Time After Time - Jazz Ballads by Jeff Arnold - Tune #2

[Mick-7]

I'm not the type of guy who gets benefit out of getting away with things.

There would be no sense in faking it in a study group like this, what would be the point?

Mistakes are fuel for learning.... hmm, come to think of it, as many as I've made, I should be one of the wisest sages of all time.

[Liarspoker]

Ok guys, rather than start a new thread with a poll please select one of the below for our next tune.

Darn that dream
In a Sentimental Mood
When Sunny Gets Blue
But Beautiful
The Nearness of You

[Bobby Timmons]

^ All beautiful tunes.

Alright guys, since I didn't have much time to internalize the tune I did a rubato version for you. I'm best at melody but since this is a chord melody study group I didn't try to dick around with it in a way that is easiest for me, I worked it in chord melody. I worked it in BH.. But I changed the fundamental rule. Mick see if you can hear what I did. About 6-16 seconds.

[alpop]

Ok guys, rather than start a new thread with a poll please select one of the below for our next tune.

Darn that dream
In a Sentimental Mood
When Sunny Gets Blue
But Beautiful
The Nearness of You

I'd like to try The Nearness of You.

I've never played it, and the key is different than the first two tunes.

[Mick-7]

When Sunny Gets Blue would be my choice, and I think it's one of the less difficult arrangements.

[Mick-7]

^ All beautiful tunes.

Alright guys, since I didn't have much time to internalize the tune I did a rubato version for you. I'm best at melody but since this is a chord melody study group I didn't try to dick around with it in a way that is easiest for me, I worked it in chord melody. I worked it in BH.. But I changed the fundamental rule. Mick see if you can hear what I did. About 6-16 seconds.

Is this based on Arnold's arrangement? - because you said you didn't have a copy of the book yet. I'll have to analyze it.

[Bobby Timmons]

Well I had like 4 days so I did my best without the book. I learned the basic structure from you guys's recordings and I inserted some BH. But it's anti-BH.

Anyways, I'm gonna make a thread about it cuz I'm quite happy with it. You don't need to waste too much time on it. I don't think I need to patent my discovery because I doubt anyone will listen to me and go off and use it. It's gonna be my thing mofo!

[lawson-stone]

Very nice Lawson!

I bought a 65 Fender Princeton Reissue a few months back and preferred the bass characteristics to those of my Vox AC15C1. The Vox has an overall warmer sound though. It was a hard decision but I sent the Fender back and kept the Vox. The Vox was only a third of the price of the Fender so it's a great amp for the price.

I actually found the Vox by bringing in my Ibanez AFJ85, which was my main guitar at the time, into the local music shop. After playing through all the Amps I liked the Vox the best.

My better half is going cycling in the morning so will hope to record a take then. I have been recording direct but will see how a take with the mic and Vox plus direct go.

I have found the Princeton mic's very well. I can't hear much difference between the direct line side and the mic side of my recording. I also have a Fender Tone Master Twin Reverb and its direct line is absolutely amazing.

[lawson-stone]

I vote for ending #3, it's very timely.

I wasn't actually proposing them for a vote. All of them are good, and all would transfer equally to other tunes.

[lawson-stone]

It has been a busy week but I've been working on this. That coda was (and continues to be) a challenging passage. I know my playing is very simple, even mechanical - I'm still relatively new to jazz guitar, so I have just been focusing on the notes in the book, not really branching out. I like the swing that others have added and may try to emulate that feel at some point.

I did change a few note locations (e.g., playing the e right before the Coda on the 3rd string instead of the 2nd string - this put me closer to the next chord). I also used some thumb-over-the-top fingerings, maybe inspired by some Tal Farlow videos I've seen (not for this song though). I expect to revisit these tunes many times in the years to come.

That's very nice. Listening and watching I realized I've handled a few of the chords more according to my own past experience and not according to what Arnold wrote. Listening to play it I realize I like the sound so I'm double-checking how accurately I've played it.
There is a lot of value in trying to get an arrangement like this exactly right. It challenges me to play unfamiliar things and incorporate new fingerings, new shifts of position, etc. into my playing. I tend to be lazy and fall into the same fingerings all the time.
Also nice tone as well!

[lawson-stone]

Okay, time's up. Here's my recording this a.m. A few flubbed notes, but that's fine

I put a little intro on it, and deviated from the arrangement in a few spots.

The ending is from Here's That Rainy Day transposed up.

Looking forward to digging in to another tune.

I love it! Really enjoyed your fills and ornamentations on the tune. I think the pick gives it a different feel as well from the finger style that the rest of us have fallen into.

[Mick-7]

That's very nice. Listening and watching I realized I've handled a few of the chords more according to my own past experience and not according to what Arnold wrote. Listening to play it I realize I like the sound so I'm double-checking how accurately I've played it.

There is a lot of value in trying to get an arrangement like this exactly right. It challenges me to play unfamiliar things and incorporate new fingerings, new shifts of position, etc. into my playing. I tend to be lazy and fall into the same fingerings all the time.
Also nice tone as well!

I agree with your sentiment, i.e., play it as written at first, you may learn something. I have been doing that, however, I will change chord voicings that are both awkward and mediocre, that is, if something is awkward but sounds good, I'll keep it. However, there are often alternative ways to finger a voicing so that it will be less awkward - perhaps just playing it in a different position or on a different set of strings.

I think it could be helpful to everyone in the group if those of us who make changes in an arrangement explain exactly what we changed and why. Then we could discuss the merits or weaknesses of said changes.

I mentioned previously that I changed parts of the Arnold arrangements we've played for the reasons I just expressed: (1) better or less awkward fingerings, (2) voicings on lower strings that sounded muddy and/or will sound better in a different position, (3) poor voice leading (like the minor 9th jump from the bass note F in a Fm6 chord down to an open E string bass note, which makes no sense because there's an E note just a semitone away), etc. I did not write down my arrangement for Time After Time (except for some chord diagrams) but I did write down all of my Here's That Rainy Day arrangement, mostly because I was learning how to use Guitar Pro music notation software, which I like a lot.

Lastly, my end goal here is to be able to spontaneously improvise chord melodies. This requires that I build an inventory or vocabulary of chord voicings and playing techniques that I can "plug and play" into different chord progressions. This is what masters such as Joe Pass and Barney Kessel did. They did not play dozens of different types of chords, they had a relatively small number of "swiss army knife" type chord grips they could add extensions to or modify slightly. So if at possible I won't be using any voicing for the sake of a single arrangement, if it is not a plug and play type voicing that I can transpose and recycle, it does not interest me.

[Liarspoker]

I will roll the dice after this mornings school run.

The Nearness of You 1, 3, 5
When Sunny Gets Blue 2, 4, 6

New thread coming soon

[lawson-stone]

I agree with your sentiment, i.e., play it as written at first, you may learn something. I have been doing that, however, I will change chord voicings that are both awkward and mediocre, that is, if something is awkward but sounds good, I'll keep it. However, there are often alternative ways to finger a voicing so that it will be less awkward - perhaps just playing it in a different position or on a different set of strings.

I think it could be helpful to everyone in the group if those of us who make changes in an arrangement explain exactly what we changed and why. Then we could discuss the merits or weaknesses of said changes.

I mentioned previously that I changed parts of the Arnold arrangements we've played for the reasons I just expressed: (1) better or less awkward fingerings, (2) voicings on lower strings that sounded muddy and/or will sound better in a different position, (3) poor voice leading (like the minor 9th jump from the bass note F in a Fm6 chord down to an open E string bass note, which makes no sense because there's an E note just a semitone away), etc. I did not write down my arrangement for Time After Time (except for some chord diagrams) but I did write down all of my Here's That Rainy Day arrangement, mostly because I was learning how to use Guitar Pro music notation software, which I like a lot.

Lastly, my end goal here is to be able to spontaneously improvise chord melodies. This requires that I build an inventory or vocabulary of chord voicings and playing techniques that I can "plug and play" into different chord progressions. This is what masters such as Joe Pass and Barney Kessel did. They did not play dozens of different types of chords, they had a relatively small number of "swiss army knife" type chord grips they could add extensions to or modify slightly. So if at possible I won't be using any voicing for the sake of a single arrangement, if it is not a plug and play type voicing that I can transpose and recycle, it does not interest me.

I would not change a chord just because it was "awkward." that could be another word for "my skills need improvement" so I go ahead and try to master the "awkward" move. I also haven't seen anything in this arrangement I'd call "mediocre." The more I've played it the more impressed I've become with it. I've been playing chord-melody and working on improvisation in that vein for many years now and some of the string skips and such you've criticized are things I've seen many of the masters doing from time to time. I've grown especially fond of that last section of the arrangement as I've thought my way through it and struggled a bit to make the changes.

[Mick-7]

I would not change a chord just because it was "awkward." that could be another word for "my skills need improvement" so I go ahead and try to master the "awkward" move. I also haven't seen anything in this arrangement I'd call "mediocre." The more I've played it the more impressed I've become with it. I've been playing chord-melody and working on improvisation in that vein for many years now and some of the string skips and such you've criticized are things I've seen many of the masters doing from time to time. I've grown especially fond of that last section of the arrangement as I've thought my way through it and struggled a bit to make the changes.

To me "mediocre" may just mean not meeting the criteria I listed in my previous post.

Other than the change to Em7 in the Coda I mentioned, the only change I made was to revise some of his voicings - play them in a different position or different set of strings. He has a habit that I don't like of playing chords on the bass strings, which is fine for rhythm guitar playing a la Freddie Green, but not for chord melodies - it works on occasion but he overuses it. There is a section in Here's That Rainy Day where those bass voicings work well, which I think he swiped from Barry Galbraith (Barry's arrangement has the very same phrase).

Some examples of his 3 note lower string chords that I am likely to revise - the Am7, Gm, C9, etc. There are better sounding alternatives.





However, my main point was that if any of us decide to change something in one of these arrangements, it would be good to share it so we can mull it over.

[PjzzaPie]

That's very nice. Listening and watching I realized I've handled a few of the chords more according to my own past experience and not according to what Arnold wrote. Listening to play it I realize I like the sound so I'm double-checking how accurately I've played it.
There is a lot of value in trying to get an arrangement like this exactly right. It challenges me to play unfamiliar things and incorporate new fingerings, new shifts of position, etc. into my playing. I tend to be lazy and fall into the same fingerings all the time.
Also nice tone as well!

Thanks - sorry I missed this post. I'm coming at this from the other direction - I don't really have much experience with these chord shapes, so playing the scores as written is basically my only starting point. I think I'm starting to understand Arnold's approach. I plan to try my own arrangements at some point.

[Mick-7]

Thanks - sorry I missed this post. I'm coming at this from the other direction - I don't really have much experience with these chord shapes, so playing the scores as written is basically my only starting point. I think I'm starting to understand Arnold's approach. I plan to try my own arrangements at some point.

That's fine, we can only start from where we are, the important thing is to start. But what "chord shapes" are you referring to?

[PjzzaPie]

That's fine, we can only start from where we are, the important thing is to start. But what "chord shapes" are you referring to?

I've played guitar for years, but followed a fairly basic pathway of learning techniques for folk, blues, rock, etc. If I was playing chords up the neck, it was either power chords, barre chords or open chords with a capo (maybe some simple shell voicings as I started to get into jazz). These arrangements are teaching me new shapes with extensions and / or melody notes incorporated. I can often make the shapes, but putting my fingers in place quickly and fluidly is the challenge.