Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Posts 51 to 100 of 102
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
    The guys I know that work the most, their business savvy mostly transcends their mediocre musical skills.
    ha I know some guys like that. The best of them know this about themselves.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    I could never have been a professional musician, or even a good jazz musician. I'm not interested in the job, too many material and relational difficulties. The world of musicians does not attract me, too much dishonest competition, too many men (not enough women). And I'm not interested in pedagogy either, or at least I wouldn't want to be a teacher. I am not interested in the art trade, whether in painting, literature or music. I made a living differently, and I never sold my artwork

    When I take the guitar, to play or compose, there is 100% music, no others problems. I know it's stupid, I have virtually no audience, but I don't care

    So I have a lot of respect for the vast majority of jazz musicians. They are proletarians of music. In movies, commercials... you never see their name written, while all the technicians are on the credits. It's theft! and lack of the most basic respect. To live, most are forced to play music they don't necessarily like: where is the pleasure of creation?

    How many standards do I know? Maybe 50. It's really not enough. In France, I don't see the reason to play only American tunes, but jazz musicians do mostly that
    Last edited by Patlotch; 01-26-2020 at 07:23 AM.

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Patlotch
    I could never have been a professional musician, or even a good jazz musician. I'm not interested in the job, too many material and relational difficulties. The world of musicians does not attract me, too much dishonest competition, too many men (not enough women). And I'm not interested in pedagogy either, or at least I wouldn't want to be a teacher. I am not interested in the art trade, whether in painting, literature or music. I made a living differently, and I never sold my artwork

    When I take the guitar, to play or compose, there is 100% music, no others problems. I know it's stupid, I have virtually no audience, but I don't care

    So I have a lot of respect for the vast majority of jazz musicians. They are proletarians of music. In movies, commercials... you never see their name written, while all the technicians are on the credits. It's theft! and lack of the most basic respect. To live, most are forced to play music they don't necessarily like: where is the pleasure of creation?

    How many standards do I know? Maybe 50. It's really not enough. In France, I don't see the reason to play only American tunes, but jazz musicians do mostly that
    true

    you know that our art isn’t even recognised by law, right? cant copyright a solo....

    (btw if anyone knows the pianist who plays that beautiful solo on Rene Fleming’s version of You’ll Never Know from the Shape of Water, please let me know )

    anyway, there are, to a high degree of precision, no full time professional jazz musicians. There’s maybe a few tens of people worldwide.

    The profession in the UK is largely people getting grants from the Arts Council for tours. That’s why the scene is focussed around projects and originals. And Ronnies pays Ok, like clubs in the Village that’s tourism right?

    in NYC I can’t see how anyone makes a living. A town more expensive than London that pays worse for gigs and you likely aren’t even the best jazz guitarist in your apartment building. That’s why you go there right?

    I understand there are trust fund babies and those with day jobs. I suppose you as an American can tour Europe and teach for extra cash, though I suspect that’s not open to everyone. (It wasn’t simple for David B to book Pasquale Grasso in London, the promoters need convincing. Now they love him of course, not just because he’s amazing but because crucially he sold out his dates.)

    Certainly doesn’t sound that the continent is any better...

    other than that it’s teaching, sessions, pit band work, pop stuff....

    So the amateur/pro distinction is kind of nonexistent. Actually this is one thing that drew me to jazz.... it’s very honest! We are all amateurs in the truest sense.

    The classical world on the other hand which was what I was working towards as a singer is just horrendous. I hate it.
    Last edited by christianm77; 01-26-2020 at 08:51 AM.

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    true
    in NYC I can’t see how anyone makes a living. A town more expensive than London that pays worse for gigs and you likely aren’t even the best jazz guitarist in your apartment building. That’s why you go there right?
    That's a good line! "I moved to a 4-plex, so now I'm one of the top players in my building ...". LOL!

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    ... the top players in my building ...
    building your jazz audience

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    An article by Hal Galper, "How To Learn A Tune."

    How To Learn A Tune | Hal Galper

    "...only after you’ve learned 1,000 tunes do you realize that there are really only about 20 song forms and every tune is a combination of segments of these 20 forms. This overview made it easier to learn (internalize) any new tune."

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    So the amateur/pro distinction is kind of nonexistent. Actually this is one thing that drew me to jazz.... it’s very honest! We are all amateurs in the truest sense.
    It really is. I must say, back in the day on rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz, this was always a big topic of discussion, and people made a big deal about pro/vs non-pros and what kind of gigs pros take in places and how you'd never find Jesse Van Ruller playing in a pizza shop because jazz musicians are treated better than that in Europe and anyways real pros don't teach and blah blah blah. I'm glad that kind of discussion seems to be over.

    It does feel like the playing field has been leveled a lot and honestly, today jazz musicians are much more humble now than they were back when I first moved to NYC in 2000. Some of that was just everyone in my circles being young people, but in many ways I think the scene is a bit healthier now.

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    ha I know some guys like that. The best of them know this about themselves.
    Even some of the people I think are the best players, don't think of themselves that way. Mike Moreno mentioned a while back in an interview that he never thought he was the best player in his peer group, guys like Stefan Schwartz were around and playing their ass off (I heard stories about this guy for years, unfortunately he passed away very young).

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
    An article by Hal Galper, "How To Learn A Tune."

    How To Learn A Tune | Hal Galper

    "...only after you’ve learned 1,000 tunes do you realize that there are really only about 20 song forms and every tune is a combination of segments of these 20 forms. This overview made it easier to learn (internalize) any new tune."
    I don't think he means to say you can figure out the 20 forms and suddenly know the 1000 tunes.

    If you've been successful at learning 1000 tunes, you've got a trained ear, good musical memory and the ability to instantly play what you hear in your mind.

    I'm a fan of Hal G. but I don't get this idea of, for example, "knowing where" the tonic chords are. That implies some sort of linguistic analysis. But that's not how a non-musician can sing a pop tune. No language involved. It's not how you learn melody. You just hear the sounds in your mind. You can hear the chords too -- even if you don't know them, you can tell if somebody plays the wrong one. And, the key, it seems to me, is training your ear well enough that your fingers go to the right place. My belief is, that if you have to think in bandstand shorthand, you aren't likely ever to learn 1000 tunes. Sure, you can easily memorize a tune like Autumn Leaves by remember (251 alternating major and minor), but you can't easily memorize Stella that way and I doubt that anybody who knows 1000 tunes has a linguistic formula for each one.
    Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 01-26-2020 at 05:44 PM.

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    I don't think he means to say you can figure out the 20 forms and suddenly know the 1000 tunes.

    If you've been successful at learning 1000 tunes, you've got a trained ear, good musical memory and the ability to instantly play what you hear in your mind.

    I'm a fan of Hal G. but I don't get this idea of, for example, "knowing where" the tonic chords are. That implies some sort of linguistic analysis. But that's not how a non-musician can sing a pop tune. No language involved. It's not how you learn melody. You just hear the sounds in your mind. You can hear the chords too -- even if you don't know them, you can tell if somebody plays the wrong one. And, the key, it seems to me, is training your ear well enough that your fingers go to the right place. My belief is, that if you have to think in bandstand shorthand, you aren't likely ever to learn 1000 tunes. Sure, you can easily memorize a tune like Autumn Leaves by remember (251 alternating major and minor), but you can't easily memorize Stella that way and I doubt that anybody who knows 1000 tunes has a linguistic formula for each one.
    how do you know?

    tbh A lot of the questions that people ask here about progressions are usually answerable from the perspective of ‘well it’s not that weird there’s X tunes that do the same thing’

    really I think hal g is on the money, based on how it’s gone so far.

    btw weirdest thing about Stella is the form. Harmony is straightforward.

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    btw weirdest thing about Stella is the form. Harmony is straightforward.
    Yes, that's right. Interesting also, the melody uses a lot of 11th, 9th, 7th, and this at the beginning of the bar. I don't think his composer needed to borrow that from the boppers... One could imagine a much simpler harmony, without using the superstructure of chords or substitutions

    we speak of "jazz harmony", but most standards were not composed by Jazzmen, and not played first by jazz orchestras

    Stella is from 1944, by Victor Young for the music of the film


    what made the success of jazz until the 50s is that the tunes played by jazzmen were already known to the general public, a characteristic that disappeared in the 60s and 70s

    today, it may be poorly considered that Jazzmen plays pop songs but in reality, it is very difficult for an audience to appreciate what has not referenced for him (cf topic Gig solo ...)

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    Yeah, right? It’s romantic harmony, Rachmaninov. They’re leaning notes. Mostly diatonic neighbours iirc, Bach used that stuff actually...

    Think Mahlers Adagietto. It’s a Fmaj7 chord... oh.

    This is the vid I did about the tune



    jazz harmony largely was romantic harmony up until maybe the 40s ... check out Matt Munisteri... it’s all 19th century shit really. Which is not to say it isn’t gorgeous (and not to say that soloist didn’t play jazz notes over the top of it)

    and you see this stuff all the time in big band charts.... Fancy modern chords resolving to simpler ones, chromatic lines through the voice leading etc etc

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Btw that iim11 thing... one of the first things I notice about standards.

    oh it’s a suspended V7

    oh hai Barry harris

    man, looking at tunes deeply is the only way. They have a way of teaching you. You aren’t going to get this from a harmony text. It might have all the info (or not) but it’s just dry, unmemorable facts with no context. Dungeons and dragons manuals or something. Like that thing I just said, just fairy stories till you get into it

    same with solos.

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    how do you know?

    btw weirdest thing about Stella is the form. Harmony is straightforward.
    What is the bandstand shorthand for Stella? I'd argue that it's too complicated for most people to utilize. So, what makes the harmony "straightforward" or, better yet, possible to remember? Is Hal G. really remembering where the tonics are in that tune? More likely, it seems to me, he remembers the sound of it in the same way any of us remember Home on the Range and he finds the right notes based on a well trained ear and the ability to play whatever is in his mind. How do I know? Logic, some discussions with other players and watching masters at work. I've never asked Hal G.

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    regarding Stella by Starlight, it is still difficult to say that harmony is 'simple'. And first of all, what harmony? Victor Young's Soundtrack? The one in the song with the lyrics? The one for jazz? Keih Jarreth's re-harmonization? See these four versions p.84 and their analysis here in Keith Jarrett’s Art of Solo Introduction: “Stella by Starlight” – A Case Study

    on the contrary, the analysis is not simple because harmony is not functional everywhere

    there is no denying the originality of this score from the very beginning in Victor Young, its mysterious character that makes this theme one of the most original and attractive of the standards's repertoire. Of course, there is such originality among the great American composers in relation to their romantic inspirations of the 19th century, not to mention the influence of the blues which is the dimension that most upsets the Western tonality (I'm not talking here about Stella but by ex Gerschwin) with the reciprocal influence of jazz and early 20th century composers, Debussy, Ravel (blue notes in L'enfant et les sortilèges 1919-1925) etc. and back upon Ellington from the 1930s. Cole Porter studies in Paris with Vincent d'Indy... it's not all very "romantic harmony"...

    when I was playing and improvising on Stella by Starlight, frankly, I went by ear, without going out of Bb by adding here or there, or removing the notes that correspond to the chords 'out'. That's how I felt the freest

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    Stella is still a damn special tune. Always will be.

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    What is the bandstand shorthand for Stella? I'd argue that it's too complicated for most people to utilize. So, what makes the harmony "straightforward" or, better yet, possible to remember? Is Hal G. really remembering where the tonics are in that tune? More likely, it seems to me, he remembers the sound of it in the same way any of us remember Home on the Range and he finds the right notes based on a well trained ear and the ability to play whatever is in his mind. How do I know? Logic, some discussions with other players and watching masters at work. I've never asked Hal G.
    yeah like the first few bars are

    biiio7 V7 I7 IV IVm I and so on

    then it goes to iiim, backdoor to V then around to relative minor sitting on the III7 for a bit. Then back to I via a backdoor and the last few bars are back to the biiio7 and turnaround back to I

    as I say it’s the unusual through composed structure of Stella which makes it hard to summarise, not the harmony. If you aren’t sure what I’m on about, check out the original changes and then compare to the jazz subs. Which of course is one of the best ways to learn about jazz harmony, comparing different versions of tunes....

    I think it’s easy to underestimate how many tunes a 1000 tunes is. Try writing out your repertoire on a spreadsheet or something and see how much a 1000 is. Hopefully you can see why it’s going to cover pretty much all the bases ... apart from the odd Holdsworth tune or whatever.

    not sure why you are trying to dispute this lol but I assure you it’s a total waste of both of our times. Time that could be spent learning more tunes :-)

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    Stella is still a damn special tune. Always will be.
    Music is about much more than whether the harmony is ‘interesting’ - music is a language. With all tunes a summary of the harmony gives no indication of whether a song is any good or not.

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Patlotch
    regarding Stella by Starlight, it is still difficult to say that harmony is 'simple'. And first of all, what harmony? Victor Young's Soundtrack? The one in the song with the lyrics? The one for jazz? Keih Jarreth's re-harmonization? See these four versions p.84 and their analysis here in Keith Jarrett’s Art of Solo Introduction: “Stella by Starlight” – A Case Study

    on the contrary, the analysis is not simple because harmony is not functional everywhere

    there is no denying the originality of this score from the very beginning in Victor Young, its mysterious character that makes this theme one of the most original and attractive of the standards's repertoire. Of course, there is such originality among the great American composers in relation to their romantic inspirations of the 19th century, not to mention the influence of the blues which is the dimension that most upsets the Western tonality (I'm not talking here about Stella but by ex Gerschwin) with the reciprocal influence of jazz and early 20th century composers, Debussy, Ravel (blue notes in L'enfant et les sortilèges 1919-1925) etc. and back upon Ellington from the 1930s. Cole Porter studies in Paris with Vincent d'Indy... it's not all very "romantic harmony"...

    when I was playing and improvising on Stella by Starlight, frankly, I went by ear, without going out of Bb by adding here or there, or removing the notes that correspond to the chords 'out'. That's how I felt the freest
    we are getting into the weeds here a bit. Stella is of course not ‘simple’ but it is ‘straightforward’ in a way that a Wayne Shorter tune might not be if you understand functional harmony well and know the original changes (the jazz changes disguise things a bit.)

    it dips in and out of near keys with borrowed minor key harmony that would have been familiar to Brahms and the use of the dim7 is typical for the music of the time except that it *starts* on a dim7, which is highly unusual.

    The melody in the Bb major scale with two accidentals

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    Here's one version of the simple changes in G.

    [ F#7 | F#7 | D7sus | D7 |

    | Dm7 | G7 | C | Cm |

    | G | F#7 | Bm | Gm7 C7 |

    | D | Em7 A7 | F#m7b5 | B7 |

    || E7+ | E7+ | Am | Am |

    | Cm | Cm | G | G |

    | F#7 | F#7 | Bm7b5 | E7 |

    | Am7b5 | D7 | G | G |

    So, it's the structure, not the harmony that's not straightforward? I'm not clear what that means. We were discussing memorization.

    How do people memorize Stella in a way that permits playing it readily in any key?

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    Here's one version of the simple changes in G.

    [ F#7 | F#7 | D7sus | D7 |

    | Dm7 | G7 | C | Cm |

    | G | F#7 | Bm | Gm7 C7 |

    | D | Em7 A7 | F#m7b5 | B7 |

    || E7+ | E7+ | Am | Am |

    | Cm | Cm | G | G |

    | F#7 | F#7 | Bm7b5 | E7 |

    | Am7b5 | D7 | G | G |

    So, it's the structure, not the harmony that's not straightforward? I'm not clear what that means. We were discussing memorization.

    How do people memorize Stella in a way that permits playing it readily in any key?
    these are the original changes iirc

    Stella_by_starlight_melodic_progression_original.pdf

    (Jordan’s chart hope he doesn’t mind)

    your changes have the correct original key (G) but this has it in Miles’s key (Bb) as it’s easier to compare it to the familiar Real Book changes.

    we can quibble about the inversion of the first chord, Peter Bernstein thinks about it as a Dbo7 - ie a biiio7, as does Jordan but others have Eo7

    If genuinely interested in my thoughts on the tune you also you could also watch the video I posted above which talks about the tune in depth.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    Stella By Starlight Original Changes.pdf

    this I think is closer to the original

    if take a careful look you can see that your chart and the RB one and Jordan’s all relate, but the original has a lot less ii v movement, more dim7s and a lot of specific bass line movement.

    may remind you more of Bossa harmony?

    Also I might’ve hearing things but I’ve heard some versions that go

    Eo7 | % | Bb/F | G7 |
    Cm7b5 | F7b9 | Bb | % |

    in the last 8
    Last edited by christianm77; 01-27-2020 at 07:31 AM.

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    None of which address directly your question rpjazzguitar, so indulge me another, long, post. This is a subject that interests me.

    We know that it's much easier to memorise words than random characters. So 'giraffe shed balloon' is easier to remember than 'a;fgkqs;dogiqwgh' and a meaningful sentence such as 'the quick brown fox' is easier to remember still (but often we may forget the exact wording but retain meaning of the words.)

    The original changes of Stella represent musical words that make sense to me. So easier to remember. There are a few changes there that are a little unfamiliar to modern jazz players so you might see them 'modernised' a little such as in Jordan's chart where we have less in the way of specified basslines, and more ii V's, which I still wouldn't quite call a reharmonisation like I would the standard Real Book jazz changes. The meaning is retained, some of the wording is changed, if you like.

    Stella is quite a bit harder to memorise than say, Exactly Like You. Remember that these tunes (Stella, ATTYA, Have You Met Miss Jones etc) were played a lot by jazzers because they were unusual, not because they were typical. In fact, jazz education kind of teaches these unusual tunes first.

    The RB changes can seem obscure because they are a reharm of depending on which chart you like, #ivo7 V7 or biiio7 iim7 V7. However take to the bank the idea that #IVm7b5 VII7b9 IIm7 V7 can be used as a sub for both of these, and you've learned something pretty useful.

    That's (in terms of the progressions) the process as I see it. You build up your own map of how exactly it operates. But here's the thing. I don't know 1000 tunes. I know maybe 350 at best. But that's enough to appreciate how it has helped me.

    So some patterns jump out when you learn your first 50 or whatever... II V I's of course, but also backdoors, the IV #IVo7 I, and so on.

    But some patterns take longer.

    Some people might think Just Friends is unusual for starting on IV. It's not that unusual, because Stardust, Moonglow, After You've Gone do the same, just to mention three, but you might not know those tunes if just learn the 50 most common jam tunes, because these are more vocal standards.


    • biiio7 iim7 V7 actually shows up in ATTYA, but if you don't know some juicy pre war standards like Embraceable You, Pennies, Can't Give You Anything But Love.
    • Or the modulation to V which we see in a lot of pre war tunes. Embraceable You, one example.
    • Or the modulation to III major might seem out there, Coltranesque, until you've learned If I Were a Bell, I'm Old Fashioned, Shiny Stockings, Tangerine and How About You.
    • How about II7 IVm6 I? Also seen as #IVm7b5 IVm6 IIIm7? Learn only Night and Day and it might seem weird. It's not. Just One of Those Things, A Smooth One, Djangology, some versions of Embraceable You (AGAIN! there's a reason why people think of that tune as a Rosetta Stone of standard harmony) and so on and so forth.
    • II7 I? Think that's weird, you guessed it, need to learn more tunes. (Also you guessed it Embraceable yYou does that, sneaky wee tune)


    So there you go - and that's off the back of a 1/3 of the tunes I'm meant to know. So I can only imagine the patterns I would learn when I get up to 1K....

    The best thing about this process is how holistic it is. You train your ears, your ability to play melodies, your knowledge of voicing (to play chord melodies), your knowledge of vocabulary, language and norms within the music, your ability to play changes and so on and so on. Best of all you have something to play on gigs.

    In that sense, do you have time to practice anything else? I mean not knocking exercises, but that's what you practice to help you play music, right?

    But here's another thing - I don't actually want to lecture people about jazz standards, or the GASB songbook and I don't want to be a dick about the 1,000 tunes thing. I mean, I find it daunting. But you have to learn one tune at a time, and for me that has to be a tune I heard someone play and went 'oh that's great, I have to learn that one.' I know you love Brazilian music for instance, so maybe most of your 1,000 ends up being Brazilian tunes. It really doesn't matter.

    But my beef with jazz edu is that everyone becomes results oriented. The big repertoires of working musicians are emergent from the requirements of their gigs. I know quite a few Dixieland and Trad tunes - I find them actually pretty helpful for understanding later tunes, but that's not why I learned them. You do a gig with a new person, and don't know four tunes, maybe. When you get the second call and have learned them, looks good, and you get future calls. So that number builds up...

    Being gatekeepers of the jazz tradition is a reflection of the fact that jazz is deeply insecure about its cultural position and needs there to be 'keepers of the flame.' When Jaco Pastorius first sat in at his first jazz gig, he didn't know ATTYA, but he was able to play the &*^$ out of it when it was called. And you can bet he knew all the soul, funk and Motown stuff...

    But there are many great musicians in the world who don't know 1,000 jazz standards. But they all engage with music... If you don't have a huge repertoire you might be a great reader for instance, or have great lugs. Or both.
    Last edited by christianm77; 01-27-2020 at 08:47 AM.

  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    See also - "why do guitarists never practice the music they are going to play on gigs?"

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    [QUOTE=rpjazzguitar;1004056]I don't think he means to say you can figure out the 20 forms and suddenly know the 1000 tunes.
    /QUOTE]

    Granted. He (Hal Galper) is clear about that. Which is why he says it is only after learning 1000 tunes that you realize....

    Mind you, it may not be necessary to learn 1000 tunes. Consider: we know pf professional jazz musicians who work at a high level but don't actually know 1000 tunes. It's worth pondering how SMALL the repertoire is of some great players---20 or so tunes that they play for decades. (Think of how common it is for a jazz set to contain only a half-dozen tunes, maybe less, played for 5-10 minutes each.) I think this works almost the opposite way of knowing a lot of tunes: one tune (maybe two) of each type one focuses on, explored deeply over a long, long time. And no taking of requests...

    Jazz is a long way from a piano player in a bordello being expected to play whatever the paying customers asked to hear.

    Some players know a lot of tunes. Jimmy Bruno is one. Frank Vignola is another. Peter Bernstein has already been mentioned in this regard. I think the more interested a player is in his own improv, the less need he (or she) has for vast rep because there isn't a vast set of vehicles for improv. The more one is interested in making the tune sing, the more tunes is apt to know. (If one is playing solo chord melody, one needs to know a lot of tunes, but even there, if you can play a few solo choruses--Tim Lerch is great at this---you are building sets of tunes that last 5 minutes instead of 90 seconds, so you don't need to know as many. You can focus on good ones you have a feeling for.)

  27. #76

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
    I think the more interested a player is in his own improv, the less need he (or she) has for vast rep because there isn't a vast set of vehicles for improv.
    I also think that jazzmen (and women) who compose tend to favour their own compositions, and even more so if they have their own orchestra. When I played in a group, our repertoire was 75% my compositions, and a mix of standards, bossa-nova ... Personally, being an amateur, I had more than enough work with this list. Today, i am less and less interested in standards, or to divert them frankly

    this is especially the case of the leaders of Big Bands (Basie, Duke, Gil Evans ...) but also whenever the repertoire has to be renewed (bebop, cool ... 1960s Bill Evans, Coltrane...), it's becoming new standards, to be constantly renewed

    what you say about the need to focus on some standards that we want to play seems true to me
    Last edited by Patlotch; 01-27-2020 at 08:57 PM.

  28. #77

    User Info Menu

    [QUOTE=MarkRhodes;1004246]
    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    I don't think he means to say you can figure out the 20 forms and suddenly know the 1000 tunes.
    /QUOTE]

    Granted. He (Hal Galper) is clear about that. Which is why he says it is only after learning 1000 tunes that you realize....

    Mind you, it may not be necessary to learn 1000 tunes. Consider: we know pf professional jazz musicians who work at a high level but don't actually know 1000 tunes. It's worth pondering how SMALL the repertoire is of some great players---20 or so tunes that they play for decades. (Think of how common it is for a jazz set to contain only a half-dozen tunes, maybe less, played for 5-10 minutes each.) I think this works almost the opposite way of knowing a lot of tunes: one tune (maybe two) of each type one focuses on, explored deeply over a long, long time. And no taking of requests...

    Jazz is a long way from a piano player in a bordello being expected to play whatever the paying customers asked to hear.

    Some players know a lot of tunes. Jimmy Bruno is one. Frank Vignola is another. Peter Bernstein has already been mentioned in this regard. I think the more interested a player is in his own improv, the less need he (or she) has for vast rep because there isn't a vast set of vehicles for improv. The more one is interested in making the tune sing, the more tunes is apt to know. (If one is playing solo chord melody, one needs to know a lot of tunes, but even there, if you can play a few solo choruses--Tim Lerch is great at this---you are building sets of tunes that last 5 minutes instead of 90 seconds, so you don't need to know as many. You can focus on good ones you have a feeling for.)
    i think you are confusing total repertoire with working repertoire. Whatever band you are doing you are going to play a core rep of tunes night after night. Same if you build a solo set.

    Working rep is always in flux. For me in terms of standards gigs it’s about 10 or so tunes at any one time. The stuff that you might call on a gig if asked. Plus the stuff I learn for projects. but you can call the other ones.

    Again if you do enough gigs where it’s expected to learn the tunes, it builds up. Plus, you know, maybe you actually like music and want to learn some of it for fun from time to time. Dunno, call me crazy.

    its worth repeating - I play with some mega players with a fairly small rep of standards. But in general they have great reading.

  29. #78

    User Info Menu

    [QUOTE=Patlotch;1004252]
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
    I also think that jazzmen (and women) who compose tend to favour their own compositions, and even more so if they have their own orchestra. When I played in a group, our repertoire was 75% my compositions, and a mix of standards, bossa-nova ... Personally, being an amateur, I had more than enough work with this list. Today, i am less and less interested in standards, or to divert them frankly

    this is especially the case of the leaders of Big Bands (Basie, Duke, Gil Evans ...) but also whenever the repertoire has to be renewed (bebop, cool ... 1960s Bill Evans, Coltrane...), it's becoming new standards, to be constantly renewed

    what you say about the need to focus on some standards that we want to play seems true to me
    i think this is a false dichotomy. There’s a spectrum.

    but all of the ‘greats’ that everyone seems to imagine existed on marble plinth playing a Love Supreme or whatever did functions gigs and dances.

    Seriously. I know a guy whose wife was at a party in NYC in the 60s where the function band was the John Coltrane quartet. (And of course you can go and check then out backing Johnny Hartman etc.)

    working musicians ....

  30. #79

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    None of which address directly your question rpjazzguitar, so indulge me another, long, post. This is a subject that interests me.
    The horse is long dead, but ....

    I reacted to this from Galper:

    "Learn the key. 2. Learn the meter. 4. Learn the length. 5. Learn the form. (AABA, ABA, etc.) 6. Learn the harmonic form. Where are the I chords, major and minor? Once you have the I chords you know that every I chord is preceded by it's appropriate II-V. 7. Learn the first chord of every section. (AABA) Is it a I, II, or V chord? 8. Since the melody fits the chords, at this point you should have enough info to begin learning the most difficult and complex part of a tune, the melody. It must be learned by rote. No short-cuts."

    I don't think this is how the 1000-tunes guys do it. I think they memorize tunes the same way anybody who can sing a song does. You know what it sounds like and can reproduce it with no conscious thought. The 1000-tunes guys start there -- and to that, add the ability to automatically find the notes, chords and melody on the instrument.

    I don't know exactly what Hal G meant by "where are the I chords", but I do know this. For the tunes I know backwards and forwards, I'd still have to think about how to answer that question. Unless he meant intuitively or unconsciously, in which case I couldn't answer it anyway.

    So, it's by sound and you learn to connect those sounds to the notes on the instruments in exactly the way you said, Christian. You learn it from one, or more, tunes and hear it and apply in a new one. By sound.

  31. #80

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    i think this is a false dichotomy. There’s a spectrum. But all of the ‘greats’ that everyone seems to imagine existed on marble plinth playing a Love Supreme or whatever did functions gigs and dances. [...] Seriously. Working musicians ....
    Yes, It's a dichotomy for professional musicians, and certainly this topic is about 'Greats', but you have to compare what is comparable, the situation and objectives of the musicians, as musicians and creators, are very diverse. I'm also talking about the situation of little-known groups, often amateurs, and who play their own repertoire, and this for fun and the creation of things New. They exist. Aren't they "Greats"? It doesn't matter: they're free!

    Thus, today, nothing obliges me to learn standards, most of them American, become unknown to the French public (it is no longer 1960, the world has changed, it is not only the USA...). My pleasure is to play my music and this for free. I will never be a slave to any audience or a merchant, who will ask me for music from 50 years ago played like 50 years ago

    When I played with my band in such situations, I was unhappy, and I did not adapt, I stopped doing what I did not like, a compromise unacceptable to me. I did painting, I wrote poetry. Would the notion of a "professional" painter mean that he is able to paint in the manner of Monet, Picasso, Chagall... according to the commercial demand? In this case, we are not talking about an artist-painter but a copyist, an imitator, or a forger. A poet, on the other hand, has no commercial demand, the market is zero, and if he responds to a request, he is no longer a poet. I was bored 42 hours a week in an office, but I practiced my art 60 hours a week. So I was still not a so called 'professional', but a free artist, not a proletarian of music or a merchant of myself

    I know that you are not insensitive to it, because you gave up a professional life of researchers to do what you liked, without perhaps measuring the difficulties or the price to pay. I myself stopped my engineer's studies: I didn't want to serve a boss...

    it seems to me that some people fantasize completely by referring to "the Greats" ones to know how to work, because the Greats ones had qualities that they will never have. It's also about being realistic. The point of having a good teacher face to face is to be able to optimize the talent of each student, according to his level and his goal, provided that the latter does not dream too much of becoming the future Guitar Hero. That he is a clear perception of what he is doing and what he is capable of doing. Some would play much better if they had more modest ambitions

    for the rest, I've always found you to give good advice, which is far from the case other "teachers" here. I appreciate your ethics of jazz pedagogy, and I think you feel a duty to come here despite the desire you sometimes have to leave this forum. Personally, since I came, paradoxically, I'm much less focused on my music and my work as a guitarist
    Last edited by Patlotch; 01-28-2020 at 02:51 AM.

  32. #81

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    The horse is long dead, but ....

    I reacted to this from Galper:

    "Learn the key. 2. Learn the meter. 4. Learn the length. 5. Learn the form. (AABA, ABA, etc.) 6. Learn the harmonic form. Where are the I chords, major and minor? Once you have the I chords you know that every I chord is preceded by it's appropriate II-V. 7. Learn the first chord of every section. (AABA) Is it a I, II, or V chord? 8. Since the melody fits the chords, at this point you should have enough info to begin learning the most difficult and complex part of a tune, the melody. It must be learned by rote. No short-cuts."

    I don't think this is how the 1000-tunes guys do it. I think they memorize tunes the same way anybody who can sing a song does. You know what it sounds like and can reproduce it with no conscious thought. The 1000-tunes guys start there -- and to that, add the ability to automatically find the notes, chords and melody on the instrument.

    I don't know exactly what Hal G meant by "where are the I chords", but I do know this. For the tunes I know backwards and forwards, I'd still have to think about how to answer that question. Unless he meant intuitively or unconsciously, in which case I couldn't answer it anyway.

    So, it's by sound and you learn to connect those sounds to the notes on the instruments in exactly the way you said, Christian. You learn it from one, or more, tunes and hear it and apply in a new one. By sound.
    thanks for the reply

    you know the more I learn about teaching the more I realise that it’s about knowing when not to teach. I think Galper is giving too much information on how to do it.

    after learning a few hundred my process is generally to listen to the song. First thing is form, then melody, trying to learn it intuitively by learning it as a song.

    from there i practice being able to reliably play the melody. This can be quite a long process. In general the more melodies I learn the better I get, but it can’t really be busked. I do have to properly practice it. I think everyone does.

    Once that’s done I sketch in a vanilla harmonisation, often working down from the melody. usually for GASB standards and similar this comes together very quickly. Like one pass, and very often I get this from listening to the song maybe just once, so I have to put that on hold while I take embarrassingly long to learn the melody.

    Often it’s almost like a simple solo arrangement, but I make sure I can vary it.

    then I check out the jazz discography of the tune. Sometimes I’ll take a deep dive into a Bill Evans harmonisation or something, but sometimes I’ll just be content to get it into playable condition and move on.

    I also carefully listen to the bass on recordings, because you know sometimes you might not have much difference between say IIm7b5, IVm6 and bVII7 for instance. My ear says ‘b6 type chord.’ But usually I intuit the inner voices quickly. That’s my job as a guitar botherer right? So of course I here it easier.

    Plus laptop speakers etc don’t give it to you strong so you have to check it out on headphones often...

    That’s easier than the bass and melody which is not my job quite so much.

    I might check out a few recordings. I’m not quite at the point of looking at the original sheet music, but I will listen to a legit version if available and

    I think as guitarist I have a similar outlook to Galper in that melody takes time. A lot of melodies I have to drill. But I think you do get better at busking them.

    melodies stick in the mind easier as aural memory. I’d rather rely on that then kinaesthetic or visual memory...

    But my process has naturally shifted. It might change again. I wonder if it will change again. And I could imagine horn players for instance spending their time on different things.

    And when you start out you are going to take much longer to learn the chords, and you’ll be necessarily much more bothered about the chord symbols etc because you haven’t developed that fluency in substitution: but stick with it and you will....

    i think the main thing is that people have a go. By ear is tbh easier. Aural memory seems persistent.
    Last edited by christianm77; 01-28-2020 at 10:59 AM.

  33. #82

    User Info Menu

    Ok on the subject of the I chords I think that’s an artefact of the specific way Galper views harmony. I’m more key centered. For instance I don’t think of the Eb in a Bb Cherokee as a separate key centre but within the key, and the Bb7 that goes into it as tonicisation of that diatonic chord. It sounds like Galper thinks of that Eb as a new key.

    maybe I’m wrong about that, but I think there is some variation in how many modulations jazz players might think there is in any given tune. I encountered the more modulatory analysis in some jazz education contexts and for me it’s like converting centigrade into Fahrenheit.

  34. #83

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Ok on the subject of the I chords I think that’s an artefact of the specific way Galper views harmony. I’m more key centered. For instance I don’t think of the Eb in a Bb Cherokee as a separate key centre but within the key, and the Bb7 that goes into it as tonicisation of that diatonic chord. It sounds like Galper thinks of that Eb as a new key.

    maybe I’m wrong about that, but I think there is some variation in how many modulations jazz players might think there is in any given tune. I encountered the more modulatory analysis in some jazz education contexts and for me it’s like converting centigrade into Fahrenheit.
    I am sort of in between. I see a lot more chords as belonging to a key, for example II7, iv minor, #iv half. I don't see that as borrowing or anything, it's just too common to consider it something special. For something like How high the moon I think "goes down in whole steps." For Body and soul I'll think "up a half step." So tunes modulate here and there to the IV, or V, or III, but the standards stay in a key more than people analyze.

  35. #84

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Patlotch
    Yes, It's a dichotomy for professional musicians, and certainly this topic is about 'Greats', but you have to compare what is comparable, the situation and objectives of the musicians, as musicians and creators, are very diverse. I'm also talking about the situation of little-known groups, often amateurs, and who play their own repertoire, and this for fun and the creation of things New. They exist. Aren't they "Greats"? It doesn't matter: they're free!

    Thus, today, nothing obliges me to learn standards, most of them American, become unknown to the French public (it is no longer 1960, the world has changed, it is not only the USA...). My pleasure is to play my music and this for free. I will never be a slave to any audience or a merchant, who will ask me for music from 50 years ago played like 50 years ago

    When I played with my band in such situations, I was unhappy, and I did not adapt, I stopped doing what I did not like, a compromise unacceptable to me. I did painting, I wrote poetry. Would the notion of a "professional" painter mean that he is able to paint in the manner of Monet, Picasso, Chagall... according to the commercial demand? In this case, we are not talking about an artist-painter but a copyist, an imitator, or a forger. A poet, on the other hand, has no commercial demand, the market is zero, and if he responds to a request, he is no longer a poet. I was bored 42 hours a week in an office, but I practiced my art 60 hours a week. So I was still not a so called 'professional', but a free artist, not a proletarian of music or a merchant of myself

    I know that you are not insensitive to it, because you gave up a professional life of researchers to do what you liked, without perhaps measuring the difficulties or the price to pay. I myself stopped my engineer's studies: I didn't want to serve a boss...

    it seems to me that some people fantasize completely by referring to "the Greats" ones to know how to work, because the Greats ones had qualities that they will never have. It's also about being realistic. The point of having a good teacher face to face is to be able to optimize the talent of each student, according to his level and his goal, provided that the latter does not dream too much of becoming the future Guitar Hero. That he is a clear perception of what he is doing and what he is capable of doing. Some would play much better if they had more modest ambitions

    for the rest, I've always found you to give good advice, which is far from the case other "teachers" here. I appreciate your ethics of jazz pedagogy, and I think you feel a duty to come here despite the desire you sometimes have to leave this forum. Personally, since I came, paradoxically, I'm much less focused on my music and my work as a guitarist
    thanks for your thoughtful response.

    i didn’t give up a life in research. I realised that a science career would require a phd which seemed like 4 years of swearing at a computer for no money. So I went and got a job where I could swear at a computer for money.

    many have this realisation.... but in terms of becoming a pro musician it seemed daunting/laughable until someone who was professional said ‘you are good enough to teach’ which was what I needed to hear. Because without any musicians in my family I had basically no idea of the sorts of things musicians do for money, and what skill set is required for that.

    Jazz still has something of a commercial existence as background music and this is really where the standards get used at least in my neck of the woods (that and jam sessions.)

    I actually really like playing background gigs. Playing pretty songs with good musicians and making a great atmosphere for people, I don’t have a problem. It’s not the sum total of what I enjoy in music but I think I like it a lot more than many of my colleagues haha.

    To me there’s something free about that. Sometimes when you do Jazz people expect something Clever and Intellectual. And in 13.

    theres the swing dance scene as well, but that tends to be a bit older rep, 20s-early 40s stuff. Not to say that that stuff doesn’t get played ever, but a lot of self styled modern players don’t know that Donna Lee is based on Indiana, let me put it that way.

    Beyond that I probably wouldn’t bother as there’s not much scope to play them really. There’s the tribute album scene in the UK but there’s not much in the way of players getting together and doing something of their own with a bunch of standards. Which is a shame, because for me that would be another kind of freedom.

    as far as free jazz goes - plenty of that about. I’m just not really interested in noises and textures. I think I like linguistic things. And groove. There’s probably a way to do that in free jazz but I’m not good enough. I like free bop .... Some of those players swing harder than the straightahead players tbh.

    anyway often when I do my own projects it’s like 2X45 minutes of my tunes. Which is cool.
    Last edited by christianm77; 01-28-2020 at 12:18 PM.

  36. #85

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by corpse
    I am sort of in between. I see a lot more chords as belonging to a key, for example II7, iv minor, #iv half. I don't see that as borrowing or anything, it's just too common to consider it something special. For something like How high the moon I think "goes down in whole steps." For Body and soul I'll think "up a half step." So tunes modulate here and there to the IV, or V, or III, but the standards stay in a key more than people analyze.
    I think we see it the same way. There used to be a guy here who studied with Bruce Arnold and everything was centric to one key. You’d audiate Giant Steps in B for instance.

  37. #86

    User Info Menu

    Not informed enough to comment on this too much but the pro vs famous guy dichotomy reminds me of the Backup singer documentary ("20 feet from stardom" or something like that). Mainly that the musical skills of the backup singers were often superior to the stars they were backing up. They didn't need time to focus on making some piece of art, they could show up and make beautiful music without any hassle.

    Same thing for the Motown guys. They were masterful at just coming up with something quick that was perfect and moving on. And for a long time, totally unrecognized.

    Which is not to say that the superstar people don't bring their own special thing, personality and creativity or a different way of looking at things.

    So the superstars who have a maybe smallish repetoire (Lee Konitz was mentioned recently as one of those) may not be able to do the same things the giggers who know 1000 tunes do. And definitely vice versa.

  38. #87

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by sully75
    Not informed enough to comment on this too much but the pro vs famous guy dichotomy reminds me of the Backup singer documentary ("20 feet from stardom" or something like that). Mainly that the musical skills of the backup singers were often superior to the stars they were backing up. They didn't need time to focus on making some piece of art, they could show up and make beautiful music without any hassle.

    Same thing for the Motown guys. They were masterful at just coming up with something quick that was perfect and moving on. And for a long time, totally unrecognized.

    Which is not to say that the superstar people don't bring their own special thing, personality and creativity or a different way of looking at things.

    So the superstars who have a maybe smallish repetoire (Lee Konitz was mentioned recently as one of those) may not be able to do the same things the giggers who know 1000 tunes do. And definitely vice versa.
    well I’m not sure. I only know one Tristano school guy who played with Konitz and Marsh back in the day and he knows as many tunes as anyone.

    tbh Konitz as you say can get away with it haha. I do wonder how true this is though. You can have a small working repertoire and still be able to pick up tunes real quick. And in that case what’s the functional difference?

    in practical terms Konitz can sell out playing Stella and ATTYA. They’d go to hear him play Twinkle Twinkle. Jobbing jazzers? Not so much. We have to have an angle.

  39. #88

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    well I’m not sure. I only know one Tristano school guy who played with Konitz and Marsh back in the day and he knows as many tunes as anyone.

    tbh Konitz as you say can get away with it haha. I do wonder how true this is though. You can have a small working repertoire and still be able to pick up tunes real quick. And in that case what’s the functional difference?
    I don't know I was just reading it somewhere the other day, maybe here. Something like Lee Konitz recorded 15 albums and 20 tunes. Said in jest but apparently his (recorded) repetoire was pretty small.

    Ok why am I not practicing right now.

  40. #89

    User Info Menu

    Ok just looking at a Lee Konitz greatest hits album with about 80 tunes so forget I said anything.

  41. #90

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by sully75
    I don't know I was just reading it somewhere the other day, maybe here. Something like Lee Konitz recorded 15 albums and 20 tunes. Said in jest but apparently his (recorded) repetoire was pretty small.

    Ok why am I not practicing right now.
    yeah I think it was Mark Rhodes who posted that. Have to ask him.

    tbh the Tristano students had a reputation for cultivating a small repertoire that they played to a high level. Part of this was having a repertoire of contrafacts over the top like Lennie’s Pennies and so on that could be very knotty.

    they still knew some tunes, which is more than can be said for a lot of students sadly.

  42. #91

    User Info Menu

    It's not so much about Konitz "not knowing" a lot of tunes, dude has had a 70 year career! So of course he knows more than 20 tunes.

    The concept here is that he revisits those tunes. The guy has been playing (and periodically recording) Body and Soul (just as an example) for 70 years. That's LIVING with a tune.

    I think it's important to do both really. Keep learning tunes and take ones you really like and do EVERYTHING with them.

  43. #92

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    thanks for your thoughtful response.

    i didn’t give up a life in research. I realised that a science career would require a phd which seemed like 4 years of swearing at a computer for no money. So I went and got a job where I could swear at a computer for money.

    many have this realisation.... but in terms of becoming a pro musician it seemed daunting/laughable until someone who was professional said ‘you are good enough to teach’ which was what I needed to hear. Because without any musicians in my family I had basically no idea of the sorts of things musicians do for money, and what skill set is required for that.

    Jazz still has something of a commercial existence as background music and this is really where the standards get used at least in my neck of the woods (that and jam sessions.)

    I actually really like playing background gigs. Playing pretty songs with good musicians and making a great atmosphere for people, I don’t have a problem. It’s not the sum total of what I enjoy in music but I think I like it a lot more than many of my colleagues haha.

    To me there’s something free about that. Sometimes when you do Jazz people expect something Clever and Intellectual. And in 13.

    theres the swing dance scene as well, but that tends to be a bit older rep, 20s-early 40s stuff. Not to say that that stuff doesn’t get played ever, but a lot of self styled modern players don’t know that Donna Lee is based on Indiana, let me put it that way.

    Beyond that I probably wouldn’t bother as there’s not much scope to play them really. There’s the tribute album scene in the UK but there’s not much in the way of players getting together and doing something of their own with a bunch of standards. Which is a shame, because for me that would be another kind of freedom.

    as far as free jazz goes - plenty of that about. I’m just not really interested in noises and textures. I think I like linguistic things. And groove. There’s probably a way to do that in free jazz but I’m not good enough. I like free bop .... Some of those players swing harder than the straightahead players tbh.

    anyway often when I do my own projects it’s like 2X45 minutes of my tunes. Which is cool.
    I'm so glad you're posting again. The thinking man's guitarist.

  44. #93

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    yeah I think it was Mark Rhodes who posted that. Have to ask him.
    The quote about Kontiz, said mostly in jest, was from Mark Stryker, author of 'Jazz from Detroit' (and a former sax player who seems to know every record by every post-war sax player ever). I posted it just by way of saying that once you become a bandleader of the 'Jazz Greats' caliber, you have the luxury of focusing on a smaller repertoire of your choosing. Didn't mean to imply that Konitz didn't know tunes beyond his core favorites.

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    I actually really like playing background gigs. Playing pretty songs with good musicians and making a great atmosphere for people, I don’t have a problem. It’s not the sum total of what I enjoy in music but I think I like it a lot more than many of my colleagues haha.
    We've all noticed how many audience members can be heard chatting away behind the Bill Evans trio on 'Sunday at the Village Vanguard' and the Jim Hall trio on 'Live!'. One person's background music can be another's transcendent art!

  45. #94

    User Info Menu

    LEE KONITZ with Richie Kamuca




    with Marshall Brown

    with Joe Henderson You Don't Know What Love Is

  46. #95

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Ok on the subject of the I chords I think that’s an artefact of the specific way Galper views harmony. I’m more key centered. For instance I don’t think of the Eb in a Bb Cherokee as a separate key centre but within the key, and the Bb7 that goes into it as tonicisation of that diatonic chord. It sounds like Galper thinks of that Eb as a new key.

    maybe I’m wrong about that, but I think there is some variation in how many modulations jazz players might think there is in any given tune. I encountered the more modulatory analysis in some jazz education contexts and for me it’s like converting centigrade into Fahrenheit.
    My typical process, fwiw, is this. The bands I play in mostly read arrangements. So, often it starts with a chart in a session. When I get home, if I want to learn the tune, I'll check out some recordings and pick one that strikes me somehow as definitive -- meaning, it's the one I have the chart for. I then listen to it a few times to the point where I start to internalize the melody. I then try to grasp the sound of the chords. How easy that is depends on the tune. At this point, it's hard for me to put the process into language. I start to hear something that tells me what chord is coming next. Maybe I could call it a guide tone line, but it's more idiosyncratic than that. For example, if there's a m7b5 chord with the melody note as the b3, I hear it instantly. Other devices, not so much. Some are obvious to me, some not and I still work on the ear training component. I think the suggestions to do it one tune at a time, starting, for example, with Bruce Forman's list (which covers a lot of harmonic devices) is a good idea.

    Cherokee is a good example. The melody makes the chord progression completely obvious to my ear. The only place I might have to think would be the first chord of the bridge. Since I can hear that melody in my mind, I can find a note or two from that and fill in the rest of the chord quickly enough to play the tune.

    Dolphin Dance, for example, is at the other extreme. I'm just not familiar enough with the sound of the transition from a chord to the next, in some cases. I could learn it by rote, but trying to do it by sound, so that next year I could play it instantly in a different key, well, that would be outside of my current skillset.
    Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 01-28-2020 at 03:20 PM.

  47. #96

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 44lombard
    The quote about Kontiz, said mostly in jest, was from Mark Stryker, author of 'Jazz from Detroit' (and a former sax player who seems to know every record by every post-war sax player ever). I posted it just by way of saying that once you become a bandleader of the 'Jazz Greats' caliber, you have the luxury of focusing on a smaller repertoire of your choosing. Didn't mean to imply that Konitz didn't know tunes beyond his core favorites.



    We've all noticed how many audience members can be heard chatting away behind the Bill Evans trio on 'Sunday at the Village Vanguard' and the Jim Hall trio on 'Live!'. One person's background music can be another's transcendent art!
    Paul Desmond with Ed Bickert on a live record I have. I’m really impressed with how they’ve captured the clink of the crockery on that one. Good engineer.

    Or the Minton’s tapes when people are just having conversations through the music next to the recorder. I actually kind of love it.

  48. #97

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    My typical process, fwiw, is this. The bands I play in mostly read arrangements. So, often it starts with a chart in a session. When I get home, if I want to learn the tune, I'll check out some recordings and pick one that strikes me somehow as definitive -- meaning, it's the one I have the chart for. I then listen to it a few times to the point where I start to internalize the melody. I then try to grasp the sound of the chords. How easy that is depends on the tune. At this point, it's hard for me to put the process into language. I start to hear something that tells me what chord is coming next. Maybe I could call it a guide tone line, but it's more idiosyncratic than that. For example, if there's a m7b5 chord with the melody note as the b3, I hear it instantly. Other devices, not so much. Some are obvious to me, some not and I still work on the ear training component. I think the suggestions to do it one tune at a time, starting, for example, with Bruce Forman's list (which covers a lot of harmonic devices) is a good idea.

    Cherokee is a good example. The melody makes the chord progression completely obvious to my ear. The only place I might have to thing would be the first chord of the bridge. Since I can hear that melody in my mind, I can find a note or two from that and fill in the rest of the chord quickly enough to play the tune.

    Dolphin Dance, for example, is at the other extreme. I'm just not familiar enough with the sound of the transition from a chord to the next, in some cases. I could learn it by rote, but trying to do it by sound, so that next year I could play it instantly in a different key, well, that would be outside of my current skillset.
    yeah so this is where we hit the snag no? and that’s where that depth of knowledge becomes important. Because at 1K tunes you don’t just know two or three of a certain composers tunes, you know albums of them..

    DD is obviously not entirely functional standards type harmony. Themore modern tunes have more diversity and are more composer specific. sure Cole Porter and Gershwin have stylistic ticks, but it’s more pronounced. Musical language becomes more personal as jazz musicians start to become more central to the repertoire. (I mean it’s not necessarily modern... Django had a pretty personal musical language, and Ellington obviously)

    So maybe if you sit down and learn 30 Herbie tunes + as part of your 1K you see/hear the patterns? Or maybe not. But you might not see it in Wayne or another composer of the same era.

    so..... I’m working through Wayne ATM there’s definitely things he likes to do.

    You can’t do it all, so your passions have to guide you.

  49. #98

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Patlotch
    LEE KONITZ with Richie Kamuca




    with Marshall Brown

    with Joe Henderson You Don't Know What Love Is
    nice I’ll listen to this later...

  50. #99

    User Info Menu

    Struttin with Some Barbeque is proper trad rep lol. Tickle toe is early Basie. I know both because of dance gigs.

    Just goes to show the modern guys liked old tunes... Pepper on Jazz Me Blues (Bix) is a classic:


  51. #100

    User Info Menu

    Raney killing it on Dinah.



    Trane and Adderly on Limehouse Blues... anyway you get the picture. Makes sense - those were the tunes they heard as kids...

    the straightahead guys I know wouldn’t know these tunes but would cock a snoot at you for not knowing Dolphin Dance.... there’s never a need to be a dick about rep, so long as we have something in common to play...