any pointers on soloing over Corcovado?

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by Aristotle

...
Getting back to the second chord as a V. Aren't the first three chords of Corcovado and How Insensitive the same three chords? Im, V7, bVII min?
Instead of the melody rocking back and forth between 5 and 4 of the scale, it rocks back and forth between 5 and 6.

But isn't it more clear in the same progression in How Insensitve that the second chord is a V chord?

First of all, I am used to seeing the second chord in "How Insensitive" as a dim7. Also, I usually interpret it as iii7->biiidim7->ii7. To me, it eventually resolves to a tonic (temporary) in m 9. That G7/B in m 7 is just an harmonic interpolation, the chromatic bass giving it verisimilitude. But it is debatable, that's just how I interpolate it.

Although I like to interpret those chords as biiidim7, I do agree that it could easily be interpreted as VII7 or II13b9. Both can be subbed for that diminished chord.

But the bIIIdim has a long history in classical music, being an inversion of the common tone diminished (a dim7 chord built off the tonic of the key.) The I->CTdim7->V is a common enough chord progression (c.f. Tchaikovsky Symphony 5, III, mm 205-207), and if we put a diatonic sub on the first chord and put the second chord in first inversion (which they do do in classical) and interpolate a ii before the V (a common thing to do in jazz) then we end up with essentially a iii->biiidim7->ii->V. Basically what we are talking about. In jazz, we tend to interpret that biiidim7as a downward passing dim7. In addition to the above examples, another place is where it is clearly meant to be a biiidim7 would be mm 9-11 in "Someday My Prince Will Come." Other examples where it might be interpreted as an inversion of the common tone diminished would be "Witchcraft," "Moonlight Serenade," and "Embraceable You." "Unforgettable" aslo has CTdim in first inversion, but it resolves to a IVM7 (a sub for a ii7.) I'm sure if I wasn't still reeling from my morning run, I could think of some more examples. But clearly, the biiidim7 is a perfectly cromulent interpretation.

Again, I'm not saying it is the only way to think of it. I gave examples in in other posts on this thread of examples that support the interpretation of it as VII7 ("Georgia," "Stella by Starlight," and Handcock's intepretation of "Scarborough Fair".) I could also point out that VII7 is a common sub for CTdim (For example, in the key of Bb, a A/Bb, is enharmonic with a BbdimMaj7. Of course, idim is a very common reharm in jazz and is used all the time to embellish a I chord, for a beat or two, especially if the melody is on the Maj7, like on beat one of of m 1 of "Misty" or beat 1 of m4 of "I'm in the Mood for Love." Piano players use this reharm all the time. Often it is thought of as VII with the tonic in the bass.

I am arguing that both interpretations are valid, and clearly composers are using both interpretations, which aren't that far apart anyway. Learn them both, IMHO.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

I don’t really see anything to disagree with, theory-wise. In fact, where do I sign up for formal credit for studying your post? You're amazing. I’ll try to explain my objections better, and then offer a couple of other ideas for soloing.

Basically, I am trying to retain Jobim’s uniqueness and originality, and doing that is, in and of itself, a basis of fresh ideas for soloing. This means not applying “Rhythim Changes” logic, not “Gershwin-izing” it, like everything else with back-cycling, etc. (Along with playing it too fast). That is, you can make it fresh by not “standardizing” it with the same embellishment rules you use for Van Husen, Arlen, Porter, etc.

This means recognizing that perhaps letting go the “standards” logic that “Am7->Abdim7->Gm7->C7 is not that far from the original.” Perhaps it is far enough away that you lose Jobim's special flavor. You mentioned the diminished maj 7th? I THINK I know what you meant. Consider these chord movements for the end of the first phrase, measure 7-8, English lyrics ‘that sur-rounds me,’ where the lyric ‘rounds’ had that “dim maj 7th” sound. The idea is to get those (mostly) descending chromatic voice movements you agreed where the essence of Jobim.

On strings 6532 to start, these are all skip-string voicing:
G-D-Bb-F, G-Db-Bb-E, F-D-G#-E, F-C-A-D
IMO, a little to beefy on most equipment

Better IMO, more like Jobim’s sparse chords, and optimizing the Fdim maj7th, on string 631 to start, then 6321 etc.:
G-Bb-F, Gb-Bb-C-E, F-G#-B-E, F-A-D
I think that brings out the charm of the dim-maj7. It’s not just a re-harm or passing-tone diminished. It’s an integral chord, and is held as long as the resolution that follows. I am not burying that flavor under a blanket of Heinz 57 "substitutions." (Might recognize that second chord from Ipanema)

I have no problem accepting it as a matter of taste. If you want to take ‘Norte Americano’ dressing and put it on natural Sud Americano fare, it can work with most audiences – either through good planning or just good, experienced playing. But for me, I don’t want ketchup on cassava. IMO, it would be desirable to sound like Robert Conti on Stella, but blues cliches over what was born as Jobim nuance - yeesh - that's worse than ketchup on cassava. There are 300 other "standards" to cliche-ize with standard blues and bop patterns.

Other ideas for soloing

Chord-melody –
Bossa in general, and this song in particular, with its “sus” type motif in measure 1-6, lends itself to these guitar-ready ideas. For example, one variation to the first 2 measure could be the little-barre Am9 at the fifth fret with the B on top, rocking back to A on top. There are bunch of the little sweeties.

Also, I often play the opening with the melody in thirds. On improvised chorus, I move to tenths, which give the opportunity of throwing the third voce in the middle. And again, the guitar offers a bunch of little sweet spots of themes and variations of the original melody patterns.

The half-step thing -
Jobim uses some unexpected half-step melody notes. In the Fm-Bb, he has an E-natural. Against the first D7, around measure 14, where the lyric goes “looking out on;” where the melody slides down in stead of up to C# on the word “out.” This can be varied in other places. Also, I got some ideas from it for some little, rapid, reversing, chromatic runs.

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by Aristotle

...Basically, I am trying to retain Jobim’s uniqueness and originality, and doing that is, in and of itself, a basis of fresh ideas for soloing. This means not applying “Rhythim Changes” logic, not “Gershwin-izing” it, ...

I hear ya, and what you describe is a valid way to approach it. Perhaps I can defend another ... I am a gringo. I was born a gringo, I will die a gringo. I have gringo ears and a gringo musical vocabulary. It would be artificial for me to try and play with Brazilian ears (unless I spent a few decades studying Brazilian music.) For me to take Jobim's music and filter it through my understanding of music is completely natural and something that Jobim himself would respect. Another example would be when I play a jazz tune based on Beethoven's second movement of his 7th symphony (based on what I heard Guaraldi do on it.) But when I play it, I don't try to capture the flavor of Beethoven. We don't criticize Django for filtering Gershwin through his gypsy brain - we applaud it.

OK, so that is the opposite position - it's not necessarily my position, but it is a position. We have staked out two opposite positions. But like in real life, the truth is in the middle, somewhere in all that gray area. You and I just stake out positions in that gray area - that's cool.

I could get into my rant about "the illusion of authenticity" but I'll spare you all, but briefly... The idea of cultural purity is an illusion. All cultures are synergistic mixtures. There is no culture that can be traced back to a moment of purity that cannot be traced back to an earlier point where it was being combined with some (or many) esoteric influence. Furthermore, these influence are ongoing and fluid. They change over time and over geography. To try and take a cultural snapshot and some specific time and place and say, "There! That is it! That is the moment of cultural purity!" - that is arbitrary and an illusion. All cultures grow and develop and borrow from other cultures with which they come into contact. And when they stop, they die. Brazillian culture is no exception. It is a mixture of European, African, and indigenous ideas that has been growing and changing for half a millennium - it never was pure in the first place. It has continued to evolve, and every time it has come into an outside source, it has changed a little, as all art does (and should.) The fact that as Brazilian music came into the US it changed a little, is to be expected, and celebrated (IMHO.) I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with seeking that essential purity, just realize that you are chasing an illusory Holy Grail.

But that's not to say that trying to get some flavor in there is not a worthy goal. But I just think that you have to be realistic. And many fine gringo jazz musicians have been filtering Jobim through their gringo minds for a long time with great results. If you want to strive to stay closer to what you perceive to be Jobim's original intent, then I will applaud your efforts, even if I choose not to duplicate them in their entirety.

It's a weird thing in our culture. On one hand we have a great invisible force that is trying to spread our culture around the globe. We also have a force fighting against it trying to preserve these other flavors. But I think that we do them a disservice if we treat them like fragile pieces in a museum that might be damaged by clumsy gringo hands. I think that we can intrepret them and still not kill the original. I think that incorporating exotic elements into our music is healthy. That does not damage the original. I think the damage to the original will come as Brazilian youth grow up listening to Lady Gaga and not Jobim, Pixinguinha, and Villa-Lobos.

But that's enough of that rant ...

Originally Posted by Aristotle

This means recognizing that perhaps letting go the “standards” logic that “Am7->Abdim7->Gm7->C7 is not that far from the original.”

I was mainly trying to show the dubious that what Jobim was doing was not that bizarre. I'm not saying that people should change how they think of the chords. It's just part of my thesis that Jobim is a master of taking otherwise standard chord progressions and making seem non-standard at first glance. Yes, that also gives Jobim some of his unique flavor.

But I'm not aware that any of the subs mentioned really destroy Jobim's flavor. I guess that is subjective.

Originally Posted by Aristotle

You mentioned the diminished maj 7th? ... Consider these chord movements for the end of the first phrase, measure 7-8, English lyrics ‘that sur-rounds me,’

Oh yeah, in my examples, I forgot that there is an example in this song.

Originally Posted by Aristotle

Better IMO, more like Jobim’s sparse chords, and optimizing the Fdim maj7th,... F-G#-B-E ...

Yeah, I prefer that voicing too. The other (with the D) is technically not an FdimMaj7, which should be F Ab Cb E. Like I said, I often think of this as E/F. Some people might put that D in there too, but I find it a little too muddy.

Originally Posted by Aristotle

I think that brings out the charm of the dim-maj7. It’s not just a re-harm or passing-tone diminished. It’s an integral chord, and is held as long as the resolution that follows. I am not burying that flavor under a blanket of Heinz 57 "substitutions."

Well, I definitely wouldn't call that dim chord a passing chord. And I wouldn't call it a reharm because as far as I know it is part of the song. But it is a good example of how to expand tonic I harmony. One could argue that it is just a reharm of the tonic harmony - if we were to do a Schenkerian reduction of it, that chord would soon disappear - but it is clearly a reharm from the expected harmony that the composer intended so the line gets blurred as to what to call it. (That's assuming that that is Jobim's original chord.) In this case since it is written into the score, one could argue that it is wrong to call it a sub or a reharm. I was just pointing out that that IdimMaj7 is a common reharm to add in to songs.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

I could get into my rant about "the illusion of authenticity" but I'll spare you all,

There are several YouTubes of Jobim playing Corc. What's not authentic about that?

The idea of cultural purity is an illusion.

Who said anything about cultural purity. All I sad is play Jobim like Jobim.

You mentioned running. I do more like wind sprints myself. But, for a time, I used to work one shift per week at a gym, just to get a free membership. One day the sound track had a rap song, or hip hop, I don't what to call it. Lot of talking, lots steady thumping in lieu of real drumming - and over the drums and under the talking - a piano was playing How Insensitive.

you are chasing an illusory Holy Grail.

And you are doing something I used to call in a private chat room, a number 7. That's where you take someone's point, and exaggerate it into some absurd caracture of itself and then attack the caricature you created. I wonder why people do that.

Since no one else is playing in this ping pong game, how about I ask something more constructive. Ideas for Ipanema. There are two things that bug me.
First, the I chord. How do you deal with improving phrases that seem like they want to include the Bb or B-natural. I dislike the Bb, and don't like the B much better. Most people I hear solo by bouncing around the G and E notes of the melody.
Second, the second chord, the G7 - Playing solo, I find it difficult to come up with voicings that don't sound cheesey. I usally end up playing G6.

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by Aristotle

There are several YouTubes of Jobim playing Corc. What's not authentic about that?...Who said anything about cultural purity. All I sad is play Jobim like Jobim.

Jobim playing like Jobim is authentic. But Jobim wasn't playing like Jobim because the pieces must be played like that - Jobim was playing like Jobim because he is Jobim and it is the most authentic way to play. Me, I am not Jobim, I am Kevin. For me to play like Kevin is authentic, and to play like Jobim is artistic necrophilia. True, Kevin can learn from Jobim, and even be influenced by him, but he shouln't try to be Jobim - Kevin will never be as good of a Jobim as Jobim was. But Kevin is really good at being Kevin.

I'm not aware of Jobim ever complaining about people not playing Jobim pieces like Jobim. If he did, then my respect for him just went way down. To the best of my knowledge he enjoyed and respected the many interpretations of his music. (But if I'm ill-informed in that respect, someone please let me know.)

And I think that you did bring up cultural purity, if indirectly. I am just trying to say that we don't have to put Jobim/bossa in some special game preserve where they will be protected from us jazz poachers. If people want to try to be authentic, let them. If they want to interpret it through a jazz filter, let them. As long as it is good music, I don't really care.

My remarks on the "illusion of cultural purity" were just about the impossibility of freezing a musical aesthetic in amber. You think that we should be faithful to Jobim's vision, but I think that that is a very non-jazz attitude. Jazz to a great extent was about individualism and individual interpretation. I think that Jobim would have understood and appreciated that. I've heard bossa artists doing their interpretation of Ellington, do we chide them for not being faithful to the composers vision? I've heard gypsy musicians doing Gershwin, do we chastise them for simplifying the chords? No, we enjoy them as music. But for some reason Jobim is a holy cow.

Originally Posted by Aristotle

And you are doing something I used to call in a private chat room, a number 7. That's where you take someone's point, and exaggerate it into some absurd caracture of itself and then attack the caricature you created. I wonder why people do that.

Perhaps I misunderstood your remarks that we should play Jobim like Jobim played Jobim. I interpreted it to mean that we should remain faithful to the bossa aesthetic. But, ironically, I would have even been more upset if I'd understood you. To me the idea that we should play Jobim like Jobim bothers me even more than the idea that we must remain pure to the bossa aestehtic. But I'll leave that rant for another time.

Threads are discussions, they evolve and diverge. It's just how discussions work. And you know me, once I sink my teeth into a rant ...

Originally Posted by Aristotle

Ideas for Ipanema. ...First, the I chord. How do you deal with improving phrases that seem like they want to include the Bb or B-natural. I dislike the Bb, and don't like the B much better. Most people I hear solo by bouncing around the G and E notes of the melody.

I don't have a problem with either note. The Bb is a nice passing note and the B makes a nice static tension. I tend to like simple ideas over bossas, but if I was just playing G and E I think I would go out of my head. You may hear real bossa guys doing that, but a jazz guy will get bored with that pretty fast, especially if they do it every A section.

Originally Posted by Aristotle

Second, the second chord, the G7 - Playing solo, I find it difficult to come up with voicings that don't sound cheesey. I usally end up playing G6.

Hmmm, I don't know, I like that b7. I do all sorts of G7, G9, G9#11, etc. over the top of it. You describe yourself as likeing an "originalist approach to bossa novas." Of course, bossa (in it's original form) is not jazz. That G6 is perhaps more authentic to the bossa aesthetic, but might sound boring to jazz ears. Of course, there is "authentic" bossa (or at least an illusion of it) and there is jazz bossa. And there is some gray area in between.

