The Tight-interlocked Rhythm Section: Production and Perception of Synchronisation in Jazz Trio Performance

Abstract

This study investigates the production and perception of timing, synchronisation and dynamics in jazz trio performances. In a production experiment, six trio combinations of one saxophonist, two bassists, and three drummers were recorded while they performed three popular jazz songs. Onset timing and dynamics of each performer were extracted and analysed. Results showed that the tempo was significantly influenced by the timing of the drummers and all performers showed higher temporal precision on the backbeats. The drummers demonstrated individual swing-ratios, accentuations of beats and intrapersonal asynchronies between simultaneous hi-hat and ride cymbal onsets, which resulted in a hi-hat played 2–26 ms ahead of the pulse of the music. In a subsequent perception test, participants () rated 12 excerpts of the jazz recordings. They selected their preferred version from a pool of stimuli containing the original version, but also manipulations with artificially increased or reduced asynchronies. Stimuli with reduced asynchronies smaller than 19 ms were preferred by the listeners over the original or the fully quantised timing. This suggests that listeners endorse a ‘tight-interlocked’ jazz rhythm section, with asynchronies smaller than the perceptual threshold (temporal masking), but with natural timing variabilities that makes it distinguishable from a computer-generated playback.

Rhythmic Density Affects Listeners' Emotional Response to Microtiming

“…We further obtained some evidence that the groove ratings of stimuli with microtiming that arises in professional performance are on par with those elicited by stimuli with quantized timing (Senn et al, 2016 ) and that it is not necessarily the quantized stimuli that motivate the most intense body movement in listeners (Kilchenmann and Senn, 2015 ). Finally, Hofmann et al ( 2017 ) suggested that tight microtiming patterns are preferred by listeners, compared to larger microtiming magnitudes.…”

“…Another yet unchartered territory in groove studies is related to the variability of microtiming patterns across the time of a performance. In the past, average microtiming variation profiles have been extracted from performed music (see examples in Fujii et al, 2011 ; Kilchenmann and Senn, 2011 , 2015 ; Naveda et al, 2011 ; Hellmer and Madison, 2015 ; Hofmann et al, 2017 ). These patterns may well represent a systematic aspect of microtiming in a certain style or context.…”

“…The empirical evidence concerning the relevance of microtiming for groove, however, has been inconclusive so far: some studies found no evidence that microtiming influences groove (Butterfield, 2010 ; Madison et al, 2011 ; Madison and Sioros, 2014 ), others found that microtiming is detrimental to groove (Davies et al, 2013 ; Frühauf et al, 2013 ; Matsushita and Nomura, 2016 ); yet others found that microtiming patterns arising in competent performance do not affect groove negatively, but if the patterns are exaggerated in magnitude, the groove experience decreases (Kilchenmann and Senn, 2015 ; Senn et al, 2016 ). Finally, Hofmann et al ( 2017 ) suggested that listeners preferred tightened microtiming patterns to the microtiming magnitude of the originally performed music.…”

Groove in drum patterns as a function of both rhythmic properties and listeners’ attitudes

“…Yet others claimed that expert performance microtiming did not diminish entrainment or pleasure, but exaggerating the microtiming pattern had a negative effect on groove [ 67 , 68 ]. One recent study [ 69 ] found that listeners preferred stimuli with small expert performance microtiming deviations to stimuli with quantised timing. In summary, there are conflicting findings concerning the influence of microtiming on groove.…”

“…Expertise : Listeners’ musical expertise was studied under the assumption that music expert listeners would be more sensitive to musical phenomena (like microtiming deviations or syncopation) than listeners with less expertise. Some studies concluded that listeners’ expertise did not influence the experience of groove within the context of their investigations [ 5 , 62 , 64 , 69 , 73 ]. Others found that musical expertise did have a moderating effect on groove: higher musical expertise was associated with a stronger effect of microtiming on the groove experience [ 65 , 67 , 68 ] or with physiological reactions linked to groove [ 80 ].…”