The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 85
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    Forget the waffle, this is how to play it!

    Why would you assume a YouTube transcription would be any more accurate?

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JCat
    Lead sheets are "wrong" most of the time and there are several reasons for that. Standard notation and chord symbols cannot provide a true representation of a recording. Most of the time we think of a recording as the "original" and we don't know what was scribbled on a paper napkin in the studio.

    We have no problems to accept that the "head" obviously have to be a simplified, stylized version of a melody that we will soulfully express with variation and enhance with improvisation.

    The problem is harmony. We hear that those chord symbols aren't right, but we don't know how to fix them. The standard defense mechanism is to claim that "anything goes", that "this is jazz and we could re-harmonize it anyway we want". This is when I call the Jazz police.

    The chief Inspector turns to us and speaks:

    You must not play the wrong chords. You have to listen to select recordings to get a grip on harmony. This is not an easy task. It takes years of practice. Maybe you think that's the job of the piano player? wrong! The band must be in agreement and have the same understanding of harmony. It's all about harmony! Use the correct chord symbols and understand that they are wrong most of the time in your lead sheets.
    All true, but I can’t help but feel all this makes it sound quite complicated when actually, it’s not complicated.

    just learn the melody by ear (maybe comparing a couple of sources to make educated decisions), check out the bass and the rest of it is pretty simple, just filling in middle voices to taste or by ear. You’ll know what the chord qualities are because you’ll be able to work it out simply from the melody most of the time.

    This actually saves time in my experience because you don’t have to ‘unpick stitches later’

    if a Parker head is a bit beyond you maybe work on something simpler first like a standard or a riff tune, until you gain enough confidence to attempt a bop head.

    Good starter heads are AABA tunes where the B is improvised (you can tell because these sections are taken solo); so you only have 9 or 10 bars of material to learn - Dewey Square, Segment, Scrapple are good choices. Blues tunes are not much harder.

    Then AABA’s with a composed bridge; Yardbird, Anthropology, Dexterity, and so on.

    Later you can attempt longer form through composed and ABAC heads like Confirmation, Donna Lee, Quasimodo, Hot House and so on.

    in my experience people will do anything to avoid starting on this, but once they get on it they feel empowered. Also in the early stages you’ll make a lot of mistakes and it’s OK; I’ve made plenty - my ears are pretty average I would say, but improving.

    At least they’ll be your mistakes.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 10-31-2021 at 05:11 AM.

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller

    just learn the melody by ear (maybe comparing a couple of sources to make educated decisions), check out the bass and the rest of it is pretty simple, just filling in middle voices to taste or by ear. You’ll know what the chord qualities are because you’ll be able to work it out simply from the melody most of the time.
    The melody doesn't always provide all the necessary information for the "right" harmony. Chord voicings, inversions for example are extremely important, sometimes critical with respect to the bass part.
    And sometimes the melody contains too much information, passing notes that are not really part of the structural harmony.

    The ability to "re-construct" harmony from a recording takes some practice. Not everyone is able to do that. Then, when we've found the notes, we have to assign a name to the chord and for that we need some theory. But the chord name doesn't necessarily tell us everything we need to know.

    The band has to negotiate and agree on the "right" harmony. It typically means we have to sit down and talk to make sure we play the same arrangement.

    Some people like simplified chord symbols; It makes it easier for everyone to play and it adds "freedom" for improvisation. I don't like simplified chord symbols. It's like "who cares?". Then I call the Jazz police.

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    it should be Em7. The function is the same it’s that the melody has a B in it so it can’t be Em7b5.
    All you should say (not can say which is a different port of trawlers of kettles of fish) is that the melody note does not accord with the chord tones. So what? - didn't Lee Konitz say you can play any note against any chord, it's just timing? (yes - though possibly it was Howard Roberts).

    And anyway...the very first note probably sets up a m9, the fartus in musica in a major chord. The point is, it sounds great to my ear. The tension with the Bnat is lovely against the ii chord and the minor cadence follows on from the tonic M7 beautifully. I think the intention was to have that chord progression, as it is VERY bebop and emotional and nostalgic. Music as an expression of emotion, not a hanging garden of linkages synthesising 'a musical experience'. IOW it is a sequence and not an isolated tone/chord harmony offence.

    Having said that, I expect someone who suffers from perfect pitch might find it unsatisfying.

    EDIT: This might help...How to Play from a Real Book

    For All Musicians

    Series: Real Book Series Format: Softcover Author: Robert Rawlins

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JCat
    The melody doesn't always provide all the necessary information for the "right" harmony.
    In bop it generally does. Not always in standards, true.

