-
I'm just wanting some resources or suggestions on how to end songs. For standards like Fly Me to the Moon or The Girl from Ipanema, how would you guys tend to end those??? Also, how do you tend to start your tunes??? If you're playing in a situation where it's maybe just you and a singer, would you just run through the progression once or what??
-
08-01-2013 06:56 PM
-
I assume you know the usual trick (tag 3 times then out). Other tricks include
rubato the last 8 or 4 bars,
the "A train" ending
vamp and fade out on a Imin IV9
vamp on III-VI-II-V
play a major chord a half step up and hold, then resolve to the I.
But it's a good idea to work out endings and intros ahead of time, as these clichés get old quick.
-
-
Plenty of advice above on this.
Originally Posted by Gmo
(That major chord a half-step up that pkirk mentions is very cute - the last melody note needs to be the tonic, so it comes out as the maj7 of the bII chord - eg C note on a Dbmaj7; and then gently resolves back to the tonic (probably a I6, because the maj7 of the tonic might fight the keynote the singer is on). It's a ballad cliche, very nice first time you hear it, but don't do it more than twice in the same gig...
)
Typical intros when working with a singer are the last 4 or 8 bars of the song. 4 bars is enough if it's a ballad, 8 bars might be better if it's an uptempo tune. That should be enough to cue a singer, if it's someone you haven't worked with before. It might vary with the song, depending on how the final phrase(s) of the melody go. (Eg Autumn Leaves seems to work best with the last 8.) Originally Posted by Gmo
Of course you can run through the whole tune if you want (if the singer is OK with that). And sometimes - again check with the singer! - a simple cue note or chord is all you need. So much depends on the song and the singer.
-
Shave and a haircut??? 
-
What works for piano players works for guitar players:
Intros, Endings & Turnarounds for Keyboard: Essential Phrases for Swing, Latin, Jazz Waltz, and Blues Styles: John Valerio: 0073999905250: Amazon.com: Books
another I began with on piano 23 years ago:
Handbook of Chord Substitutions: Amazon.co.uk: Andy Laverne: Books
both highly recommended
-
Go listen to the Beach Boy in concert famous for how they just fall apart to end tunes.
Most intros and ending are just short cycles of chords that can be repeated as necessary. For intro make sure you use a cycle that end on what is the first chord of the tune. Endings sometime just vamp on last four bars of the tune.
-
The possibilities are really are endless! All of the above ideas are great. Listen to how Joe Pass starts too...he always has some fantastic touch and concepts with endings and tags.
Here's a great one.
And docbop touched on the MOSt important thing. Whatever you do, don't fall apart. Be specific about the end of the tune, and the beginning. Remember, the ending is the last thing anyone will hear. If it it poignant, that's what they will recall. If it stinks, the whole song was just...meh.
my thoughts.
-
"how do you guys end tunes?"
In the same manner Miles Davis told 'trane, when 'trane asked Miles what he could do to limit the length of his solo's:
Take the horn outa yo' mouth...
-
Does everyone end "All the Things You Are" with that Db7#9 to C7#9 lick and do you do it every time? It sounds great every once in a while but every blessed time feels like overkill. I want to end the tune with an Fm but the folks I play with think that's sacrilege. Isn't doing it the same way every time breaking some jazz law?
-
I'm not sure what you mean by the "Db7#9 to C7#9 lick", but that looks like a turnaround back to Fm, not a final ending for the tune. Originally Posted by kofblz
As for ending on Fm, the issue is that's not the key. The key is Ab major - if you're talking about the standard Real Book key, that is.
If you end on Fm, it sounds like you're about to begin the sequence (from the vi) all over again.
IOW - I'm guessing - it's not a "jazz law" (sacred or otherwise), it's a rule about keys and tonality.
There are two kinds of rules in music, both dependent on what "sounds right".
The first kind is a general one, applies to all kinds of music (well, let's say western tonal music anyway): that's about expected cadences, the sound of chord moves within major or minor keys. Most types of music play around with these kind of expectations, and we don't always want to hear cadences resolve in the way we expect; we like a bit of surprise now and then. But even the ways expectations are confounded have their own rules (eg the common set of "deceptive cadences").
The second kind are specific to genre: stylistic idioms. So what sounds right in classical music may not sound right in jazz, and vice versa. Jazz considers a maj7 chord to be a suitable resolution; classical (in general) doesn't.
We're all sensitive to the first kind of rules - they apply to pretty much all the music we've ever heard in our lives (if we've grown up exposed to western music), and we know when something is "wrong" without needing any music education.
Understanding the second kind of rules depends on a more intimate familiarity with - and appreciation of - the style in question: the details of its ins and outs and peculiar practices. Hence experienced jazz musicians may shake their heads at something a beginner thinks sounds OK.
It's not even a matter of cliche. Some cliches are bad, some are good. The good ones just tend not be called "cliches" - they're called "common practice" or "cool licks" or whatever.
Of course it's a fine line between the two
(Just as there is a healthy overlap between those two categories of rules...). Sometimes one gets the impression jazz musicians love to confuse and embarrass beginners by preserving the elitism of their understanding. You are hip or you ain't. (Here's where the impression of "sacrilege" comes in.) Maybe it takes 20 years to learn how to be hip...?
But it's good to at least begin with an understanding of how major and minor keys work in all kinds of tonal music, so you have that as a firm foundation. (Jazz is built on that stuff as much as classical music is.)
You have to be able to look at a tune and determine what the overall key is, the "home" key. It may not start in the home key; it well modulate in the middle, or pass through several apparent key centres; but it will always end up "home", in a place of rest, at the end of the tune (ignoring any final turnaround back to the beginning). That's the "key", and is where we would normally expect the tune to finish - in jazz or any kind of music.
Of course, there are various cute tricks we can play at the end, to tease the ear. Some may be suitable for jazz, some not. The more adept you are at jazz grammar (the hip slang of the music), the easier it is to guess what kind of teases can be "OK", and what kind are just "uncool". But to begin with: trust those more experienced than you.
Last edited by JonR; 10-03-2013 at 05:04 AM.
-
@jon, he's referring to the dizzy intro.
i usually tag it (corny, i know, but effective). "when all the things you are, when all the things you are, when all the things you are are mine."
-
I like that better. I don't mind the the Dizzy intro but as an ending it gets on my nerves. Once is enough for me. Originally Posted by randalljazz
-
You're right but after the Dizzy lick the C7#9 is unresolved and returning to the Fm sounds more like home. Originally Posted by JonR
-
Of course, because the C7#9 is tonicising the Fm - that's its usual function. Originally Posted by kofblz
But leaving it unresolved is cool.
(I had to hear Dizzy's version to realise that, mind...)
Remember, jazz is the "sound of surprise" (as someone defined it). Resolving that final C7#9 is - uh - cheesy. "Hey man that's what they expect us to do..."
I might be tempted to put an Fm6 on the end (Fm triad is definitely wrong), which has its own little mystery, but we'd be foolish to argue with the Diz... (possibly the coolest dude in jazz history.)
-
Yes, but when you always play it the same way it's not a surprise anymore. I love the #5 lick on a #5 chord idea; I just would like to hear some variation and expression, rather than playing it by rote. Originally Posted by JonR
Of course, because the C7#9 is tonicising the Fm - that's its usual function.
But leaving it unresolved is cool. (I had to hear Dizzy's version to realise that, mind...)
Remember, jazz is the "sound of surprise" (as someone defined it). Resolving that final C7#9 is - uh - cheesy. "Hey man that's what they expect us to do..." (possibly the coolest dude in jazz history.)
-
Sure. There's definitely a tension between respect for greats of the past, and the principle of constant re-invention, which was always supposed to be what keeps jazz alive. (Miles led the way on that principle.) Originally Posted by kofblz
So, what Dizzy did was "cool" - but it was nearly 70 years ago! To end the tune the way he did is - arguably - overdoing the respect, or rather misapplying the respect. IOW, the lesson we should learn from Dizzy is not copying what he did (solo licks or arrangements), but appreciating his attitude. What he did was cool because it was surprising then. To keep on mimicking it is to miss the point entirely. To really respect Dizzy, we should be inventive and quirky, like he was; look for little musical jokes in what we do.
In fact, one can argue that to play old jazz standards in bebop style at all is missing the point of jazz. What the jazz masters of the past did - how they defined what "jazz" meant - was mess around with the popular music of the day. They took a popular hit, and pulled and pushed it around to express something of themselves, to make the music fit their view of the world and of the function of live performance. The African-American view of live music is that the gig is the thing; not the composition. The composition is simply a sketch, which needs details filled in by an improvising musician in performance; always speaking to a contemporary audience. That contrasts with the "European" view, in which the composition is the (almost) complete script - almost a sacred text in some cases. The composer is king, not the performer. There is much more respect for the past in the European view - it's not considered important to relate music to the present in any way; music is considered "great" if it transcends time, if it seems to stand outside fashions of the moment, if it lasts. The African-American view (seems to me, and I know I'm generalising) is that the moment is everything: music is the one artform that is inescapably about the "now", because it only exists while it's being performed; if it doesn't deal with and refer to the present, how we're living and feeling now, what's the point? (You can see this in the history of popular music, as African-American forms always evolve into new forms every generation or so; it's the "white" side of popular music that is always grabbing outdated "black" forms and trying to preserve them.)
So - IMO - when we take a vintage performance of a jazz great and seek to reproduce it in some way - even only in part - we're applying an inappropriate European perspective. That might be OK, enjoyable in its own way, but it's not really "jazz". We are playing something that sounds like jazz of a certain era; but we're not really "playing jazz".
There are a few modern artists or groups that try to deal with the issue, but they rarely go the whole way. Eg, the Bad Plus and Brad Mehldau apply the jazz principle (messing around with contemporary pop, such as Nirvana or Radiohead), but they do it with traditional jazz instruments: acoustic piano, bass and drums; as if they worried that audiences won't think it's "jazz".
Even a more avant garde group like Acoustic Ladyland use saxophones, as a way of retaining an obvious jazz "signifier" to help listeners classify them - the improvised aspect not being enough. ("OK, it sounds punky and I don't know what the hell's going on, but they've got a sax so it must be jazz! Phew!"
After all, if we're going to use the word "jazz" to classify a type of music (rather than merely an attitude to music, a way of treating music), we need those kind of obvious signifiers, don't we? Or do we?
There's a whole spectrum of opinion on the definition, ranging from "it's not proper jazz unless it sounds like 1920s Louis Armstrong" up to "if it's mostly improvised, it's jazz".
Reply With Quote
How is the Steve Howe 175?
Today, 05:54 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos