142

3.4 Swing Blocks

Swing values as arrangement in Lit t l e Wing (1967)

Jimi Hendrix’s Little Wing (Hendrix 1967) is a seminal piece in the rock guitar

repertoire, with its blending of country double-stops, jazz chord-melody technique,

unorthodox guitar voicings and a sophisticated rhythmic feel. Although often included as

part of the electric guitarist’s pedagogy, it’s apparently moderate technical demands

disguise sophisticated time-feel elements that are notoriously difficult to recreate

convincingly. The introduction (CD1.30) is performed solo (with bell tones later added at

the onbeats of each bar) with quite a loose tempo (in the 65 to 72 bpm range) so it is

reasonable to take the performance as the master time-line, which focuses on swing

rather latency elements. Semiquaver swing values vary widely with a broad spread across

the 44-72% range with a wide standard deviation, so is it fair to call the swing ‘loose’ and

leave it at that? Not at all, a closer look at the values (Figure 3.4.1 p 143), and more

informed listening, suggests controlled groupings of similar swing values, here broadly

categorized as Straight (<53%), Light (53-56%), Medium (56-63%) and Heavy (>63%).

These values are not implicated with tight rigidity, some fields fall on the cusp between

two categories, and occasionally a member of a group may fall out of the range.

Furthermore, there are some ambiguities in measurement when embellishments are used,

or in the absence of adjacent onbeats. However the general shifts between swing value

groups are very clear, attention to which reveals an effective structural mechanism at

work. CD1.31 demonstrates a one bar rhythmic pattern played in the four swing

categories: Straight (50%), Light (55%), Medium (62%) and Heavy (69%). These are all

performed first with sequences electronic clicks and then live guitar for comparison.

143

Figure 3.4.1. Semiquaver and quaver swing analysis of Little Wing introduction (CD1.30). Broadly

defined swing categories are grouped together in discernible blocks.

Swing analysis has so far been made in reference to the semiquaver, but a quaver

swing analysis, the length discrepancy between adjacent quavers within a crotchet, has

144

also been conducted (lower part of stave in Figure 3.4.1). These values are generally

straight which leaves little to say on the matter. Furthermore most swing values at the

quaver level may actually represent rubato elements (an accelerando would create a

higher swing calculation, for example). Nonetheless, bar 7 beats 3 and 4, provide an

opportunity to discuss the topic of swing values existing on multiple levels, or swing

telescopy. For clarity, a simplistic approximation of this passage is taken, with Pattern A

possessing swing values of 60% (quaver) and 50% (semiquavers) (Figure 3.4.2a). Pattern

B has 50% quaver and 60% semiquaver swing values (Figure 3.4.2b).

Figure 3.4.2. Pattern A contains two equal length quavers each containing a pair of 60% swung

semiquavers. Pattern B has a swing of 60% at the quaver level, with each quaver containing straight

semiquavers. Timings at 60bpm are shown, only the 3rd semiquaver is different between Pattern A and B,

but the musical effect is significantly different (CD1.32).

145

Semiquaver placements of Pattern A and Pattern B would be identical, apart from

the 3rd semiquaver (timings for 60bpm are shown in the central portion of Figure 3.4.2).

The musical effect of this distinction is huge, CD1.32 plays Pattern A followed by

Pattern B. This is heard as an electronically positioned click followed by a guitar

performance). A multi-level swing analysis allows clear description of otherwise

unfathomable rhythmic patterns, and in the use of double-time and half-time rhythmic

devices. Further analyses by the author have revealed for example in the playing of Wes

Montgomery the use of swung quavers followed by the use of straight quavers, to

accommodate swung semiquavers.

The typical viewpoint of swing is as a stylistic characteristic, or representative of a

particular artist. Little Wing however provides a clear example of widely varied swing

values used as a structural mechanism in performance (a far more sophisticated and

intuitive version of the ‘swing-latin-swing’ format found in some jazz arrangements) and

explains part of the virtuosity in its execution and the challenge in its convincing

reproduction.