    Chord voicings, inversions for example are extremely important, sometimes critical with respect to the bass part.
    And sometimes the melody contains too much information, passing notes that are not really part of the structural harmony.
    Counterpoint, baby.

    The ability to "re-construct" harmony from a recording takes some practice. Not everyone is able to do that.
    No shit? The same is true of every aspect of music. So, you practice.

    Do you think I was born telling people off on Jgo? No. I worked very hard to be this pompous.

    You can compare what you think you hear with various charts, then it’s an active engagement with sources. I do that. Many times you’ll agree with the chart. Sometimes it’s hard to decide. Sometimes you’ll wonder what they were smoking and where you can get some.

    Its probably a better use of practice time than many things.

    Then, when we've found the notes, we have to assign a name to the chord and for that we need some theory. But the chord name doesn't necessarily tell us everything we need to know.

    The band has to negotiate and agree on the "right" harmony. It typically means we have to sit down and talk to make sure we play the same arrangement.

    Some people like simplified chord symbols; It makes it easier for everyone to play and it adds "freedom" for improvisation. I don't like simplified chord symbols. It's like "who cares?". Then I call the Jazz police.
    I AM THE LAW

    What’s appropriate tor a Fats Waller tune, or a Kenny Wheeler tune is different.

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller

    I AM THE LAW
    Jolly good sir, I'll slip an appropriate backhander into your palm

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    In bop it generally does. Not always in standards, true.



    Counterpoint, baby.



    No shit? The same is true of every aspect of music. So, you practice.

    Do you think I was born telling people off on Jgo? No. I worked very hard to be this pompous.

    You can compare what you think you hear with various charts, then it’s an active engagement with sources. I do that. Many times you’ll agree with the chart. Sometimes it’s hard to decide. Sometimes you’ll wonder what they were smoking and where you can get some.

    Its probably a better use of practice time than many things.



    I AM THE LAW

    What’s appropriate tor a Fats Waller tune, or a Kenny Wheeler tune is different.
    I have secretly suspected you were The Jazz Police all along. At last, in the plain light of day, you show your badge!

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Henry Martin, Charlie Parker: Composer at page 184, discusses Bird's mss for Si Si and BFA, both first recorded at the 8 Aug 1951 session with John Lewis on piano. Apparently the manuscript labelled SS is really BFA and vice versa. Re the SS ms (i.e. BFA) Martin observes (n.23), "In m.2, Parker neglects to cancel the sharp on the written C#" (i.e. B concert, which should be Bb concert).

    He continues in the text:

    "Perhaps the most interesting point regarding the two manuscript pages is that they include no chord changes. If they were straightforward blues tunes, then this would not be of great consequence, but 'Blues for Alice' and "Si Si' both use a chord cycle from 'Confirmation'. After the initial FM7 chord, the changes in all three tunes backtrack to Em7(b5) in the circle of fifths, then proceed forward in the cycle ... "

    Martin gives a figure comparing the lines and harmony in BFA and SS in which he notates the harmony at bar 2 as Em7-A7(b9) in BFA and Em7(b5)-A7 in SS.

    Just saying ...

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pcjazz
    Henry Martin, Charlie Parker: Composer at page 184, discusses Bird's mss for Si Si and BFA, both first recorded at the 8 Aug 1951 session with John Lewis on piano. Apparently the manuscript labelled SS is really BFA and vice versa. Re the SS ms (i.e. BFA) Martin observes (n.23), "In m.2, Parker neglects to cancel the sharp on the written C#" (i.e. B concert, which should be Bb concert).
    I'm not sure if I quite understand what you mean by this, as its very confusing - Parker wrote a concert B on the A7 in BFA?

    I suppose it shows Parker's main interest was in the melody and the accompanying chords were not so important to him - they could clash maybe.

    I mean, I'm sort of more interested in what he actually played, people make mistakes in charts and sometime the notes get changed during recording/rehearsal, but cool I guess?

    He continues in the text:

    "Perhaps the most interesting point regarding the two manuscript pages is that they include no chord changes. If they were straightforward blues tunes, then this would not be of great consequence, but 'Blues for Alice' and "Si Si' both use a chord cycle from 'Confirmation'. After the initial FM7 chord, the changes in all three tunes backtrack to Em7(b5) in the circle of fifths, then proceed forward in the cycle ... "

    Martin gives a figure comparing the lines and harmony in BFA and SS in which he notates the harmony at bar 2 as Em7-A7(b9) in BFA and Em7(b5)-A7 in SS.

    Just saying ...
    Yes. Sorry am I missing something?

    Anyway, here's a sort of marginal case, the tune Chi Chi, a lot of people seem to think this is a 'Swedish Blues' - so like BFA but in Ab. In fact, this is not what the pianist is comping to my ears


    The rest of the tune is very similar to BFA which is probably why... the form

    F | C7 | F | F7
    Bb7 | Bbm | Am | Abm
    Gm | C7 | F | Gm C7

    Is common for Parker , BFA is a small step away from that as your man says the only significant difference is the relative minor in bar 2-3. (An interrupted cadence in classical terminology, quite a churchy move actually, esp. if you go F C7 C#o7 Dm)

    F | A7 | Dm | F7
    Bb7 | Bbm | Am | Abm
    Gm | C7 | F | Gm C7

    Notice we are keeping the upper extensions of these chords totally open. Those would be specific to the particular head, or whatever soloing ideas you were using.

    These chords are simple because not all the changes you get in a RB chart for instance are expressed in the line (BTW it's a myth that bop players express all the chords), and in fact sometimes the line contradicts these types of changes. So Confirmation, second A is an interesting one as the notes in over the second bar would be F G Eb C#, which to me says 'A whole tone' (or A altered, but whole tone was very common back in the 40s) - in either case it's clearly an A7b5b13 vibe and the Eb is really prominent over the 'Em7b5' in the RB. Which is fun. I can't hear what the bass is doing there really, probably playing E, but who cares?

    So there's a philosophical problem here for the transcriber... do we write different chords for the first and second A's or do we accept the clash? I don't think that's as clear cut as the BFA example where there's no good reason to write Em7b5 in the chart. OTOH just writing F | A7 | Dm etc simple chords would probably not sound 'bop' enough for beginner-intermediates who need to be told what to play and are unused to making their own stylistic chord subs and movements. (Which is to say, those who are likely to be reading BFA, Confirmation and so on from a chart.)

    The rest of the backcycling chords that make up Em7 A7 Dm7 G7 Cm7 F7 etc - can be thought passing harmonies, but they are not the only option; mostly they are given by bassist, as is often the case with 'II V's' and so on. From the pianists perspective it's whether to go straight to the dominant or suspend it. Anyway, that's all Barry stuff. You could add in a Bb chord in bar one too if you wanted, for instance

    F Bb | Em A7 | Dm G7 | Cm F7

    Which is something you get with 'Seven Steps to Heaven' for instance. But it's just decoration really.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 11-01-2021 at 06:36 PM.

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    Re the B which "should be" Bb -- as I understand Martin, in the trumpet chart (which is what survives) Parker wrote a C# (accidental, sc. concert B) in the first half of the bar then neglected to cancel it in the second half so what was almost certainly intended as a trumpet C (sc. concert Bb) reads as C#. A mistake which I believe is corrected in the recording as released.

    As to the rest of it, Martin's claim that the heads to BFA, SS and Confirmation share the same harmony in that spot contradicts your analysis in the earlier post. Admittedly he undercuts his own claim by notating the heads to SS and BFA differently. But Parker didn't write out the chords to BFA and my ears can't quite make out what Lewis is playing on bar 2 of the head. so rather than say that Em7b5 is "wrong" and "should be" Em7 (or maybe Bm6) it might be better to say, as you do in your recent post but not in your earlier ones, that it clashes momentarily with the melody. If that's what Lewis played, as some of the transcribers seem to think, perhaps that's what he intended. Or maybe he was thinking of the other tune and made a mistake. Or not.

    OK, I have picked enough nits for this week and it's only Monday. I will return to playing shells and 6th-chords under these heads!

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pcjazz
    Re the B which "should be" Bb -- as I understand Martin, in the trumpet chart (which is what survives) Parker wrote a C# (accidental, sc. concert B) in the first half of the bar then neglected to cancel it in the second half so what was almost certainly intended as a trumpet C (sc. concert Bb) reads as C#. A mistake which I believe is corrected in the recording as released.

    As to the rest of it, Martin's claim that the heads to BFA, SS and Confirmation share the same harmony in that spot contradicts your analysis in the earlier post. Admittedly he undercuts his own claim by notating the heads to SS and BFA differently. But Parker didn't write out the chords to BFA and my ears can't quite make out what Lewis is playing on bar 2 of the head. so rather than say that Em7b5 is "wrong" and "should be" Em7 (or maybe Bm6) it might be better to say, as you do in your recent post but not in your earlier ones, that it clashes momentarily with the melody.
    Good grief. I know I'm verbose, but JGO is an endless pit of me making what I think a nuanced point, and then everyone piling in with some 'refutation' to whatever bullshit it is they thought I said. Ah, the internet. What a colossal waste of time. I'll try and be terse, these are my points, again:

    - Em7b5 is not congruent with what the melody is doing. Given the level of accuracy of the rest of the chart and how many mistakes are in the book in general I think it's reasonable to say it's just a typo, rather than a conscious decision based on some stylistic bop harmony.

    (Do you remember that old chart for Four, or the four missing bars in Desifinado? OMG, give me a break)

    - Generations of jazz students use(d) the 1st - 5th ed RB as a main source for learning tunes, mistakes and all.

    - For some reason, some people still use the 5th edition Real Book despite it being superseded by better sources for lead sheets. They are also often kind of defensive about it for some reason? (It's OK I went through that too.)

    (EDIT: Aebersold also has Em7b5 in the Omnibook. Again the Omnibook is kind of mistake-ridden, but the chart is better than the RB one. I give it a little more credence, but it's not really a source for chords so much.)

    - if you have to give out a chart on the bandstand, I would suggest that there are in fact better sources now available, such as the New Real Book and so on.

    - The New Real Book Vol II has Em7, as does Martin in this specific case.

    - Aside from the NRB, the new edition RB seems to be an improvement; I don't have a copy though, so no idea what it has for BFA. Anyone? (It will be Em7)

    - Jazz theory teaches that the ii function in a minor key is half diminished, so that's taken as the default (probably because its from the natural minor); sometimes unthinkingly written into charts (it's easy to see how that mistake might arise, and also why Martin might identify that chord as Em7b5 in the general case, I would do the same.) In practice the iim7 is very common in real minor music.

    (Should the BFA chord symbols given to jazz students being the textbook example of a 'Parker Blues' reflect that? Or not? Not sure. I would say in that case you are giving it a bit of thought, and that's the main thing, I can't see why you couldn't say, "sometimes the E chord here is Em7b5, sometimes it's just Em7".)

    - Martin's scholarship has been unable to clarify Parker's own intention for this chord in an autograph source.

    - It's hard to hear what's on the record but those old players often played clashes (like Bird wouldn't just steamroller anyone out of the way lol)

    - a fantastic way to develop your skills as a jazz musician is to learn tunes aurally, and spend some time digging into how the chords and melody notes related. You then can make an informed decision about how you play tunes (and it will help when you have to play with singers too.)

    - If you have played around with it and like the way Em7b5 sounds with the head, great, live your best life. Pre-jazz school jazz is full of notes that are 'incorrect'

    - Soloing you have a lot more freedom.

    - Good compers should also know how to listen, stay out the way and adapt.

    - 'mistakes' and variations in performances of repertoire are part of jazz's evolutionary life blood, but if everyone is making the same mistakes because they learned them from the same dodgy chart, that's not the same thing at all.

    - there's no end to a basic observation that people on the internet with apparently infinite amounts of time can spend their time pedantically discussing. (Especially if they are avoiding doing some boring work.)

    That about covers it.

    If that's what Lewis played, as some of the transcribers seem to think, perhaps that's what he intended. Or maybe he was thinking of the other tune and made a mistake. Or not.
    I think again, you are over estimating the level of detail of the transcription process of original RB chart. As the melody notes don't match up with what's on the record identified below the chart, the truth is the chart isn't very good. It's not a big deal, the guy who wrote it probably did it fast, didn't check it, wasn't expecting the Real Book to become such a central text for jazz studies and is probably quite embarrassed about the mistakes.

    I know what it's like get something wrong and put it out there in the public domain and you have to live with it. But, everyone makes mistakes. What we have control over is whether or not to check over ours and other people's work, and which sources to consult; make an educated choice.

    Anyway, if it was in the New Real Book, I'd take it a bit more seriously. That volume had like, an editor, and everything.

    If you play Em7b5 in the head, probably not a big problem with a horn player; on the record Parker is such a force it's not like we'd hear him as 'wrong' if he contradicted the piano anyway. Where I would be careful is with another guitarist, vibist, or a pianist for instance, instruments that are closer in attack/decay, volume level and timbre. Just be musical about it. Shell voicings are the default bop choice anyway for most players, so in this case it's a moot point.

    Right, now you can stop trying to gaslight me. That's Reg's job haha.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 11-02-2021 at 07:21 AM.

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    The Hal Leonard RB (6th edition) has Em7.

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Always get the 5th and 6th editions confused.

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    a lot of people seem to think this is a 'Swedish Blues'

    ... I don't think that's as clear cut as the BFA example where there's no good reason to write Em7b5 in the chart. OTOH just writing F | A7 | Dm etc simple chords would probably not sound 'bop' enough for beginner-intermediates who need to be told what to play and are unused to making their own stylistic chord subs and movements. (Which is to say, those who are likely to be reading BFA, Confirmation and so on from a chart.).
    DCI Miller, sir,

    -What on God's grey earth is a "Swedish Blues"?

    Regarding BFA, there's a very good reason to write Em7b5 in the chart, because it sounds great!
    -Who, other than the "beginner-intermediate" needs a chart? Perhaps players that need to be on the same page when performing together (they can look at the chart once or hear me when I say "Em7b5")

    -Does it matter? But of course! The Em7b5 is the essence in this progression. Just writing F | A7 | Dm makes no sense, it sort of indicates that we could substitute the entire progression with anything we like (good lord).

    FM7 | Em7b5 | A7b9| Dm7

    is a classy progression. It sounds good. Just saying.

    (By the way, F and FM7 is not the same chord, nor does Dm equal Dm7. When I call D9 I mean D9 not D7 etc, etc.)

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JCat
    DCI Miller, sir,

    -What on God's grey earth is a "Swedish Blues"?
    Alternative name for a 'Parker Blues'; I don't like the term 'Parker Blues' cos - well, Parker played another version of the Blues (the Chi Chi one) - ah, terminology is a pain.

    Regarding BFA, there's a very good reason to write Em7b5 in the chart, because it sounds great!
    -Who, other than the "beginner-intermediate" needs a chart? Perhaps players that need to be on the same page when performing together (they can look at the chart once or hear me when I say "Em7b5")

    -Does it matter? But of course! The Em7b5 is the essence in this progression. Just writing F | A7 | Dm makes no sense, it sort of indicates that we could substitute the entire progression with anything we like (good lord).

    FM7 | Em7b5 | A7b9| Dm7

    is a classy progression. It sounds good. Just saying.


    People who are reading the tune out of the real book need a chord that sounds good. Em7b5 doesn't fit the melody , that's just a fact. Up to you whether or not you still want to play it.

    (By the way, F and FM7 is not the same chord, nor does Dm equal Dm7. When I call D9 I mean D9 not D7 etc, etc.)
    Well that's a charts and chord scales/extensions mentality. And if you are thinking that way, the best thing I can do for you is give you chords that fit the melody, no? You can't have it both ways lol.

    BFA is one thing (the chord is short and the tune is fast), but if you don't know the tune, I don't write Bm7 E9 on East of the Sun or Bm(maj7) or Bbm6 on Days of Wine and Roses you'll probably shit up the singer right? Not all jazz musicians need that level of specification, usually because they know the tune (if you are playing an arrangement or unfamiliar tune, these extra details are useful, true.) These sorts of charts are - obviously - an aid for people who don't know the tune.

    For experienced bop improvisers, the simple template is what you work from. You wouldn't play the simple progression I give above. It's a template. You use your knowledge of jazz harmony etc to decorate the bare progression if you are an experienced and stylistic player. You don't need it spelled out. So you could play a bunch of different stuff on it.

    When writing a tune out, its good to think about what a chart is for and what its meant to communicate, but if you want to convince me much thought went into that RB chart, you’ve got a job on your hands lol.

    You don't always play the extensions AS WRITTEN every time you see them. You play a bit fast and loose, sub in different types of ii-V's, turnarounds and so on, it's more free.

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    Christian: I sympathize with your frustration, but I haven't said a word in defence of the RB nor would I. The half-diminished fits over some choruses of the original recording and the m7 over others, including the head. Given the similarities between this progression and those of Si Si (with which it was apparently confused at the original session), Confirmation, TWNBAY etc it is easy enough to see how the half-dim change spread in the player and student community even without the nefarious influence of the original RB. I was taught it on the bandstand before I ever saw the RB. (I recall getting it from the bass player in a local big band in about 1975; I don't know where he learned it, but it's what the leader, who had been on the scene since the 1940s, wanted there.) Nevertheless I agree (1) that Em7 fits the BFA head better than Em7b5, and (2) that compers need to use their ears, not least because (3) heads and solo choruses may require different changes. (I'm speaking of swing and bebop: trad changes are pretty much set in stone and I wouldn't presume to say anything about postbop and more recent styles.)

    Another good example of a "wrong" change entering the community repertoire is the first chord in Stella; Barry speaks about it in one of the Youtube videos. And I remember Dave Young at a master class saying go back to the original sheet music, community changes are often wrong. He gave the first A of All of Me as an example, and there is a Denis Chang blog in which he criticizes the community changes for the second haIf of the same tune (Fm7 vs Fdim7 iirc). I guess it's not enough to know the "correct" changes, you also have to be aware of the "other" changes that you are likely to encounter at sessions and among bandmates. (And I'm not talking about charts but people's memories of how a tune goes.)

    There are some interesting ideas about how changes enter the community repertoire in Faulkner and Becker, "Do You Know ...?": The Jazz Repertoire in Action, and also, iirc, in Berliner, Thinking in Jazz. The RB is not the whole story although it is clearly an important part of it.

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pcjazz
    Christian: I sympathize with your frustration, but I haven't said a word in defence of the RB nor would I.
    Well the frustration comes more from, I’m not finding any cause for disagreement and yet there’s a perception I there is… I feel like some are thinking I am saying something I’m not. These things can all be true

    - Em7b5 is a mistake in the RB chart
    - Em7 is a better choice in a chart for most situations and it’s what you find in edited sources
    - there maybe some situations when writing Em7b5 might be justifiable (eg pedagogy)
    - sometimes people might play Em7b5 and it’s fine
    - minor ii V Is sound nice
    - vertical clashes are common in bop
    etc etc

    The half-diminished fits over some choruses of the original recording and the m7 over others, including the head. Given the similarities between this progression and those of Si Si (with which it was apparently confused at the original session), Confirmation, TWNBAY etc it is easy enough to see how the half-dim change spread in the player and student community even without the nefarious influence of the original RB. I was taught it on the bandstand before I ever saw the RB. (I recall getting it from the bass player in a local big band in about 1975; I don't know where he learned it, but it's what the leader, who had been on the scene since the 1940s, wanted there.) Nevertheless I agree (1) that Em7 fits the BFA head better than Em7b5, and (2) that compers need to use their ears, not least because (3) heads and solo choruses may require different changes. (I'm speaking of swing and bebop: trad changes are pretty much set in stone and I wouldn't presume to say anything about postbop and more recent styles.)
    Cool. Well, I would say, it's self evident isn’t it?

    But it never fails to amaze me the extent to which people want to pedantically debate self evident things.

    Maybe they've been playing Em7b5 without a second thought and feel bad now or something. If so, I would say to those people - it's OK, I used to do that too. You probably got away with it.

    Another good example of a "wrong" change entering the community repertoire is the first chord in Stella; Barry speaks about it in one of the Youtube videos. And I remember Dave Young at a master class saying go back to the original sheet music, community changes are often wrong. He gave the first A of All of Me as an example, and there is a Denis Chang blog in which he criticizes the community changes for the second haIf of the same tune (Fm7 vs Fdim7 iirc). I guess it's not enough to know the "correct" changes, you also have to be aware of the "other" changes that you are likely to encounter at sessions and among bandmates. (And I'm not talking about charts but people's memories of how a tune goes.) There are some interesting ideas about how changes enter the community repertoire in Faulkner and Becker, "Do You Know ...?": The Jazz Repertoire in Action, and also, iirc, in Berliner, Thinking in Jazz. The RB is not the whole story although it is clearly an important part of it.
    Yes this is all well known among people who take standards rep and bop seriously (esp in NYC but not only.) For instance Pete Bernstein would tell you the exact same thing.

    But not everyone is into that, or super experienced and motivated professional jazz musicians, so the least you can do is provide charts that make sense and are reasonably accurate. Luckily, we have better books now. Huzzah!

    (BTW, do you know many actual jazz versions of Stella where they don't play Em7b5 A7? I only know one with the dim7.)

    Anyway, I'll play BOTH versions of the last 8 of All of Me in the same performance haha (Why do I not get more calls? hang on....) TBF the RB Erata noted that the chord in last 8 should be F#o7. Again - NO ONE EVER READ IT. FWIW The melody can support both versions of the changes in any case. But the #IVo7/IVm6 - they can be interchanged in soloing. Weak side/strong side, all of that.

    My favourite example is this. Wynton constantly playing #IVo7 over IVm6 in Struttin With Some Barbque. He listened to his Louis, Lester Young etc etc. It's kind of a Wynton hallmark, almost like he's making a point sometimes.


    The problem is people are so used to hearing jazz in this vertical, modern way, they probably think it's wrong. OTOH playing fast and loose because you don't know what the original changes are is not the same thing, I think. An artist makes choices, right?

    I seem to have to type this a million times but it bears repeating.
    If you know all this and still prefer to play Em7b5, that's (again) a different thing to just reading a chart and thinking that's the chord cos it's in a book.

    The background and intention is important here. 'The card says moops' is not a valid reason to do anything in music, unless you are on a reading gig. You have to hear it. Lester Young heard major 7ths on dominant 7th chords all the time, for instance. Berliner talks about this IIRC.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 11-02-2021 at 11:54 AM. Reason: Edited for grumpiness

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    I'll make a point that probably doesn't need to be made.

    It doesn't matter what you think of the RB, or whether a particular chord should be different. It doesn't matter whether Parker played it this way or that.

    On a standards gig, the other players may have learned the tune from the same chart, a different chart, the same recording or a different recording.

    However they learned it, they think they know the right changes.

    So, if there's a noticeable clash on the first chorus of the tune, somebody is going to have to adjust. In my limited experience with this type of thing, a dominant musical personality emerges and everybody follows that guy. If, OTOH, everybody is reading from the same RB, clashes are avoided. I doubt that anybody has ever lost a gig because the club owner complained that they read a bad RB chart.

    One of the reasons my experience is limited is because most of the gigs I get and most of the bands I go out to hear (not counting touring shows) use charts. Even old standards are typically arranged and the players use charts.

    One of the last things I want to deal with, at my level, is a pianist who has learned all the tunes from various recordings (not the same ones I might know) and who ignores the chart I've handed him while reharmonizing wildly on the fly. If I had the ear I wish for every Christmas, I might like it. But, while I have nice ties and sweaters, I don't have that ear.

    So, the RB is influential. Warts and all, that has some advantages.

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    I'll make a point that probably doesn't need to be made.

    It doesn't matter what you think of the RB, or whether a particular chord should be different. It doesn't matter whether Parker played it this way or that.

    On a standards gig, the other players may have learned the tune from the same chart, a different chart, the same recording or a different recording.

    However they learned it, they think they know the right changes.

    So, if there's a noticeable clash on the first chorus of the tune, somebody is going to have to adjust. In my limited experience with this type of thing, a dominant musical personality emerges and everybody follows that guy. If, OTOH, everybody is reading from the same RB, clashes are avoided. I doubt that anybody has ever lost a gig because the club owner complained that they read a bad RB chart.
    As I say, I played BFA on a gig on Sunday. I played the exact same notes as the other guy because we both learned it from the record. It's not a problem, there's not that many Bird recordings out there. I also find it quite a lot easier to learn these things by ear, really. The fingerings etc work themselves out better for some reason.

    One of the reasons my experience is limited is because most of the gigs I get and most of the bands I go out to hear (not counting touring shows) use charts. Even old standards are typically arranged and the players use charts.

    One of the last things I want to deal with, at my level, is a pianist who has learned all the tunes from various recordings (not the same ones I might know) and who ignores the chart I've handed him while reharmonizing wildly on the fly. If I had the ear I wish for every Christmas, I might like it. But, while I have nice ties and sweaters, I don't have that ear.

    So, the RB is influential. Warts and all, that has some advantages.
    OK, I think people have a bit of an emotional attachment to the Real Book. I get it, it's part of an era, like pet rocks and space hoppers. Or the quaint belief that the Grateful Dead were ever any good.

    I mean, you're not wrong about its influence. When it came out in 1758 or whenever it was without doubt the best available source of lead sheets. I mean charts back then must have been execrable, but clearly the RB was a quantum leap beyond the mackerel entrails or whatever the fuck it was you had to read back then, because, yeah, it was everywhere. I was in that era too BTW!

    (And I had to play the wrong changes to Four at jam sessions, too.)

    This is no longer true. The Real Book (along with its slightly less sketchy brethren, the Omnibook and the Jamie Aebersold playalong book) has been succeeded with legal, professionally edited and much more accurate transcriptions that improve on the RB in every conceivable way. Even a google search will often throw up better charts (as well as the old RB charts half the time). I mean good God, it's been almost 50 years, should this be a surprise?

    The repertoire in those newer books might be different, but when was the last time someone called 'A Call for All Demons' (or the 'Meat has a Thousand Eyes'*)

    I do kind of love the RB, it's kind of goofy now, my copy has lost about 20 pages and is an absolute shambles. Heavily used.

    If I see an RB chart in a pad these days I'm a bit like 'Okaaaayy.... I guess you thought about including this tune at around 11:30pm last night, let me check these changes if I get time....'

    *that is a joke
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 11-02-2021 at 07:29 PM.

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    As I say, I played BFA on a gig on Sunday. I played the exact same notes as the other guy because we both learned it from
    If I see an RB chart in a pad these days I'm a bit like 'Okaaaayy.... I guess you thought about including this tune at around 11:30pm last night, let me check these changes if I get time....'

