Just the melody.

[supersoul]

I'm into this thread because playing the melody is one of my favorite things to do. Whenever I practice a tune I always play thru the entire melody before I begin to solo. Sometimes I don't even get to the soloing part.
I appreciate a good melody partly because I know how hard it is to write one. A good melody is a work of art in its own right, and it deserves to be played in a way that brings it alive. At least that's my feeling!
That's why I dig Mr. Beaumont's instructions to play it at least half an hour before hitting record. Most of these melodies are simple. They're not technically challenging. But to play them well, that's a different matter. Half an hour is a good amount of time to get inside the melody, at least a little bit.
One of my pet peeves is the tendency to just get the melody out of the way in order to get to the soloing. It's obvious when someone is just paying lip service to the melody.

[Christian Miller]

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.

100%

You can improvise any form of music including western classical. But to sound in a style, idiom or tradition one should at least know what it sounds like.

Whatever you do, idiomatic or "non idiomatic", the better you know what sounds you want to come out of your instrument, the more exacting you will be in nailing those sounds, whatever they happen to be, and the more compelling you will sound.

I would expect most people on the forum who are dissatisfied with their playing will be so not because they can't sit down and make stuff up, but because it doesn't sound right to them. Well, that's true of me as much as a beginner.

[digger]

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

My apologies. I misinterpreted the post about not playing Take Five as written.

Derek

[pamosmusic]

100%
But to sound in the tradition, one should at least know what it sounds like.

Yeah we call this "idiom" or "language" or whatever we call it ... but it's worth pointing out that this is so incredibly important to any kind of music and isn't just something different than originality, but is kind of the opposite of originality.

[Christian Miller]

Yeah we call this "idiom" or "language" or whatever we call it ... but it's worth pointing out that this is so incredibly important to any kind of music and isn't just something different than originality, but is kind of the opposite of originality.

It's almost a paradox. A lot of it all also depends on how 'stylistic' you are. You can go back and forth on it. It's certainly a time honoured approach to begin by imitating or at least emulating another player, but that's doesn't mean you do it for the rest of your life.

I've spent as you know years boring on about classical improv, but it is exacting to a point which makes bebop look like Derek Bailey. The idea of originality is beside the point because it's a historical style.

But it's still improvisation.

OTOH you have my jazz playing which is moving away from emulating other players ATM. I'll probably feel the pull to go back into the tradition at some point.

[mr. beaumont]

My apologies. I misinterpreted the post about not playing Take Five as written.

Derek

Certainly no apologies necessary!

But yeah, take 5 is one I don't think you can interpret much. There's like an expectation there.

[lawson-stone]

Here's my effort with "Misty" and honestly, I'm so habituated to chord-melody and chordal embellishment, I didn't realize how hard it is for me to just play the melody. This is ornamented with quite a few clams...but seafood's good, right?

[Question]

To partly answer Jeff's philosophical question as to how much interpretation of a melody is "allowed".

Take Five is one good example. Take five has kind of a "clave"; all of the melodic phrases as well as the harmony

fit into the rhythmic grouping of 3+2.

If you don't phrase the melody as written you will be playing "against the Clave" so to speak. It just won't groove that way.

And anyone who has played Cuban music knows that you will have a lot of annoyed musicians in the band looking at
you if you phrase against the Clave!

[ragman1]

I've noticed that it's usually if I don't know a tune well that I play it as written. After I know it, really know it, then I feel free enough to play it as I want. It's not playing it wrong, on the contrary, it's called a creative take :-)

I think that's all I've got to say about it, really.

[lawson-stone]

Jeff inspired to go back to "Like Someone In Love" and so after soaking in this tune for a while I made this clip. It's a lovely tune and so easy to embroider and embellish without ever really losing the tune itself.

[Mick-7]

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.

This thread is about playing the melody, but also interpreting it in our own way. Some melodies have weak spots in them, while others are marvels of lyricism one could not improve on. With the former, you may be able to come up with something better than the original, with the latter, the challenge is to phrase it in such a way as to accentuate it's charms - or at least not detract from them. To me, the cardinal rule here is "thou shalt not be boring," no one (including me) wants to hear me play a lame cover of a tune, if I can't make it sound interesting, best to leave it alone until I can.

I would not put the "Take 5" melody in the marvel of lyricism category (it's close though, especially when Paul Desmond plays it), but if Allan's version of it was as good as the original, I'd say great, keep it. However, I did not think it was.

[lawson-stone]

And here's my last one for today. I've been "marinating" in these 3 tunes all day and decided to put them up. Nothing special, this tune especially I think needs very little embellishment.

[pamosmusic]

Here’s something I like to do on and off with melodies of tunes. In this one I’m playing two bars of melody and two bars of improvising. Ive been doing the reverse also. But after that I’ll do the same thing, split across the phrases, so like … starting on m2, I might do two melody then two improvising. Etc. tons of ways to make it tricky and interesting, most of which I never get to.

Still Mean to Me … this time we’re in B.

[mr. beaumont]

That's a great exercise.

Another one that I really should do more often is to improvise using the same melodic rhythm as the melody, but different notes. That one's a BRAINBUSTER!!!

[Mick-7]

That's a great exercise.

Another one that I really should do more often is to improvise using the same melodic rhythm as the melody, but different notes. That one's a BRAINBUSTER!!!

Another is playing the melody and implying or alluding to the chords while doing it, without actually playing the chords. I'll post an example of what I mean - probably a bad one.

[digger]

Just thinking aloud and playing Devil's advocate really, but (and I suppose it depends who we're playing for, but assuming it's for others) I can't help but think that if we exactly copy those melodies that we deem ourselves unable to improve upon (i.e. all of them, for me) then wouldn't it make sense to also do the same for the rest of the tune - arrangements, solos, breaks, riffs etc? Why play a perfect melody and then an inferior solo, when we could've copied one of the masters' solos? Surely our listeners deserve the best, be it melody or solo? And if Paul Desmond's melody, or Lester Young's solo, is better than anything we can conceive of why should we inflict our own lesser offering on our audience?

On the other hand, if it's permissible to play a lesser solo, but we accept it because it's our own lesser solo, why shouldn't we be able to do the same for a melody interpretation? I maintain the point that what makes a lot of this music interesting is what the musician is giving us, or revealing to us, of him or herself.

All that said, I'm very aware of my own limitations, and a lot of what I play (if not most of it) does belong to better musicians, so I probably don't have the right to comment anyway.

Derek

[AllanAllen]

Derek,

I think you’re on the right path. Perfection is the enemy of progress, and jazz especially has a history of getting heads close enough.

I can’t find the anecdote now, but there’s one floating around online that if someone requests a song and a band member sort of knows it, they toss in a Montgomery Ward bridge and play the tune, get their tip and everyone is happy.

Don’t forget, the audience wants to see a good show and they’re rooting for you. Good enough is often good enough.

[alpop]

Allan has inspired me, (Alan) (The correct spelling by the way) to take a crack at Take Five. It is tricky for sure.

[Mick-7]

Just thinking aloud and playing Devil's advocate really, but (and I suppose it depends who we're playing for, but assuming it's for others) I can't help but think that if we exactly copy those melodies that we deem ourselves unable to improve upon (i.e. all of them, for me) then wouldn't it make sense to also do the same for the rest of the tune - arrangements, solos, breaks, riffs etc? Why play a perfect melody and then an inferior solo, when we could've copied one of the masters' solos? Surely our listeners deserve the best, be it melody or solo? And if Paul Desmond's melody, or Lester Young's solo, is better than anything we can conceive of why should we inflict our own lesser offering on our audience?

On the other hand, if it's permissible to play a lesser solo, but we accept it because it's our own lesser solo, why shouldn't we be able to do the same for a melody interpretation? I maintain the point that what makes a lot of this music interesting is what the musician is giving us, or revealing to us, of him or herself.

All that said, I'm very aware of my own limitations, and a lot of what I play (if not most of it) does belong to better musicians, so I probably don't have the right to comment anyway.

Derek

o.k., there are two different skills here, #1 is playing/interpreting the original melody, and #2 is altering it (changing the notes in it) and improvising on it. My point was that it would be most constructive to master skill #1 before attempting to master #2.

[AllanAllen]

Upon further inspection, Paul Desmond doesn’t play what the Real Book says. He drops the pickup notes in the 2nd A.

RB adds some notes in the bridge too.

[pauln]

melody - no departure from straight (the head)
interpretation - subject to rhythmic departure
variation - subject to rhythmic and melodic departure
improvisation - subject to rhythmic, melodic, and harmonic departure
deconstruction - subject to multiple musical dimensions' general departure

A continuum, subject to musical judgement, and audience departure.

[Mick-7]

Another is playing the melody and implying or alluding to the chords while doing it, without actually playing the chords. I'll post an example of what I mean - probably a bad one.

Here's my example - I'm more or less outlining the chords as counterpoint to the melody -- Not Alone Together - Box.com

[supersoul]

Here's my example - I'm more or less outlining the chords as counterpoint to the melody -- Not Alone Together - Box.com

Sounds good, but how is it different than chord melody?

[mr. beaumont]

[QUOTE=digger;1386541]Just thinking aloud and playing Devil's advocate really, but (and I suppose it depends who we're playing for, but assuming it's for others) I can't help but think that if we exactly copy those melodies that we deem ourselves unable to improve upon (i.e. all of them, for me) then wouldn't it make sense to also do the same for the rest of the tune - arrangements, solos, breaks, riffs etc? /QUOTE]

I don't really think it's a matter of "Not being able to improve on them."

I've been thinking more about this...

Times when you should play the melody straight/as written/not mess with it very much (a non-comprehensive list)

1. "Riff" tunes (i.e. "Seven Come Eleven," "Four on Six," etc.)
2. Tunes where more than one instrument may want to play the melody simultaneously or harmonize ("The Sidewinder," lots of bop/hard bop tunes)
3. Instrumentals that gained some public popularity outside of a jazz audience and are "singable" (I'd put Take 5 in this category)
4. Melodies where the rhythm is of particular importance/interest ("Some Skunk Funk," "Freedom Jazz Dance")

[mr. beaumont]

Add 5. Tunes that are technically challenging and playing them "correct" is a jazz rite of passage (Donna Lee, etc.)