It may sound like you are going for less "jazzy" and more "traditional" bossa. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just not what I (and many others here) do. So, you'll have to evaluate how useful our comments are. Obviously, if you are an "originalist" ten you aren't going to like our chord subs or exotic scales.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

I don't have a problem with either note. The Bb is a nice passing note and the B makes a nice static tension. I tend to like simple ideas over bossas, but if I was just playing G and E I think I would go out of my head. You may hear real bossa guys doing that, but a jazz guy will get bored with that pretty fast, especially if they do it every A section.

You mean like Stan Getz on the original. E-E-E-G. I use the B a little, in upper arpeggiation or as a surround passing tone B-D-C. But the Bb gives me the same headaches I get trying to use it Desafinado (which I think has the same first three chords as Ipanema?).

Hmmm, I don't know, I like that b7. I do all sorts of G7, G9, G9#11, etc. over the top of it. You describe yourself as likeing an "originalist approach to bossa novas." Of course, bossa (in it's original form) is not jazz. That G6 is perhaps more authentic to the bossa aesthetic, but might sound boring to jazz ears. Of course, there is "authentic" bossa (or at least an illusion of it) and there is jazz bossa. And there is some gray area in between.
It may sound like you are going for less "jazzy" and more "traditional" bossa. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just not what I (and many others here) do. So, you'll have to evaluate how useful our comments are. Obviously, if you are an "originalist" ten you aren't going to like our chord subs or exotic scales.

As to bossa being jazz per se, I thought "samba jazz" was more THEIR name for it, and bossa nova (literally "new beat") was a more cool name that evolved via marketing. No matter.

I agree with you on note selection, but not on what authenticity means.

The music is exotic (especially to the gringo ear) which is part of its allure. Having been tagged with label "originalist" and all the baggage you keep heaping on to the label, I'll have to keep unloading the baggage. What I posted was that rote substitution rules like backcycling that would blot out, for example, the F dim maj7 - F6 resolution with cliched jazz-blues should be avoided. I can't think of another song that has that beautiful resolution, and I suggest not interpret the song so as to destroy it. Maybe I should have said, don't bop for bop sake.

I agree with you that the second chord of Ipanema should be Lydian (same as Desafindo), and that G Lyd-Dom is the inside tone set (scale). I think Lydian is a signature of Jobim, and that Ipanema is Lydian saturated. So here, I don't think your #11 is a reharm by extension. I think that's the original. And that's why I asked.

FWIW, what does you ear tell you Jobim is playing over measure 3 and 4 of the progression (in the key of D) from 3:03 to 3:07.
YouTube - Girl from Ipanema Tom Jobim and Joao Gilberto Reunited

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by Aristotle

You mean like Stan Getz on the original. E-E-E-G. ...

Right, but Getz isn't really improvising freely there, he's just playing around with the melody (at least on the A sections.) I think for that recording they were thinking about marketability and wanted to keep things very simple. Try doing that on a jazz gig - every soloist just plays with the melody - they'll throw rotten vegetables at you.

Originally Posted by Aristotle

As to bossa being jazz per se, I thought "samba jazz" was more THEIR name for it, and bossa nova (literally "new beat") was a more cool name that evolved via marketing. No matter.

Well, there is a big difference between samba and bossa. One could say that bossa evolved out of samba, but is much less percussive, more melodic, has a gentler feel, and tends to be slower. As to when it started to be called "bossa nova," my understanding was that it was called that in Brazil, but I don't know for sure.

But the larger point is that there is a difference between what we call bossa and what they call bossa. If you listen to traditional Brazillian bossa artists (like Joao Gilberto, arguably the inventor) you hear simpler chords, simpler scales, and much less improv, if any. It is very different from how jazz artists interpret bossa. True, some try to come close. People like Getz and Byrd obviously are trying to get closer to the original.

True, bossa was coming in vogue at the same time that jazz was strong, so there may have been some cross-pollination, but they are different things. Jobim is kind of an odd case,since he was writing bossa, but was also incorporating a very sophisticated jazz vocabulary.

Originally Posted by Aristotle

Having been tagged with label "originalist" and all the baggage you keep heaping on to the label, I'll have to keep unloading the baggage.

Actually, you labelled yourself as such:

It may be advisable to temper my remarks with the understanding that I am primarily a nylon string guy, who plays mostly solo, and I lean toward an originalist approach to bossa nova's. If you play pick-style electric fronting a trio, then maybe you have to open up more." [emphasis mine]

You labeled yourself an "originalist" both with the word and your comments in general. I'm not aware that I added any "baggage" to that.

I just don't think that (IMHO) originalism is consistent with the spirit of jazz. Jazz is about expressing how you feel, not other dead people buried on the other side of the planet. When I play "Summertime," it is irrelevant to me that my interpretation has nothing to do with Gershwin's (which was quite different.) When I play "Just a Closer Walk with Thee" I don't care that it doesn't come out sounding like a spiritual. When I play Jobim, I don't care if it comes out sounding like Jobim. Most jazz standards were actually quite different in their original forms. But we don't care - reinterpretation is part of the jazz philosophy. Ossification and internment into some kind of musical museum, frozen in time - that I think is very un-jazz. It may be good music, and I may listen to it too, but I don't think that is is consistent with the jazz ethos.

If you want to wave the banner of "originalsim" then go ahead. But be aware that you are going to get some resistance. I might even question whether originalist bossa is really jazz.

Originally Posted by Aristotle

What I posted was that rote substitution rules like backcycling that would blot out, for example, the F dim maj7 - F6 resolution with cliched jazz-blues should be avoided. I can't think of another song that has that beautiful resolution, and I suggest not interpret the song so as to destroy it. Maybe I should have said, don't bop for bop sake.

First of all, I'm not aware that anyone suggested subbing it away. Second of all, it is an extremely common harmonic pattern, I've already given several examples and piano players do it all the time. I actually think of it as a bit of an harmonic cliche, if a very pretty one.

Originally Posted by Aristotle

I agree with you that the second [first?] chord of Ipanema should be Lydian (same as Desafindo), and that G Lyd-Dom is the inside tone set (scale). I think Lydian is a signature of Jobim, and that Ipanema is Lydian saturated.

Really? I don't think of him as especially lydian. I don't really think of the first chord as functionally lydian, but as a straight up tonic major. True, it is common to the jazz language to treat it as lydian (modal mixture.) There is more lydian on the bridge, but I don't think more so than many jazz tunes from that era.

Originally Posted by Aristotle

So here, I don't think your #11 is a reharm by extension. I think that's the original. And that's why I asked.

In order to call it "original" I would have to see or hear an original copy of it that made it clear that that is how Jobim thought of it. I have yet to do that. Without that, calling it "original" is just wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by Aristotle

FWIW, what does you ear tell you Jobim is playing over measure 3 and 4 of the progression (in the key of D) from 3:03 to 3:07.

It just sounds like a lyd-dom chordal lick to me. Pretty standard stuff - it is a common scale for II7 - like in "Take the A-Train" and many others.

True, II7 can be treated like a secondary dominant, but I think that depending on how you use it, it can be treated more statically, especially if there is an interpolated ii7 before the V7, in which case it seems to take on a function of its own. If it is a secondary dominant, then we often put the b9 on it and/or alter it further. But if it is functioning as this static II7, then it usually needs lyd-dom. Jobim used it a lot, but he certainly didn't invent it.

Peace
Kevin

[Aristotle]

If you want to wave the banner of "originalsim"
you are chasing an illusory Holy Grail.

Huh?
If someone were to follow the path I suggest, he or she would approach, reach, and possibly excel sounding very much like this Ipanema.
http://www.youtube.com/ksjazzguitar
Perhaps a little sweetening up with a soupçon of single-line runs or statements. I’d hire this guy to play bossa to play at my functions.


Restoring the orignalism of my originalist statement.
Here is my statement with your emphasis

It may be advisable to temper my remarks with the understanding that I am primarily a nylon string guy, who plays mostly solo, and I lean toward an originalist approach to bossa nova's. If you play pick-style electric fronting a trio, then maybe you have to open up more." [emphasis mine]

Here is my statement with my emphasis
It may be advisable to temper my remarks with the understanding that I am primarily a nylon string guy, who plays mostly solo, and ILEAN TOWARD an originalist approach to bossa nova's. If you play pick-style electric fronting a trio, then maybe you have to open up more.

In non-substituted, non re-harmonized, originalist English “lean toward” could be a little as 51%-49% in favor. Also, I studied the Bossa, Samba and the Brazilians 20 years ago. I already found what I was looking for. But enough about me, instead of the music.


[quote] It just sounds like a lyd-dom chordal lick to me. Pretty standard stuff - it is a common scale for II7 - like in "Take the A-Train" and many others.[/QUOTE]The point was it is not a secret (or "illusory Holy Grail") what Jobim thinks the larger tonality surrounding the sparse chord is.

Following my recommendations, one would sound a little less like this Ipanema
http://www.kevinsmithguitar.com/sub/p_listening.html
A little too much “flailing” with the pick creates SOME un-bossa-like syncopations. But I’d hire these guys for a function, too.

Speaking of pick style fronting a trio, following the path I suggest, you would not end up sounding like this guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th9dAgM86es
I like most of the head, like the recap better. But the improvised parts
are too much like Skynyrd’s Free Bird- pull-off-style rock-n-blues licks repeated in half-steps sequences? (Not bossa-specific, but the improvised melodies seem mono-dynamic). Don’t think I’d hire these guys to play bossa. Straight-ahead, possibly.

As for taking Bossa outside effectively, Pat Martino is what the preceding sample is not. His melodic ideas are something cognoscenti (or at least those of us who think we are) will want to hear or learn to play. He uses dynamics. His accents create interesting rhythmic stresses, mark direction changes, and highlight nice color tones. That is, in an "originalist" sense of etymology, his improvisations are very often improvements.

Anyway, thanks for all the improv ideas.

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by Aristotle

If someone were to follow the path I suggest, he or she would approach, reach, and possibly excel sounding very much like this Ipanema.

My point wasn't that you can't copy a song note for note. My point wasn't that you can't get the patina of a style down. My point was that you cannot truly get at the perfection of all the elements of a certain style from a different time and place. More than that, even defining what the style is is a moving target.

And ultimately, if the point of the style is to express yourself, then just becoming a Xerox machine of what you perceive to be another style by definition cannot truly express the style because you've missed one of the basic elements - self-expression. If an originalist is trying to reanimate a style from another time/place/culture that is not their own, then they are not expression themselves, but a caricature of the originals. IMHO, the more authentic way to use exotic sources is to integrate them into your own style as flavors. I think that is keeping with the spirit of the original.

And of course, the larger point is that there is no "original" - there is always something from which it came and its qualities are a not a discreet package, but a flowing continuum. It try and select a discreet point in time/space and say, "There! That is the original." is arbitrary.

And I think that you are still missing the point that bossa and the jazz interpretation of bossa are two different things.

Originally Posted by Aristotle

Restoring the orignalism of my originalist statement...

I'm not really sure what your beef is here, but OK. You seem to think that I misrepresented what you said. I'm not aware that I did.

Originally Posted by Aristotle

The point was it is not a secret (or "illusory Holy Grail") what Jobim thinks the larger tonality surrounding the sparse chord is.

Who said it was a secret? Are you equating his choice of chord/scale to the the totality of style? The note choices are the easy parts of style to get.

Originally Posted by Aristotle

[critiquing the "Ipanema" on my web site.] A little too much “flailing” with the pick creates SOME un-bossa-like syncopations. But I’d hire these guys for a function, too.

But I'm not trying to be original. (And I'm not sure what you mean about syncopations being "un-bossa-like.")

The purpose of those poor-quality, hastily made recordings was get some dinner jazz gigs. The point was to be mellow and unobstrusive. How I play "Ipanema" in that setting is very different from how I might play it in a club or jam session. Again, I don't feel tied to trying to be authentically Brazillian, but try to make nice music, consistent with my jazz roots and inspired by the Brazilian flavorings - which is how I believe most jazz people play bossa.

You critique another bossa sample. But again, he's just trying to play what sounds nice to him - the spirit of jazz. He hears a sound in his head and he is chasing it. You can choose to like it or not, but I don't think that it is fair to criticize someone for not being originalist if it isn't something he cares about.

Personally I liked the guy. It is different than I would have played it. It is different than Byrd would have played it. It was different than Hall would have played it. It is different than Jobim would have played it. But that's the great thing about jazz - we're not trying to sound like each other. Personalization is one of the key components of the jazz aesthetic - and personalization is diametrically opposed to "originalism."

Peace,
Kevin

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by Aristotle

Chord-melody –
Bossa in general, and this song in particular, with its “sus” type motif in measure 1-6, lends itself to these guitar-ready ideas. For example, one variation to the first 2 measure could be the little-barre Am9 at the fifth fret with the B on top, rocking back to A on top. There are bunch of the little sweeties.

.

After seeing this thread and checking the chart on Jobims site I started looking at the first chord as Ami6 rather than D7/A as in the RB which lead me to a very "guitaristic" voicing for the first two chords

5x4500 for Ami6 to
4x3400 for the Ab dim with e in the melody

Very 'Brazilian' sounding chords

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Originally Posted by JohnW400

After seeing this thread and checking the chart on Jobims site I started looking at the first chord as Ami6 rather than D7/A as in the RB which lead me to a very "guitaristic" voicing for the first two chords

5x4500 for Ami6 to
4x3400 for the Ab dim with e in the melody

Very 'Brazilian' sounding chords

I like those open strings!

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by JohnW400

5x4500 for Ami6 to
4x3400 for the Ab dim with e in the melody

Is that Ab or G#?

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by Aristotle

Is that Ab or G#?

I would want to call it Abdim7 because it is resolving down AND it is essentially an inversion of a CT diminished. But it wouldn't be the first time that a diminished chord was "misspelt" enharmonically - especially to avoid double flats.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

I would want to call it Abdim7

You are free to do so. That is what is stamped on my fake book, too.

On the other hand, if one goes to the "official" (?) Jobim site
Tom Jobim - Site Oficial UOL Personalidades

And clicks along to the score for Corc
http://p.download.uol.com.br/tomjobi.../corcovado.pdf
In measures 3 and 4, one finds G# as the root of the chord.

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by Aristotle

On the other hand, if one goes to the "official" (?) Jobim site...

First of all, it's not the "official" Jobim site, but the Jobim page on the official page for the UOL (Universio Online) portal. I guess it is a Brazilian equivalent of a Yahoo home page. I'm not sure how Jobim could have an official page - he was dead before the web really took off. But I'm sure that someone claims to be the official page.

As to the arrangement, it has been filtered through his son Paulo.

Even so, as I said before, diminished 7 chords are often mispelt to avoid double flats. If the chord had been spelt correctly, it would have been Ab Cb Ebb Gbb - many people don't like things like Cb, Ebb, and Gbb. They'd rather read G# B D F, even if it is the incorrect spelling. In general, sharped (or more accurately raised) notes generally want to resolve up and flat notes want to resolve down. The chord resolves down, so flats are the correct spelling. Ab->G and Cb->Bb. The other two stay the same through and enharmonic conversion. This is the standard way that a CTdim resolves to a ii7.

But again, awkward flats and double flats happen so often with diminished chords that they often get respelt for easier reading. It doesn't affect readability on a lead sheet (where the chord isn't spelt out) so it makes perfect sense that it might be spelt correctly on the lead sheet and enharmonically on the piano arrangement.

But it doesn't change function. The chord functions as it functions regardless of spelling or misspelling.

Peace,
Kevin