-
I read and play a jazz standard from a book. Everything OK. I have a struggle with a "complicated" part on the end but I manage to decipher it and figure out what to play over that. Then I go and listen to recordings of that particular jazz standard, and I find that they are playing different chords on that "complicated" part. Then I go through that, just to find that there is a 3rd variation in some other sheet and the guys on the session are playing it differently than all previously mentioned.
I am able to recognize some similarities between these variations. In attached example I can see that Cm7 is same chord as Abmaj9 and that G13 going to Cm7 has a melody note E (same as Dbm7 from compared sheet).
Now, if a variation is a different, distinct form of something, what is SOMETHING in this case? Around what are these variations created?
I am not certain if I managed to understandably describe my struggle, and I don't know how big is the bit I am missing in my limited knowledge, so any help is appreciated. I attached All the things you are since it was on my hand but I can count many examples of similar variations.
-
12-10-2023 09:01 AM
-
You are not going to find two recordings where a standard is played exactly the same way. In many cases, there will be differences even between each chorus.
Some people dis fake books as being full of errors but that sort of misses the point. Fake books are generally good at what they attempt to do which is to show one possible version of the the tune, a snapshot of the recordings if you will.
Now that's said, the sections you highlighted are not even different.
Let's look at them.
|Gb13| or |Db-7| or |Db-7 Gb13| all the same. Just ii V.
C min7 = Abmaj9
Bdim = Bb7 which is the tritone of E7alt
These variations go without saying when you comp. They are the same chords.Last edited by Tal_175; 12-10-2023 at 03:40 PM.
-
Sometimes it depends on where you want the bass line to go. I like to play that section
DbMa7 Dbm7+9 Cm7 Bm7+5
Bbm7 Eb7 AbMa7
so there is a descending bass line.
-
I think the issue is larger than the example here. As the OP said, there are many instances where chords of the same tune are remarkably different.
It's not just between fakebooks, it's between various transcriptions that one finds on YouTube, backing tracks of those tunes, instructional books and videos, written versions on certain websites, and so on. Even here, there are many threads where apparently good versions are questioned and/or corrected because others have knowledge the beginner would not have at all.
For a beginner, and maybe even intermediate players, there's no question it's all highly confusing. They want to know they're playing the right thing. It's not a good feeling for them to distrust whatever they're presented with. It makes for insecurity about what they're doing which then affects their playing, as I'm sure is obvious.
Personally, I wouldn't say I've got to the cynical stage quite yet but I've certainly decided that I'll usually just go with the most popular version of a tune whether it's scoffed at or not. Also, these days I'm not above writing in my own corrections if it makes it easier to play.
I could give a ton of examples here but I'm not going to. Too much like hard work. To be quite honest, usually the good old Real Book is the best one in the end. Usually anyway.
So my answer to velja is just go with your gut. Do the research and play within your own understanding and limitations. As your experience grows so will your confidence in deciding your options. And if something appears ridiculous, or illogical, or far too hard to play, don't be afraid to change it.
As Joe Pass once famously said: 'If it's difficult... don't play it!'.
-
velja -
See the above post.
Regarding ATTYA in your first post, the chart I've got, and use, is this one. You can see why, because that last series of chords has a consistently descending bass line:
Db - C - B - Bb
which makes it different from both of the ones you've posted. It's a pig, isn't it? I'm sorry about it! Welcome to the odd world of jazz.
-
This is a monster born many years ago. The "right thing" (if there is such an animal) is the original score as penned by the composer. I suspect that few even know the true origin of fakebooks. They arose from the Tune-Dex system used from 1942 until about 1963 by radio stations and gigging musicians. Here's a description of Tune-Dex from an old document I once found in the UCLA archives:
Originally Posted by ragman1
"The Tune-Dex card system was introduced in 1942 by George Goodwin, a radio station program director, as a subscription service for radio stations, music professionals, and musicians to keep track of popular songs. Each index card included song title, songwriter, date of original publication, licensing and rights information, and arrangements and orchestrations available, with keys and prices noted. The cards also provided the basic melody or chorus and lyrics for each song. The cocktail lounge music trend in the 1940s and 1950s, which often required musicians to take requests and know numerous songs, contributed to the popularity of the Tune-Dex card system. Goodwin created approximately 25,000 cards over the course of the service's existence. Tune-Dex ceased operations in 1963 and Goodwin died in 1965. The concept of the Tune-Dex system eventually morphed into the more-portable fake books."
The last sentence above is wrong. Fake books were available years before 1963 - I got my first one in 1959 and had 4 by 1963. But I suspect they were cheaper for musicians than a TD subscription and probably hastened the demise of the service. I've never been able to find out for sure if Tune-Dex paid fees to include the "basic melody or chorus and lyrics for each song" and I don't know who scored the music they included. I didn't know enough to ask back then, and now there's almost nobody left to tell us.
Fake books were illegal copies and transcriptions for which no fees were paid, and fidelity to the original score was neither a goal nor a hallmark. The transcriptions were a combination of what the writers thought they heard on record and what they thought they remembered. Since many jazz standards were originally show tunes and other music not written to be jazz, the original changes were generally pretty bland. So I'm sure that many of those who wrote for fake books put in changes they thought were better or simply liked more. The original fake books were hard copy notebooks sold in back rooms and alleys, and they led to the first large scale federal trial for criminal copyright infringement.
Today's "fake books" are legal and publishers pay fees. But the charts in them often date back to the old days without change and are inconsistent conglomerates of many versions of the tunes. iReal scores are written by users, and many aren't even close to playable let alone faithful to the originals or recorded jazz versions. FWIW, I've found the non-jazz fakebooks of today to be a lot closer to the original scores and recordings than the jazz books.
If everybody really wanted to play "the right thing" from day 1, they'd have paid for the original scores from the original publishers. At this point, there is no "right thing". These tunes are not symphonies or Broadway scores, so what's in a fakebook is subject to the tastes and imaginations of all those who play the music. Worrying about keeping everybody in the band on the same changes is the important thing. There are so many alternates and substitutes for every chord in every tune that the "right thing" is a myth.
-
Pretty cool stuff.
-
The second chart is better I think. In that it’s more like the basic version of the song. The melody is more accurate to the original (although there are variations in jazz versions). Originally Posted by velja
I read and play a jazz standard from a book. Everything OK. I have a struggle with a "complicated" part on the end but I manage to decipher it and figure out what to play over that. Then I go and listen to recordings of that particular jazz standard, and I find that they are playing different chords on that "complicated" part. Then I go through that, just to find that there is a 3rd variation in some other sheet and the guys on the session are playing it differently than all previously mentioned.
I am able to recognize some similarities between these variations. In attached example I can see that Cm7 is same chord as Abmaj9 and that G13 going to Cm7 has a melody note E (same as Dbm7 from compared sheet).
Now, if a variation is a different, distinct form of something, what is SOMETHING in this case? Around what are these variations created?
I am not certain if I managed to understandably describe my struggle, and I don't know how big is the bit I am missing in my limited knowledge, so any help is appreciated. I attached All the things you are since it was on my hand but I can count many examples of similar variations.
The changes are better too. I’ve never seen an E7#9 there lol… I’ll reserve judgement because it possible that it’s on the Rollins version? I’ll have a listen. If this is a later version of the Real Book I trust the changes a little more.
The usual chord is Bo7 (with a delayed G against it.)
I usually play the last 8 with a descending Db C B Bb bassline FWIW.
Dbmaj7 Dbm6 Cm7 Bo7 Bbm7 Eb7
but happy to hear any further info. People do sub this one.
Make sure any subs fit the melody!
I hope this has taught you a valuable lesson (chord symbols on lead sheets are not to be trusted and that there’s much to be learned by comparing charts :-))
EDIT: nope I find E7#9 really ugly. It is closely related to Bo7 with the G melody note as Tal175 notes - G# D G in both chords.Last edited by Christian Miller; 12-10-2023 at 04:06 PM.
-
Bloody hell they go quite out on that recording don’t they (paul bley on piano). I can’t say he doesn’t play E7#9 at some point lol.
I wonder why they chose that as a reference for a lead sheet haha?
-
At least you get some things right Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Yes, the changes are hardly standard but it's still an incredibly important recording. Keith Jarrett built his career upon Paul Bley's solo. Everyone from Lee Konitz to Pat Metheny and Aaron Parks have raved about Bley's contribution over the years. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
That does make sense. Originally Posted by PMB
In fact the changes are standard in places on the recording, for instance on Hawks solo (unsurprisingly).
So, I don’t think the E7#9 in the lead sheet represents the recording in any meaningful sense. Maybe you disagree, you obviously know the recording.
(An important recording of course does not necessarily constitute a good recording to learn a song from obviously. Because … err… jazz. Hawks own body and soul is a classic example..)
So, I interpret the note more as ‘here’s an important recording that’s part of the canonical jazz history’ sort of vibe.Last edited by Christian Miller; 12-10-2023 at 06:52 PM.
-
"SOMETHING" is the collection of musical variations of how the song goes among the Jazz musicians that play the song. Originally Posted by velja
Realize that when Jazz musicians practice they explore how to play a song; how to express the basic "how it goes" with modified or additional harmonic paths. I spend the bulk of my practice time listening for additional harmonic paths, especially the ones that have the broadest harmonic connectivity to the basic progressions.
For example, in Stella there is apart that goes like this, the chords in brackets are two fives.
Bbmaj7 [Edim/A7] Dm7 [Bbm7/Eb7]
I listen for something else to replace the second two-five, in this case it is a single chord that serves to also break the paired chord harmonic rhythm. I like the way it straddles the change by anticipating some of the five
Bbmaj7 [Edim7/A7] Dm7 [Dbaug6] (9 x 8 10 10 x)
Sometimes I might explore a bunch of possibilities to hear the comparative sounds of what works and what doesn't.
At the end of Stella it goes
Edim7 A7 Ddim7 G7 Cdim7 F7 Bbmaj7
I find it can be done using dim7 chords, it has a "parallel" sound
Edim7 Gdim7 Ddim7 Fdim7 Cdim7 Ebdim7 Bbmaj7
I switch them all to 7sus4b5 and although mechanically parallel, the sound is much smoother (E7sus4b5 x 7 8 7 10 x)
E7sus4b5 D7sus4b5 F7sus4b5 C7sus4b5 Eb7sus4b5 Bbmaj7
I try alternating the chord types, both ways and find that the first way sounds like "wide" changes, but the second way sounds very close and sweet.
Edim7 G7sus4b5 Ddim7 F7sus4b5 Cdim7 E7sus4b5 Bbmaj7
E7sus4b5 Gdim7 D7sus4b5 Fdim7 C7sus4b5 Ebdim7 Bbmaj7
I use related chords in order to make the roots descend; if nobody else is doing that I might, if the bass is doing it I might do something else. I notice that the first way makes the chord pairs sound a lot like inversions, so much less sense of movement, even though both ways really have a sameness of sound.
Edim7 Eb9 Ddim7 Db9 Cdim7 B9 Bbmaj7
E7sus4b5 Eb9 D7sus4b5 Db9 C7sus4b5 B9 Bbmaj7
All these things I hear and describe are all part of the information about what works. Jazz musicians acquire and usually call "vocabulary" what they learn for soloing (melodic vocabulary applied to the stock harmony of the tune). I don't know if there is another term for when what is being explored is the different harmonic pathways themselves, but it is also vocabulary, of harmonic paths and patterns.
-
A couple of things, from a non-soloing, non-reading player, that might be useful for someone finding his way through the arrangements/charting jungle:
If I'm comping or playing rhythm, I play the simplest version of the chord--no extensions, and sometimes not even observing major-7 from plain old major. (2-note shell chords make that possible.) The charts I usually use are the very stripped-down chords-and-time versions that come with my iGigbook tablet app, and the index lets me see all the versions of a given tune included in my PDF fakebook collection, so I can see where there are variations and adapt accordingly.
If I'm working up a tune at home, I have several of the Mantooth "Best Chord Changes" books that I can turn to for pretty carefully researched charts. (They remind me of the scholarly editions of classic literature, with variant readings, footnotes, and all.) There's a similar book by Dick Hyman, out of print but still around on the used market. And when I'm arranging for singing, it's what works with my vocal key and whatever I can manage/get away with for accompaniment--which is generally pretty different from what I do when I'm sitting in with the local jazz guys. Since I've been doing that for quite a while, I'm familiar with their head arrangements and I use pretty much the same charts they do, so I don't have to worry much about the kind of variation seen in those ATTYA charts.
-
Yes, the latter. There was no agenda behind my post. I just remember being blown away by Bley's solo when I first heard it. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
As for the E7#9, you've got me curious now...
Speaking of variations, one interesting aspect of ATTYA is that on just about all the earliest vocal recordings including those by Jack Leonard, Jo Stafford and Frank Sinatra, the singers ascend to the 4th degree in the final line rather than the 6th (Db rather than F in the concert key of Ab). It's so pervasive that it had me searching back to Kern's score to check whether the Db was in the original and the F was a variation!
-
I think we've had this conversation before! I'm afraid I don't agree at all. Other musicians, possibly much more skilful than the original composer, can reharm or re-arrange a good tune and vastly improve on it. In fact, I'd say that has been done many a time already. Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
There's simply no law that says an original version is always the best one. It may be the first one, certainly, but not at all necessarily the best.
Incidentally, forgive me, I think you're over-reacting a bit to the word 'right' When I said players want to know they're doing a tune the right way I just meant that they want to be happy they've got an acceptable contemporary version, that's all. I'm not using the word to mean unarguably set in stone. I doubt if anything in the arts world is set in stone.
(I wouldn't apply that to classical music, by the way. What Beethoven wrote is quite good enough!)
-
Once again, you misread and misunderstood my comment. I never said that anything was best - neither that word nor any synonym appears in the post at which you took umbrage. I don’t even believe in the concept of “the best”. There’s no best guitarist or shortstop or beer or restaurant or pizza or anything else. Originally Posted by ragman1
I used the term “right” because you did. You are the one who said that “they want to know they’re playing the right thing”. And, as I said before, the only “right” thing we could all use as a reference would be the original score, because it’s the only consistent reference. That just ain’t gonna happen. There are so many variations and versions of pretty much every tune we play that it’s no surprise to find multiple versions in multiple books on the same bandstand.
Only if everyone used the original composition as the reference could all books contain identical sheets. Since that’s neither practical nor desirable (in my opinion, anyway), the critical issue is making sure that everyone in the band plays the same changes or skillfully plays outside them. For most of us on most gigs and jams, the “right” version of a tune is simply the one the leader chooses and everybody plays.
I don’t give a rat’s gluteus if anyone remains true to a composer’s work. I agree completely that many variations and reinterpretations are much more pleasing than the original. It’s why I praised taste and imagination over rote performance. And it’s why I rarely play a tune exactly as it was originally written.
-
Ralph Patt created something he called the Vanilla Book. Index
The charts have the very simplest version of the tunes' changes. That can be interesting.
Then, there are the composer's own charts. I've read that some musicians have spent time in the stacks in libraries researching this sort of thing.
Other musicians don't care at all.
Then there are versions by different singers and instrumentalists. Most want to put their own stamp on the tune. Sometimes, one version is so dominant that everybody plays those changes.
Then there are the tunes in the original RB. Lots of criticism and disagreement, but, the fact is, a lot of players have used it to learn tunes - and that's the version they play.
If you could finally get all those planets to line up and you knew the definitive version of the tune, by the third chorus of a jazz version you'd probably be varying it.
In a group, if you're the only chord instrument you have a lot of freedom. You can make a lot of things sound right.
But, if there's also a piano then you have a joint responsibility not to make mud. Which means, if you're both chording, you have to each respect what the other is doing. And, that's a whole other thread.
-
The original real book chart for ATTYA isn't too bad actually. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
OTOH with other RB tunes, I've effectively had to relearn them later on. The current real book is a lot more accurate.
It certainly is. (Or you could listen to Undercurrents.)If you could finally get all those planets to line up and you knew the definitive version of the tune, by the third chorus of a jazz version you'd probably be varying it.
In a group, if you're the only chord instrument you have a lot of freedom. You can make a lot of things sound right.
But, if there's also a piano then you have a joint responsibility not to make mud. Which means, if you're both chording, you have to each respect what the other is doing. And, that's a whole other thread.
Without wanting to digress too much, I think the main issue on the straightahead jazz front with piano and guitar comping mud is actually primarily acoustic and role oriented, not harmonic. If you are both comping with typical bebop comping rhythms that are slightly different with a similar sound (usually a bassy sustaining sound on guitar) the result is a mess. Unless you are going for a more modern approach to comping, the actual nature of the harmony might not be that problematic. A lot of comping is 'finding the space' anyway. Having another free comper complicates that.
So obviously, post Jim Hall, the guitar took on a far more pianistic role in the ensemble, something we today take as a basic fact. In fact guitar had been playing alongside piano for decades, but the role demarcation in the 40s/50s piano/guitar/bass trio was very specific with the guitar effectively changing between the role of a drummer and a horn and the piano being well, a piano, but often being careful about that left hand (although of course many of those pianists grew up in the stride and boogie-woogie era.)
Between them Evans and Hall on their own kind of made that playing semi-obsolete, but I feel undercurrents actually offers a modern take on that tradition, with Hall's modernist rhythm guitar playing being one of the more fascinating 'roads less traveled by' in guitar comping. OTOH Evans knew how to accommodate guitar, clearly.
So the old school trio can seem a bit written out of jazz history. But some of the biggest trios in jazz were guitar, piano, bass including Jim's own first record of course. And if pianists aren't used to playing with guitar, they are also going to struggle of course. If their basic comping reference point is, say, Evans, Jarrett or Herbie (as is the case for many players), and they've not spent time with earlier styles of piano playing, the guitar is surely an obstacle. They aren't going to want you doing the straight four thing either, that's for sure haha. (TBF I sometimes feel the same way - I sometimes like to comp in a more modern way.)
But for a typical Sunday jazz gig with a pianist with a more straightahead approach if you get the acoustics right (so the guitar is sufficiently tonally different from the instrument it's comping for) the harmonic side of it less a problem than can be supposed.
Ah well I totally failed not to degree there haha. Sorry.Last edited by Christian Miller; 12-11-2023 at 07:44 AM.
-
That's amazing! Originally Posted by djg
I have to say I respect Hawks lifelong interest in new developments in jazz... he always sound like himself too.
Those low notes at the end had me cracking up ...
-
One of the biggest things I've learned in the past few decades is how much the great jazz players seem to respect the original compositions, how good those songs are, and how much I get bored by my own 'improvisational' boilerplate and how much better my improvisation becomes when I start with the song. Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
It's surprising the extent to which many players go to find out what the original changes and melody etc are on those songs, going to the piano sheet music and so on. They might not play that stuff, but they know it.
-
Some really good points... But for the OP.... Fake books usually have a reference at the bottom of sheet that makes reference to what recording the the lead sheet was created from. At least most of the time. Many of us old dudes... learned tunes by transcribing from records or reel to reels. Even from the radio LOL.
Many of the problems are... most just haven't put in the time yet to learn how to play in a jazz style. It takes years, even if you have great ears and great technique.
Eventually your going to learn and be able to recognize, hear and understand different versions of the same tune.
You don't need to be theory guru... there are only so many chord patterns. And different versions of the same tune are just that... A different Harmonic Reference for the Melody and improv...
Much of the fun when performing jazz is.... just that. You don't start with the same basic tune as the starting Reference.
An example that might make this easy to understand... take a standard 12bar Jazz Blues tune In "F". Now play the tune in "Fmin." Or keep it in F maj. and change the last 4 bars... a different turnaround.
Eventually most tunes, (and their chords), will become just like Blues tunes... there are many approaches to play them.... and still be a specific (blues) tune.
Kind of like how Tal_175 was bringing up some "Chord subs"... We as jazz players... use "Chord Pattern..Subs"
which are just expanded single chord subs.
One of the differences is... just as a "Chord Sub" usually implies a expanded possibility of note choices and what to do with them.... "Chord Patterns" expand the same concept and usually make a more defined harmonic picture... .
Long story short.... your ears and understandings will get better. As you play more tunes you'll become aware of different combinations of chords.... and how they can imply the same Harmonic Reference... (a song or part od a tune).
-
Bernstein is big on this... Originally Posted by Christian Miller
It makes sense to me...not that songs are "rules," but it's similar to the "how can you break the rules if you don't know what the rules are?" kind of thing.
And then there's the tunes that shouldn't be messed with. Some Billy Strayhorn tunes are like classical pieces to me.
-
Mike Moreno is a real stickler too. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
I'd love to have that info so I could find the recordings. Sadly, none of the 39 I have as pdfs or the 6 loose leaf and spiral bound volumes I bought between '59 and '64 contains any such reference. If you could let us know which specific books have that info, I (and others, I'm sure) will go out and find them. Here's my pdf fakebook collection: Originally Posted by Reg
When I was a kid, I recorded late night jazz shows from the radio to my father's Webster-Chicago wire recorder. I listened to / recorded / learned from Ed Beech, Symphony Sid, Oscar Treadwell etc. We had a 75' tall antenna tower behind the house for my father's Stromberg-Carlson "hifi" console with a multiband radio. At night I could get New York, Chicago, and even the west coast when the heavens permitted. Even during the day, i could catch some distant jazz shows with a little luck and a sunspot or two. Originally Posted by Reg
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale