Play the melody, Miles, play the melody

[NSJ]

Miles Davis, as he normally did every year, played Newport in the late 1960s, and took note of all the young rock and roll inspired people who were flocking towards it. This was an intensely pensive period for Miles, where he was searching for a new direction and approach to music. He asked noted jazz impresario (and pianist) George Wein for advice.

George simply said, "play the melody, Miles, play the melody".


Bill Frisell would state many decades later, contemplating his approach to playing music: "When I first started getting into jazz, I studied what was going on with the music theoretically and would look at things more in a mathematical way. I would look at the chords and learn what the chord tones were, what the scales were. But somewhere along the way, I tried to understand all the inner workings of the melody. If the melody isn't there, then it really doesn't mean anything. It's also where it gets harder to explain. With every song, I'm trying to internalize the melody so strong that that's the backbone for everything that I am playing no matter how abstract it becomes. Sometimes I'll just play the melody over and over again and try to vary it slightly. It's really coming from that, like trying to make the melody the thing that's generating all the variations rather than some kind of theoretical mathematical approach.Interviewer: Could you explain what you mean by internalizing the melody?
Frisell: It's playing and hearing the melody and not playing anything but the melody until it starts going on inside your body, even without thinking about it. But the older I get, the longer it seems to take to learn new things and get it to the point where it's really deep down in there somehow."


Finally, in a master class, Peter Berstein noted that when he thinks of improvisation, he plays the melody straight over and over and over again, until it is more than merely understood; it is fully internalized into the very fabric of his being.

[MarkRhodes]

Great post, Navdeep.

The older I get, the more I think, "Melody is king."

[goldenwave77]

Personally, I think any jazz band that doesn't play the head thru, at least once, with feeling and accuracy, is being foolish.

I took my kids to see Russell Malone, and they are not jazz-knowledgable. I told them, listen to the melody, and then SOFTLY so no one can hear you, hum it to yourself as they play through different choruses. See if you can relate what they're playing--- to what you're humming. The listener needs a structure for understanding.

[michael_bxl]

It seems he wants to keep the advise for himself (check what Miles said at 00:06)

[KirkP]

Most music that appeals to me is lyrical or melody-driven, with harmony, rhythm, dynamics, etc. serving the melody to help tell its story. If an improvisor can come up with an a compelling alternate melody I'm happy, but if the improv seems aimless and formulaic I call it noodling. I admit to hearing a bit of noodling when I critique my own playing, and I cringe if it goes on too long.

Nontheless, I do enjoy some music where melody isn't king. Rhythm-driven music can tell a story too. There's nothing superior about one or the other, it's just a matter of taste.

[snailspace]

A tune is a tune because of the tune.

[christianm77]

Yes to this thread! :-)

[MarkRhodes]

A tune is a tune because of the tune.

Wish I'd said that! (Tomorrow, I may... ;o)

[snailspace]

Wish I'd said that! (Tomorrow, I may... ;o)

It's something I came across in one of Steve Kaufman's flatpicking books. He didn't attribute it to anyone, and I didn't find a source when I tried to track one down.

[morroben]

I see some of the more advanced players here post about this as if it's some sort of revelation. Maybe I'm just lucky, but my teacher makes me learn the melody first when we start working on a new song. And it would never have occurred to me to do it any differently. As Snailspace said, it's the tune. And it's right there in the book...like they meant for us to learn it.
It makes me curious how you guys learned when you starting out? Did you just start jamming on the changes on day 1? Is that how music schools teach this stuff? It seems like a really hard way to go about it, if that's the case. I didn't start lessons until recently and don't really know anyone else's method other than my instructor.
In some ways it's reassuring. I don't understand harmony very well, I struggle to play the changes on some songs, and my chops suck, BUT I always know the melody.

[bako]

Personally, I think any jazz band that doesn't play the head thru, at least once, with feeling and accuracy, is being foolish.

One of jazz histories most seminal acts of foolery.

Although he is though very aware of the melody throughout.

[deselby]

Great post Navdeep. Thank you.

[NSJ]

Sid Jacobs: "Instead of playing chord-melody, think of the reverse, play MELODY-chord...that's why when guitar players play their (goes into NERD voice) 'chord-melody' for piano players, piano players just politely smile like they're going to their kids' school recital and they politely applaud, 'oh that's very nice', but you can tell in their eyes that they're totally unimpressed because there's no respect for the melody just because we think just because we have a chord, we have to play ALL the notes."

[MarkRhodes]

It makes me curious how you guys learned when you starting out?

Well, I didn't have a good ear or solid technique, so I started writing my own songs! Most were in the blues / rock vein, so melody was rarely the central thing. (By the way, many tunes from the Swing era were more riffy than melodic---think of "In The Mood," "Lester Leaps In", and Duke's "C Jam Blues.")

I think the point of this thread is not "learn the tune so you can play the head" but rather "learn to let the melody inform your improvisation." This was the way early soloists tended to do it. Louis Armstrong is a great example. Play the melody (and even that was not really "play the melody as written" but "play the melody so that it comes alive"), then play around with the melody...

Here's Armstrong doing "Stardust" and it's a wonderful thing, indeed.

[MarkRhodes]

Sid Jacobs: "Instead of playing chord-melody, think of the reverse, play MELODY-chord...that's why when guitar players play their (goes into NERD voice) 'chord-melody' for piano players, piano players just politely smile like they're going to their kids' school recital and they politely applaud, 'oh that's very nice', but you can tell in their eyes that they're totally unimpressed because there's no respect for the melody just because we think just because we have a chord, we have to play ALL the notes."

Ha! That sounds like Sid. He makes a great point. (And doing this requires something that comes easier to some than others: loving those tunes!)

[goldenwave77]

One of jazz histories most seminal acts of foolery.

Although he is though very aware of the melody throughout.

"Body and Soul" was really popular. Acc'd to Wikipedia, at least 11 American bands had recorded it during the 30's, as well as Louis Armstrong, and probably some British bands. Paul Whiteman, who was pretty big, also featured it, so it's not as if it was exactly exotic or unknown.

I came to Hawkins' recording after listening to Eddie Jefferson's vocalese version of it. (Jefferson's lyrics are brilliant...the bit about Hawkins playing for 20 yrs. before he took this on...)

Listening to it "straight" recently, as I decided I needed work on some D flat tunes, it wasn't much of a stretch from either of those versions. It's really a simple tune...very architectonic, heavy use of chord tones...plus play it slowly and it lends itself to decoration, ornamentation....really what Hawkins did...the little bridge modulation is no big deal.

Another way to say it---you can't listen to Hawkins and not know what tune it's based on. Same deal with Coltrane and "My Favorite Things".

I was listening to some supposed newer hotshots today, and honestly after a long, unmemorable head...and meandering, solos that went nowhere, man they could have been playing anything.

I then found the Ron Carter Trio playing "Softly as in a Morning Sunrise" and immediately felt better. (Another tune I'm working on.)

[bako]

My point in posting Coleman Hawkins recording was to affirm that beautiful art can be made even
without clearly stating the melody.

That said, melody is a most powerful resource for building an improvisation.

[Flat5]

I once read a "Blindfold Test" done with Ray Brown where he didn't recognize the player but said: "You know what I love about this guy? He's not afraid to play the melody".

[NSJ]

And then you have this ditty, from a 2011 Blindfold Test by Lou Donaldson, comparing Bird to Stitt:

"Just by listening, how can you tell the difference between Charlie Parker and Sonny Stitt?Let’s see, let me explain it so the average person can understand it.
Even me?
Even you [laughter]. Jazz critics are the worst. They’re good writers but they don’t know what’s what. When you play music, you have the concept of the song. Like when Charlie Parker plays “April In Paris” with strings, no mater how he plays it, it still sounds like “April In Paris.” But when Sonny Stitt plays it he plays a little bit of the melody then he has to run his harmonics. And it’s not “April In Paris” no more, it’s Sonny Stitt’s harmonics. That’s the difference. That’s the difference with the way the guys play today ‘cause all of them play like Coltrane. They play a melody, then after the melody you don’t know what the hell they’re playing. But Charlie Parker played the song."

[destinytot]

The melodist leads from the front. Here are some of mine:

[christianm77]

I see some of the more advanced players here post about this as if it's some sort of revelation. Maybe I'm just lucky, but my teacher makes me learn the melody first when we start working on a new song. And it would never have occurred to me to do it any differently. As Snailspace said, it's the tune. And it's right there in the book...like they meant for us to learn it.
It makes me curious how you guys learned when you starting out? Did you just start jamming on the changes on day 1? Is that how music schools teach this stuff? It seems like a really hard way to go about it, if that's the case. I didn't start lessons until recently and don't really know anyone else's method other than my instructor.
In some ways it's reassuring. I don't understand harmony very well, I struggle to play the changes on some songs, and my chops suck, BUT I always know the melody.

Sounds like a good teacher man, I'd stick with him.

TBH playing the melody is something we all pay lip service to, but I'd be the first to stand up and say I haven't appreciated how deep one's knowledge of the melody needs to go - what Frisell is talking about. There are a lot of ins and outs on those tunes, too!

It means playing the tune over and over until you get bored of it and have to start improvising... But obviously, you have to know it to start off with,

Whenever I play a gig where I am the melody instrument I get rudely reminded of this. It's very easy to play autopilot changes running jazz once you have the knowledge and chops. But I don't like it when I hear myself do it.

It's not the only way to improvise, but I have to say it's one of the most overlooked strategies. Plus learning melodies by ear will do a lot for your ears, obviously. I find one of the hardest things for me is retaining a melody in my 'mind's ear' once heard and then playing it, exactly in time without accompaniment, so I can play along with it and not have any dropped beats etc.

The basics are often the hardest thing to get right, and the 'advanced' stuff is often a way of covering up when we don;t know the basics haha

[ragman1]

Very few pros play the melody as written. It's nearly always embellished before any improvisation starts. That way deviation from it isn't such a shock :-)

[christianm77]

Very few pros play the melody as written. It's nearly always embellished before any improvisation starts. That way deviation from it isn't such a shock :-)

But - and this is the big caveat - you have to know the melody in it's vanilla form before you embellish it.

There's a world of difference between listening to a skilful, hip variation of the tune and a player waffling because they don't know how it goes....

[NSJ]

Whenever I play a gig where I am the melody instrument I get rudely reminded of this. It's very easy to play autopilot changes running jazz once you have the knowledge and chops. But I don't like it when I hear myself do it.

When Bernstein came here to give a Master Class at the Old Town School of Folk Music, he railed against these type of lines, calling it "box playing".

One the other hand, you have to have some rudimentary language that can link idea to idea. There's this local guy who is a retired saxophone player (and also flamenco guitarist) who studied with Art Pepper and Harold Land in LA in the 1950s, and the first thing he showed me is some Wardell Gray cliches. He said you have to some cliches, or basic backup language everybody has them because there is no way you are going to be original 100% of the time.

I think I have arrived at a point where I can generate some rudimentary language just from the Barry Harris stuff (if you think about it , the 54321 cliches and also 4 note chromatics associated with each degree of the major scale, if you mix and match appropriately, will get you instant language if you shed it thoroughly).

Tim Miller has this 2-1-2-1-2-1 arpeggio system, which, if you think about it, is kind of the "box type" playing Bernstein is railing against. But even then, he says to mix it up with some "melodic playing".

Maybe this rudimentary language or system of cliches is a way to tread water and prevent one from drowning, while you develop your various swim strokes that can get you to the shore.

I don't know.

But you can't be "100% inspired and original" all the time. So there is plenty of room for "box playing" or cliches.

[goldenwave77]

I guess I would say embellishment is fine. In the Ron Carter Trio's version of "Softly As in a Morning Sunrise", it is very up tempo, and swung, but there is no doubt what he's playing.

I sometimes wonder on originally written tunes nowadays if the composer/performer could even sing, or hum, the piece (as opposed to playing it)?!

To extend the idea, good improv solos are hummable: Carlos Santana and the Allman Brothers who got to me as a teenager; a lot of Charlie Parker's stuff; some Coltrane; Dizzy; Sonny Rollins on "Saxophone Colossus and More"...you can on and on.

In an earlier day, in folk music, a lot of music was not written down, and people didn't "read", and there were probably no printed versions around anyway...so if a tune wasn't memorable---guess what---people stopped playing it. Jazz started out as a folk music. Maybe it needs to get back to the idea of tunes---and improv--on them that people do, and can remember, without having to consult printed versions. (I'm overstating this to make a point, but you see where I'm coming from.)

I went to see the MoTown Museum during my last trip to Detroit. Interesting in some ways, kind of an empty shrine in another (but that's a different story). But whether you're a Berry Gordie fan or not, that music was memorable...the riffs...the tunes.