Just the melody.

[ragman1]

21, was it? I've got the S/Time in Am vid and it says 3 years ago. Oh, that's right. Dec 24 back to Dec 21 is three years.

Only three years. Re. gigs, etc, I know. Nothing like that for learning. But you did that, not me. I salute you. Others take note!

By the way, what key are you doing S/Time in these days? Or is it either? :-)

[AllanAllen]

It’s winter, illegal to play summertime.
Joking aside, I’d call it in Am unless the trumpet has it written in another key, then we’d follow his sheet.

I don’t have a problem with people reading. We can play more songs that way.

[Mick-7]

https://youtu.be

For the record, you're not playing the A section as written.

[kris]

You should maybe play it with a 5/4 metronome.
You should pay attention to the good notes in part A, I also hear a mistake in part B.
Best
kris

[kris]

For the record, you're not playing the A section as written.

+1
Good point.

[mr. beaumont]

I have my own thoughts on this, but I wouldn't mind hearing others'...

So Allan is playing some different notes in his "Take 5" above...ok. Knowing Allan, I'm sure he'll go back and learn it from the record and be good to go in a day or two...

So my question is, what makes some songs open to interpretation and others not? Is it the space in the melodic rhythm? The fact the original artist played it the same way every time they played it? And when does interpretation become too much?

Could be a good discussion for this thread.

[ragman1]

That's easy. I've heard any number of versions. Heads played by the book, others played like that but with a deluge of embellishments. Heads barely acknowledged, just enough that the tune is recognised.

Intros so long that you're wondering if you've got the right track and then eventually something like the head appears. And I once heard Miles Davis play a few notes, leave massive gaps, do some more, and then someone else started the soloing (I've tried in vain to remember what that one was but it escapes me).

So, basically, do what you like with it as long as it's vaguely reminiscent of the tune you're expecting. The stuffed shirts will voice communal disapproval and waffle about disrespecting the tradition and the woke trendies will talk about genius.

So you may as well just have some real faith in your own convictions and be skilled enough to carry it off.

[AllanAllen]

So my question is, what makes some songs open to interpretation and others not? Is it the space in the melodic rhythm? The fact the original artist played it the same way every time they played it? And when does interpretation become too much?

I think its time feel and intent. These are also technically wrong.

[ragman1]

"Hello, Miles, still playing my tune wrong?"

time feel and intent

That's good.

[ragman1]

Actually, you've got to be quite good to depart majorly from the head and yet make it look as though you haven't just got lost :-)

[pamosmusic]

Actually, you've got to be quite good to depart majorly from the head and yet make it look as though you haven't just got lost :-)

I was going to post a thing today that I do to work on this kind of thing.

Surprisingly tricky

[AllanAllen]

"Hello, Miles, still playing my tune wrong?"

That's good.

You now I was thinking, the Davis touch probably has some people thinking Monk was playing a Miles tune wrong. Especially if they are RealBook nuts. I guess I should because my Take Five is off, but whatever, I'll fix it. Next tunes for me are Take Five, Misty, Fly Me To The Moon, Green Dolphin Street and St Louis Blues. Those were the last requests I got.

I'm pretty sure I could play the Take Five head I posted at my gigs and please people, but it's better to have it right. It sounds good in 7 too.

[GuyBoden]

Miles Davis - My Funny Valentine 1964 Milan, Italy

His 2nd or 3rd or even 5th great group.

Edit: Miles' great total departure from the original melody.

[kris]

I think its time feel and intent. These are also technically wrong.

I'm curious what artist inspired you to perform Take Five in this way?

[mr. beaumont]

That's easy.

Except it's not

I think Allan's ideas of time feel and intent are very important. But what about changing notes? Sometimes it's fine, sometimes, it's not, right?

So I'm currently doing These Foolish Things. Being it a vocal tune, time feel is very up to interpretation, I think anybody who's ever heard Billie Holiday do this one would agree

To me, there's parts of the melody where you have to play the right notes, and parts where you don't...and I'm not sure I can explain why...and I won't say which parts just yet...

It also seems to me that you can mess with the bridges to tunes more than the A sections...I think about Jimmy Raney in Paris, who clearly either forgot or just decided to ignore the melody to some tunes' B sections and just improvise...and it sounded fine...cool because a great player did it? Hack move if I do it?

[kris]

[mr. beaumont]

That Martino is a real nice example of playing with time, but obviously, completely intentional on his part.

Also another interesting point from Allan, re: The Davis Touch, when a particular version becomes so iconic even if it's a vast departure from the original...

[kris]

I have the impression that great jazz artists can afford interpretations and it is often appreciated... but when beginner musicians do it, it is often treated as mistakes.

[digger]

I thought that the idea - or one of the ideas - of this genre was to interpret melodies, and make them your own. I'm actually quite surprised that there is an expectation to play them as per the original.

My submission - Sweet Georgia Brown - was all over the place compared to the "original" (in my case I think this is some sheet music I had from many years ago). I've just had a listen to all of the versions I've have on my iPod - Bob Wills / Charlie Parker / Django (two versions) / Duck Baker / Edmond Hall / George Barnes (two versions) / Jimmy Rosenberg / John Pizzarelli / Joscho Stephan / Stocho Rosenberg / Stephane Grappelli / Stephane Wrembel / Steve Kaufman, and every one is different and every one differs from what I would consider the basic melody.

I guess there is an argument that Take Five is such a well known piece that there may be an expectation that it should be played as per the original (which isn't as lost in the mists of time quite as much as Georgia Brown is), but why? I'd much rather hear an interpretation of it that gives me a little something of the musician as well as the tune? I can always dig out my Time Out album if I want to hear the original.

Derek

[ragman1]

Except it's not

I meant it's an easy question to answer, not to do. The rest, as you say :-)

The Davis Touch, when a particular version becomes so iconic even if it's a vast departure from the original...

(I did say that it wasn't easy and that Miles was a good (or not good) twister of heads. You didn't go far back enough in the posts)

[ragman1]

Surprisingly tricky

Absolutely.

[pamosmusic]

Absolutely.

I was checking out one of the Open Studio videos where they were listening to Ahmad Jamal at the Pershing, and one of the guys said at one point that "he's never more than three measures from the melody."

I thought that was pretty cool.

Also just a really interesting observation for Jamal in particular, being that he's A Tune Guy. So many of the American Songbook tunes we love are standards because Jamal stole them, or Miles stole them, or Jamal stole them and then Miles stole them from him.

[AllanAllen]

I'm curious what artist inspired you to perform Take Five in this way?

I didn’t like skipping over the intro on the original, so I listened to this take and just got it good enough to get through. I simplified the A has two ends and they swap.

I don’t know if this guy played it different or not. I’ll likely never listen to his take again, now that I’m 90% there I’ll switch back to Brubeck. The intro won’t bother me so much now that I can play along, it’ll actually help me with the pickup notes.

Just insight into my system.

[mr. beaumont]

I'm actually quite surprised that there is an expectation to play them as per the original.

I'd be surprised too, because there's not.

My conversation sparker was about times when things sound right played like the original, and how much divergence is cool.

For the record, I think the notes of "Take Five" are pretty much unchangeable, but Benson proved you can change the feel convincingly.

Just don't change it to 4/4!!!

[pamosmusic]

Hello. Originality and improvisation. Take these two things away from jazz and you are left with what? Chamber music? Whatever it is, it isn’t jazz.

This is a deeper philosophical question that comes up periodically on the forum.

I really like The Branford Marsalis test …

jazz is …

1. swing
2. blues
3. improvisation

Meaning that improvisation is important but not most important and that feels right to me. I also think probably the improvisation is more important in the sense that it’s important in a vocal blues tradition. Like the section has a written part but they also improvise articulation, scoop, bend, fill. Or in the context of this thread, there is a written melody but departure is expected, interpretation, etc.

Listening to Jazz at Lincoln Center play A Train isn’t original and large portions aren’t improvised but it is unquestionably Jazz. Of course listening to avant garde classical music, it is often improvised and is very original but isn’t jazz in any meaningful sense.