-
You know, I can totally relate here. I can sing/scat to a tune, no problem. That goes right out the window as soon as I pick up the guitar. And recording it would result in the same, just some sort of tuneless gush of notes. I can hear them in my head, but those pitches exist only there.
Originally Posted by lawson-stone
-
05-24-2019 08:07 PM
-
Yey, the best thread on Jazz Guitar Forum is back!
I'm finally settled in my new home--so I can make a crappy recording until I get a portable recorder (I think I am gonna get a mid level model, maybe the h5?)
Sing, sing, sing!
Even if you can't identify the notes--that's okay. When you sing the tune, you are getting the sound of the tune more crystallized in your head. Even if your scat singing doesn't always outline the changes--if you can memorize the sounds associated with the tune--it will stick a heck of a lot better than just memorizing the theory behind the tune.
Heck, try to transcribe your scat singing.
I train my ear everyday, not to forget about theory all together--but to make the theory "come alive" in sound. That way, I can access the theory because I can hear what it sounds like.
rp, I can't wait to hear your rendition. I promise I'll upload soon!
EDIT: I am listening to RP's take on There Will Never Be Another You. Nice phrasing of the melody! I really enjoyed how you stayed with an idea and developed it. The hints of the blues were very tasteful as well. Only problem, at least on my computer (with quality headphones), your recording was really low. I have that problem too!
-
Thanks for the kind words. I need to work on my recording technique. Yamaha Pocketrak, sensitivity set for full band, not quiet me-n'-irealpro. I should have raised it, but I didn't have the time to get it adjusted. Also, the mics were facing the Little Jazz and away from the speakers playing the backing track. It was more balanced where I was sitting in the room. Originally Posted by Irez87
-
I hope with a portable recorder the process is easier--too much setup makes me less likely to record--and less likely to capture the good moments in my playing (so I can balance out all my negative feelings towards my playing)
-
Guys
I have a question that makes me feel very, very stupid.
I've always played this song mainly by ear. I "heard" it as an tune with a 12 measure statement that resolves one way in mm. 13-16, and another way in 29-32. I have always thought mm. 1-12 and 17-28 were the same, with 13-16 and 29-32 different.
This week looking at lead sheets trying to get clear on that last line (29-32) I realized that in fact, 1-11 and 17-27 are the same, BUT while 1-11 moves to a Cm7 in m. 12, 17-27 move to Am7 D7 in 28. That has really been jarring to me.
So what are you guys playing at m. 28?
And maybe learning tunes by ear is not what it's cracked up to be!
-
I guess it depends on who or what you use for the music, because I think I saw 3 or maybe 4 different chord sheets for this song.
For me, I just settled on D7 for m. 28 (I guess Am|D7 not totally different, I saw it that way also) as that was they way Frank Vignola writes it and I was watching his video as part of learning the song.
-
I have played around with this song for literally 15 years and always played Cm7 or even C7 there, parallel to m. 12. I guess that explains awkward looks from bandmates.... Originally Posted by Bahnzo
-
Yes, Am7 (or Am7b5), D7 is correct for bar 28. If you listen to the melody it’s very different here, it jumps up to a high D and C which I think of as a reminder that the chords are different here.
-
That jump to the high D is what really makes the song interesting. Gives it a real "hip" sound as opposed to the melody the first time thru. Originally Posted by grahambop
-
I haven't come across the original sheet music for TWNBAY but my guess for the written change would be a b3/#2 diminished (Gbo7/F#o7) moving to the I with the 3rd in the bass (Eb/G). F#o7 is a rootless D7b9 and that can be set up by an Am7b5. By the '60s, players starting substituting regular ii minor chords for half-diminished chords in minor ii-V cadences, at least where the melody allowed it and that move was reinforced by the advent of real books from the '70s onwards. Therefore, we ended up with A-7 - D7(b9). Originally Posted by lawson-stone
The reasons the change might sound strange to you? One complicating factor is that the expected resolution chord here would be Gm7 yet the second melody note of the following bar is an Eb. Most charts write Eb6 at that point although a Gm7#5 (Ebadd9/G) is another option that allows more predictable bass movement. It may also be that you're playing a non-diatonic E natural in the Am7 chord and find that jarring in which case you might try an Am11 without the 5th, e.g. 5x553x. If that still doesn't sound right to you, experiment with either an altered IV dominant (Ab7#11) or II dominant (F13). Just be prepared that if you're jamming with others, they'll most likely play Am7-D7!
-
Bahnzo definitely has a point about this.
I've seen a number of variations for bar 28. Here we go:
1) Am7/D7
2) Gm7/C7
3) C7 (vanilla book AND Chet Baker)
4) Am7b5/D7
5) Am7b5/D7b9
6) F9/Gbo
7) F13 (Kenny Burrell)
These two need to be in the context of the last 6 bars:
1) EbM7 - Am7b5/D7 - EbM7/Ab9#11 - Gm7/C7 - Fm7/Bb13b9 - Eb6
2) EbM7 - Am11/Ab13#11 - Gm7/Ab9#11 - Db13#11/C7+ - F7 - Eb6
Most of the backing tracks on YouTube have Am7b5/D7. The Jimmy Raney transcription has Am7/D7. The Joe Pass one barely gives that bar any importance at all.
I haven't tried all of them but personally I'd use whichever one sounded best... I think :-)
-
Right, now I've tried them all! Basically I think there's not much to choose between Gm7/C7 and Am7/D7. Overall I think I prefer Am7b5 because of the Eb.
C7 by itself is okay.
F7/Gbo is nice but a bit fancy.
Am11/Ab7b5 is unnecessary unless you put in all the other tritones too.
BUT far more important than bar 28 is whether you play EbM7 or Gm7 in bar 29. Most of those variations only sound right if they resolve to Gm7. Going back to EbM7 can sound lame.
So I'd probably play Am7b5/D7 - Gm7/D7 - Gm7/C7 - Fm7/Bb7 - Eb. Or some other variation in the last 4.
That's my pronouncement!
-
Totally agree on m.29. Playing this tune forever by ear I always played Gm7 there. Shocked to look at a lead sheet and see the EbM7. Originally Posted by ragman1
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
That's really wonderful. I could pick up the melody throughout, but the solo really pops with ideas and variations. I enjoyed listening to it. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
I love how this thread has drawn a range of players all the way from pro level to very basic, struggling amateur players. Speaking as one of the latter, I am grateful for the accomplished players investing time and effort into pointing the way on this tune.
-
Unless there's a change, I think I'm having to give up on this one. This is my last clip. I play the head, and 3 choruses, but in the end, I don't think i really broke out of cliches and licks to any kind of real creativity. This should be no surprise, though. Improvisation is very hard. It's hard to compose a decent melody in the serenity of the studio with time to try ideas, much less improvise on the fly. These choruses were pretty much worked out ahead of time. I prepared several alternative lines and ideas to choose from at different points, but the ideas were all thought through ahead of time.
I'm not trying to duck comment and constructive criticism, but honestly, I am quite discouraged that I just can't seem to get anywhere with this stuff.
Thanks all for your incredible contributions to the thread.
-
Lawson-Stone,
When I looked up the tune in the Real Book I thought, "C'mon--you ridiculous theory geeks--why did you write those changes that way?"
Franky V is well respected round these parts, he simplifies the tune here:
The secondary dominant motion is nice--but if it complicates your improvised line, shoot for the simplest answer. Many of us (myself included) get so enamored by the theory--figuring out the hippest subs (not an Italian BMT, for sure) and all--that we forget about the most important part--melodic development. If you can sound more melodic on the bare bones changes, there's no shame in that. I'd rather play bare bone changes and tell a story with them than get caught up in sub'ing in Coltrane Changes and sounding like a hot mess and nothing less.
I think Frank Vignola plays those changes as constant structure descending dominants--if we're talking about the same part of the tune (if not, I apologize). The descending dominants are easier to play when comping, and they are actually easier to solo over.
I will try and put something up tomorrow on this tune. I've been playing it in the jam that I frequent every week--because the trumpet player loves to call it--and the more I play it, the more I like it. After Saturday, I won't be able to play it on guitar (more work to be done on my archie--it never ends) but I could post more ideas on piano if you all don't mind.
Lawson-stone, did you start your solo by quoting "Them There Eyes"? If so, sly quote my friend!
-
Your idea for this was well done IMO, and even if you don't like what you've ended with, it's certainly something that more than a few of us have enjoyed and learned from, so I'd say that's a success. Besides you mentioned you have some time off coming up. That might be a good thing as time away from the instrument is often times good to help refresh the brain.
I had a real problem with feeling like I was playing nothing but cliches and was frustrated as well. And in the end, I really don't think I achieved the goal of strictly using the melody for improvisation. I eventually moved on to trying to learn the chord tones and building off of that, which is what you hear in the last/final version I posted. It too was mostly composed with phrases I constructed and had in my head at the time.
-
If you even think the term "secondary dominant" while playing this tune, you are naked by the beehive, covered in honey.
-
Well and truly busted. I love that figure. There is also a brief allusion to the tune “More” in there. Originally Posted by Irez87
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Keep at it, Lawson-Stone!
The fact that I could pick out a song quote means that you are not just playing random chord-tones and flapping about aimlessly.
Now, I have to be strategic about when I can record myself--being that I got the li'un to watch when shes awaken, and I don't wanna scare her awake when she's a sleepin'. Any ideas, Mr. Jeffy B?
I might try plugging into my recorder directly and using an amp modeler that came with the recorder. Methinks it will sound like crap, but it's worth a college try, right?
-
Lawson, Originally Posted by lawson-stone
By way of encouragement, I'd offer the following.
One of the most meaningful guitar lessons I ever got was this. My teacher soloed on two bars of Bbmaj7 at the beginning of a tune. He played a D note and then rested. It sounded great. Better than when I played a D note against Bbmaj7. The difference was the placement of the note in time.
You've got the chords, you know the tune, and you're note choices are in the ballpark.
What's missing is that full-blown, Frank Sinatra, finger-snapping, head-bobbing swing attitude.
So, I'd suggest is scat singing lines that sound like an exaggeration of Frank Sinatra scat singing.
Not too many notes. Nothing fancy. The point is to get the notes to really swing. Maybe scat sing in time to a ride beat. Da, duh-ta Da, duh-ta Da etc. Nail that singing and then put it on the guitar.
What I think you want to avoid is thinking, at all, about guitar technique or theory. Just think about trying to scat sing a few notes that swing. And, when you've got that, put a few of them on the guitar with the groove.
In fact, it would make sense to start by singing the melody with an exaggerated swing feel. "There WILL be .. oooother, nites, like thisssss, andI MIGHT be here, you know, with someone newwwww ... " etc. When you can feel that, put it on the guitar. Go from scatting to the guitar without any thought about theory or technique whatsoever. In jazz, time is almost everything.Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 05-31-2019 at 12:33 AM.
-
time isn't almost anything--it is everything. You can play all the right notes, but if they don't sit right in the time--they don't mean salt.
You can play all the wrong notes, but know exactly where they fit in the pulse--and all of a sudden, you're hip as shite.
Right now, I am trying to wring out the last bit of jankiness from my 8th note lines--and it's soo hard!
I have to get better at my colorful colloquialisms--that honey one was cake...er... I think it's time to pull out the tomes of Southern Gothic--oh wait, the libraries are dying... shame, shame.
See, I could be posting a sample of my playing right now--but this time feel thing is getting my goat...er... oh, forget it.
I'll try to post tomorrow, at least acoustic like Jeffy B did (though, mine won't be as good)
In the meanwhile, check out what I posted on the Ear Training Journal--it's really funny and it's quite interesting--I got on my favorite Youtube Show "You'll Hear It"
-
Just so I don't get the side eye from anyone--my daughtie gives me the side eye and she ain't even 1...
Anyway, here's one take of There Will Never Be Another You, but I only soloed (another, awesome guitarist played the melody in)
I am working on extracting the solo that I took this week--working in Audacity is harder than it looks
-
Oh I'm really thrilled with the thread as a whole. This probably one of the most productive and helpful threads I've ever been part of on the forum. Every post was solid and thoughtful, we had a wide range of expertise and experience, and lots of good ideas. I'm just a little disappointed in my own lack of progress. Originally Posted by Bahnzo
-
That sounds like a useful idea. I will give it a try. Maybe try playing some of my lines fro these three choruses to that feel once I can sing it. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
Reply With Quote
Rialto Archtop Guitars UK
Yesterday, 07:04 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos