JGBE Virtual Jam (Round 41) - Four

**mr. beaumont** · 10-25-2021, 05:54 PM

A few minutes at lunch today. I'm busier than I care to go into, but I had to try this one!

I'll listen to everyone tonight.

**ragman1** · 10-25-2021, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by Peterson

Here’s a long take with few ideas. I’d stop listen after a chorus or two if I were you.

Personally, I liked that. Your notes suited the chords, which doesn't always happen. It means you've done your homework. The slowness doesn't matter, it had the right feel. So good!

**wzpgsr** · 10-25-2021, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by ragman1

Personally, I liked that. Your notes suited the chords, which doesn't always happen. It means you've done your homework. The slowness doesn't matter, it had the right feel. So good!

Agreed. I like hearing this tune at a slower tempo.

**TOMMO** · 10-26-2021, 02:12 AM

Originally Posted by Peterson

Here’s a long take with few ideas. I’d stop listen after a chorus or two if I were you.

Originally Posted by ragman1

Personally, I liked that. Your notes suited the chords, which doesn't always happen. It means you've done your homework. The slowness doesn't matter, it had the right feel. So good!

I agree - unhurried and quite melodic!

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

A few minutes at lunch today. I'm busier than I care to go into, but I had to try this one!

Excellent - I wish I could do it a bit like this....

**dogletnoir** · 10-26-2021, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by lawson-stone

The strat sounds wonderful! If that comes from it being "beat up" I'd say keep beating it up. The solo has really nice phrases over the changes. I'm not the best person to offer this particular critique since I'm struggling myself, but I didn't sense a "shape" for the solo, the since of it moving via rising tensions and resolutions to a climax. This is the very thing I have trouble doing as well, but unlike me, you actually have the vocabulary and phrases to put together a coherent and exciting statement.

Thanks for the kind words re: the strat's sound, and my vocabulary and phrasing!
i will definitely keep on 'beating it up' since that just seems to come naturally to me, LOL.
Also thanks for the input on the solo. i will try to record another version with that in mind.

**Peterson** · 10-26-2021, 07:10 AM

Thanks!!

I recorded the first minutes of playing today. Before tuning, sorry about that.

And one of me trying to break out of the eight note cage

**TOMMO** · 10-26-2021, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by Peterson

And one of me trying to break out of the eight note cage

...and successfully!

**TOMMO** · 10-26-2021, 10:54 AM

About time....
Here's my take:

Any kind of feedback welcome as always.

**John A.** · 10-26-2021, 11:23 AM

OK, a few thoughts ...

Doglet: I thought your second one was well ahead of the first. I think it could still use some sharpening up (you're behind the beat quite a bit), and I get the sense from some of the stumbles and hesitations that you're not entirely certain of the changes as you're playing, so maybe you need to internalize the tune a bit more. But there's some good stuff happening in terms of the actual ideas and phrasing. Nice guitar sound, too; I'm tempted to do another with my strat ...

Peterson: I have pretty much the same comment as I had for Doglet. Getting there, and I like the way you're exploring phrasing. Also, a great sounding guitar. But overall, quite a bit of hesitance.

Rags: Kudos for turning a burning bop tune into a Latin ballad

Which brings me to the whole fast vs slow question. I think this is a fast tune that should be played fast. Maybe not crazy Miles "Four and More" fast, but upwards of 160 BPM. Mine was about 210-15 (the backing track jumps around by a few BM so I couldn't pin it down to an exact tempo), and that feels like about where it's usually played at jams. I've experienced it being called faster than I can keep up with, and even here I wasn't as crisp as I should be, so I'm not holding my own playing up as an example. I'm just saying I think fast should be the goal. I'm not absolutist about this, and think it's OK to slow tunes down, e.g., for the sake of learning, or if you're really going to re-work it aesthetically. But if you're just going to play the tune in the tradition of how it's mainly treated, there are fast ones and slow ones, and this is a fast one. I also think playing it up forces you to address technical and familiarity problems, so mastering it faster will ultimately yield a better performance at any tempo. You're all free to disagree, obviously.

Ron: Nice one. Great phrasing, time, and tone. Now let's hear you with your bassist buddy.

Jeff: Really good. I get the sense of you being in command of the tune and just flowing. Would love to hear more.

Lawson: Thanks for your kind words. I'm sure you can play this tune well.

Wxyzpdqasaptgif: Looking forward to hearing you, too. You've sounded great on the last few.

Clint55: I thought the right hand was pretty good -- you're playing the tune, making the changes, decent phrasing and ideas. But overall, it sounds really stiff to me; the pedal-bass and drum track seem to be locking you into this very straight, almost march-like feel that doesn't really swing. Also, I hear a ton of key-click/percussion in the sound, which I think detracts a bit. What if you tried it without a rhythm track, did mainly walking bass (or a less lock-step pattern) on the keyboard (only kicking for accents), and let it breathe a bit more? I think that would be more fun to listen to.

**TOMMO** · 10-26-2021, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by John A.

Which brings me to the whole fast vs slow question. I think this is a fast tune that should be played fast. Maybe not crazy Miles "Four and More" fast, but upwards of 160 BPM. Mine was about 210-15 (the backing track jumps around by a few BM so I couldn't pin it down to an exact tempo), and that feels like about where it's usually played at jams. I've experienced it being called faster than I can keep up with, and even here I wasn't as crisp as I should be, so I'm not holding my own playing up as an example. I'm just saying I think fast should be the goal. I'm not absolutist about this, and think it's OK to slow tunes down, e.g., for the sake of learning, or if you're really going to re-work it aesthetically. But if you're just going to play the tune in the tradition of how it's mainly treated, there are fast ones and slow ones, and this is a fast one. I also think playing it up forces you to address technical and familiarity problems, so mastering it faster will ultimately yield a better performance at any tempo. You're all free to disagree, obviously.

Food for thought - thanks. I'm playing it fairly slow myself here and that's because I'm not comfortable enough with playing the changes (plus there's at least two sets I've been working with).

**lawson-stone** · 10-26-2021, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by TOMMO

About time....
Here's my take:

Any kind of feedback welcome as always.

Nice tone, played clean, and this will be a rather odd sounding compliment... but yours was in my opinion a great example of how a learning, advancing player who is still nailing down the basics should approach a tune like this. You nailed the changes, some really advanced players might think you stayed too close to them, but for my learning and thinking about the tune, you played the changes in a way that still included interesting melodic ideas, some bop vocabulary, and personal expression. I really, really enjoyed a couple of the more advanced solos on the thread, but yours was one that actually inspired me to sit back down and shed this tune a bit more.

I hope that strikes you as a positive word!

**lawson-stone** · 10-26-2021, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by John A.

OK, a few thoughts ...

SNIP

Which brings me to the whole fast vs slow question. I think this is a fast tune that should be played fast. Maybe not crazy Miles "Four and More" fast, but upwards of 160 BPM. Mine was about 210-15 (the backing track jumps around by a few BM so I couldn't pin it down to an exact tempo), and that feels like about where it's usually played at jams. I've experienced it being called faster than I can keep up with, and even here I wasn't as crisp as I should be, so I'm not holding my own playing up as an example. I'm just saying I think fast should be the goal. I'm not absolutist about this, and think it's OK to slow tunes down, e.g., for the sake of learning, or if you're really going to re-work it aesthetically. But if you're just going to play the tune in the tradition of how it's mainly treated, there are fast ones and slow ones, and this is a fast one. I also think playing it up forces you to address technical and familiarity problems, so mastering it faster will ultimately yield a better performance at any tempo. You're all free to disagree, obviously.

SNIP

I am struggling to get this tune north of 160/180 but totally agree with you on tempo. One of the fun, classic features of jazz, in any era, is the enjoyment of fast tempos, the embracing of the challenge of playing a a quick clip. Especially after the bebop era, challenging tempos are as much a part of jazz as the ii-V progression or tritone subs. I think you have given good expression to the issue here, and I'm trying to push myself on this one to get it at the fastest tempo I can play before I start to break up in flight, as it were.

**TOMMO** · 10-26-2021, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by lawson-stone

Nice tone, played clean, and this will be a rather odd sounding compliment... but yours was in my opinion a great example of how a learning, advancing player who is still nailing down the basics should approach a tune like this. You nailed the changes, some really advanced players might think you stayed too close to them, but for my learning and thinking about the tune, you played the changes in a way that still included interesting melodic ideas, some bop vocabulary, and personal expression. I really, really enjoyed a couple of the more advanced solos on the thread, but yours was one that actually inspired me to sit back down and shed this tune a bit more.

I hope that strikes you as a positive word!

Thank you very much lawson - not an odd compliment at all but probably one of the nicest ones I have ever received and imo you nailed my approach here down to a T.
Glad that my modest take is an inspiration for you. I'm looking forward to hear yours!

**ragman1** · 10-26-2021, 12:56 PM

TOMMO -

I knew you could do it. Good lord :-)

**ragman1** · 10-26-2021, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by John A.

Rags: Kudos for turning a burning bop tune into a Latin ballad

Er... neither of my versions are Latin!

But I might plead guilty to ballad :-)

**John A.** · 10-26-2021, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by ragman1

Er... neither of my versions are Latin!

That's what you think.

**TOMMO** · 10-26-2021, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by ragman1

TOMMO -

I knew you could do it. Good lord :-)

Thank you!

Originally Posted by John A.

That's what you think.

LOL!

**ragman1** · 10-26-2021, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by John A.

That's what you think.

Rolls eyes....

But, just to really irritate you, always a pleasure, here's a nice slow one. Now this one's definitely a ballad. But I admit to liking it.

Strangely, I don't think it changes the nature of the tune to any great extent. It's just more exciting done fast.

**TOMMO** · 10-26-2021, 01:48 PM

Beautiful! Question is: is that still the tune? Or does it become something entirely different by changing the tempo so drastically?

**mr. beaumont** · 10-26-2021, 01:58 PM

Fun week, lots to listen to! Here's a few noticings...

Doglet, some nice lines in both of your takes...it's an easy song to start meandering on, quite an improvement from your second take compared to first...you can hear how much better your time is in the second take...that's confidence growing. Good stuff.

Rag, some nice singing lines that would work well at a higher tempo too. I need to remember to do more of that on "burners."

Ron, classy playing, in pocket, swinging, and unhurried. Love it.

Clint, how fun to hear organ! I think someone else mentioned a bit of stiffness, might be as much or more from the backing track as you, really. I shouldn't really comment on organ as I can't play it at all, but I liked it and I hope to hear more.

John, first of all, big ups for going with the fast track-- I tried it and I kept blowing the head worrying about what I was going to play in my solo! Your time really settles in about a minute in, when you really get cooking. Fun stuff, great playing.

Peterson, so I did this weird thing with your first take, as straight 8ths that slow do weird things to my ear...so I opened it up in YouTube and played it at 1.5 speed...and it was great...swinging, in pocket, great lines. And then you further proved it with your second video which was definitely more rhyhmically interesting, but contained more nice swinging playing and great lines.

TOMMO, you picked a good one, and I enjoyed your take too. You have some of the same "unhurried" quality Ron has in his take, you're not letting the song play you. Well done.

**TOMMO** · 10-26-2021, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

TOMMO, you picked a good one, and I enjoyed your take too. You have some of the same "unhurried" quality Ron has in his take, you're not letting the song play you. Well done.

Thanks Jeff!

**Peterson** · 10-26-2021, 04:33 PM

Thank you very much Jeff!

I would love to know how you approach tunes like this. You have a bluesy vibe in many of your takes, present but not overpowering. Do you have time to share?

**ragman1** · 10-26-2021, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by TOMMO

Beautiful! Question is: is that still the tune? Or does it become something entirely different by changing the tempo so drastically?

Good question. I suppose it depends what you mean by the tune. It's not the tune as in the actual melody - how many solos are? - but the changes are the same. Nor was I playing off the melody. Nor was I really imitating the syncopation in the melody. On the other hand, I put the melody in at the end. Did you get that far?

The question then would be: does what had been played previously contradict the melody? Does the ear say 'where did that come from?!'. Personally, I don't think it does but I don't know if you'd agree.

**TOMMO** · 10-27-2021, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by ragman1

Good question. I suppose it depends what you mean by the tune. It's not the tune as in the actual melody - how many solos are? - but the changes are the same. Nor was I playing off the melody. Nor was I really imitating the syncopation in the melody. On the other hand, I put the melody in at the end. Did you get that far?

The question then would be: does what had been played previously contradict the melody? Does the ear say 'where did that come from?!'. Personally, I don't think it does but I don't know if you'd agree.

(Disclaimer: no criticism of your playing here)
Yes - I did listen to the end and heard the melody there. If I didn't know it is meant to be a certain tune it would strike me more as a melodic quote. Same chord progression doesn't mean much as we all know.

**ragman1** · 10-27-2021, 03:39 AM

Originally Posted by TOMMO

(Disclaimer: no criticism of your playing here)

Oh, be as critical as you like, I don't care!

Yes - I did listen to the end and heard the melody there. If I didn't know it is meant to be a certain tune it would strike me more as a melodic quote. Same chord progression doesn't mean much as we all know.

Maybe what you're saying is the melody ought to come at the start every time. You might have a point there. To be honest, I think it was simply that we all know the tune by now and it gets boring churning it out every time. So I left it out and just got on with the improv.

If I can say so, don't forget I've done three versions here now. The first one was fairly quick (for me) in F, the second was medium in C, and this one, slow, in Eb. And they were all done with different harmonies, none were the same.

The first didn't have a head at all, the second one had the head both ends, and this one only has it at the end.

You can't say I'm not trying!