m not sure how to notate that. My gut instinct is to put a doublet over each pair of eighth notes, but I want to make sure that’s correct before handing out the parts.

    1. Many jazz players will see the staccato markings and interpret those notes not to swing. Rather than tuplet markings, I suggest just using words: use the words “straight”/”straight 8ths” or “swing” as needed.

  8. Hello Bret,
    Classical musician trying to understand swing here. Your post is incredibly helpful.
    Two questions:
    In your recommended notation method for swing, you’ve got two sixteenth grace notes at the end of a bar. Would these two grace notes usually be equal to each other in length/duration when played?
    Why have you chosen to keep the sixteenth notes as grace notes but not the preceding off-beat quavers? Is this a convention?
    Also, to clarify, swung rhythms should never be tripletized because the ratio of swung rhythms is variable and song dependent in Jazz, is this correct? I have fallen into the tripletizing trap and need to change how I teach and think about swung rhythms. How does one feel uneven duplets musically without thinking of them as a triplet?
    Thanks,
    Emily

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments that take a negative or confrontational tone are subject to email and name verification before being approved. In other words: no anonymous trolls allowed—take responsibility for your words.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.