    *that is a joke
    There's a tradeoff between accuracy and uniformity.

    I liked it, as an intermediate player, that everybody had exactly the same book. There was no time spent discussing differences between different books.

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Em7b5 doesn't fit the melody , that's just a fact. Up to you whether or not you still want to play it.
    Yes, it clashes with the melody (it often does in jazz). And this is just one of the reasons why the chord charts are "wrong" most of the time because "we can't have it both ways" as you say.

    (Miles Davis' "Four" is a notorious example where people have tried many different ways to solve this little problem).

    "There's a flow in the melody and there's a flow in the chord progression. The combined sensation (compare voice leading and counterpoint) is what counts. A clash of an eights note is less disturbing than if the respective flow was interrupted. It's when we're about to improvise it gets complicated, then we realize something is "wrong". But there are no easy fixes to this other than rewriting the melody or re-harmonize the song!

    If me and the band "know the song" we obviously won't need a chord chart. And if I trust my ears to add the right extensions, -why would I need a chord chart? Simple triads as substitutions for complex chords are totally useless in a chord chart imo, If I want to simplify the chords for improvisation purpose, I could easily remove the extensions. It's easy to remove information from a composition, but much harder to add information. Herein lies the entire problem.

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    There's a tradeoff between accuracy and uniformity.

    I liked it, as an intermediate player, that everybody had exactly the same book. There was no time spent discussing differences between different books.
    Well you can always use better books, but inertia is a thing.

    Apps like Forescore make it easy to create and share set lists on devices, you can use charts from whatever source you choose.

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JCat
    Yes, it clashes with the melody (it often does in jazz). And this is just one of the reasons why the chord charts are "wrong" most of the time because "we can't have it both ways" as you say.

    (Miles Davis' "Four" is a notorious example where people have tried many different ways to solve this little problem).
    It is intractable. Whatever shall we do??????

    Oh wait, it's not.

    Retire out your old Real Book and use a better chart. There's one in the New Real Book and 6th ed RB. The chords in iReal Pro are also decent.

    (Or I suppose, you could always use your lugholes and learn the tune, but I'm trying to keep this accessible for those that have limited time.)

    Fixed it!

    "There's a flow in the melody and there's a flow in the chord progression. The combined sensation (compare voice leading and counterpoint) is what counts. A clash of an eights note is less disturbing than if the respective flow was interrupted. It's when we're about to improvise it gets complicated, then we realize something is "wrong". But there are no easy fixes to this other than rewriting the melody or re-harmonize the song!
    I have literally no idea what you are talking about in the second half.

    Just improvise over the basic functions and play strong lines that swing, just like the old bop guys did.

    I do get the impression a lot of people think changes jazz is about honouring the chord symbols as written. (It's not.)

    If me and the band "know the song" we obviously won't need a chord chart. And if I trust my ears to add the right extensions, -why would I need a chord chart? Simple triads as substitutions for complex chords are totally useless in a chord chart imo, If I want to simplify the chords for improvisation purpose, I could easily remove the extensions. It's easy to remove information from a composition, but much harder to add information. Herein lies the entire problem.
    So, of course, in a chord only chart of tune I don't know, I'd appreciate some information about melody notes, and the standard way to do this is write extensions. Simple chord symbols are OK if the melody is included, unless of course you don't read staff notation.

    But here's a thing that may be useful - sketchy charts are a fact of life especially if you work with singers... So even if you don't read music very well, try this: scan through a chart for a GASB standard and see how many sharps and flats you see? In most standard A sections and so on, there aren't that many; even a tune like Stella has only two notes that aren't in Bb - an E natural and a Gb. Jazz standards are very often diatonic melody/chromatic harmony.

    So you can learn what diatonic notes are likely to go with which chromatic chords. For instance, a VI7 usually has a natural 9th, a III7 has a b9, the IIm has a 6th or a major 7th, bVI7 has a #11, and so on. Those are generally 'safe choices'. In general my ear is listening out for 'funny notes' then that might not be in key. The b3 on V is common, or the #11 on a II chord, and so on.

    Anyway, that's a tip for free.

    To be perfectly honest often the best policy is often just to play shells, or even triads. One thing guitarists seem to have trouble with is the idea that they are not responsible for the complete harmony in ensembles ten when they are the only chordal instrument. If I am playing a tune with a Fmaj7 chord and the melody is an E, it is necessary for me to play the major seventh. I can play a F triad and the overall harmony will still be Fmaj7.

    The Fmaj7 is not a great sounding option when the melody note is on F, so a safer choice may in fact be the triad if you don't have the melody to hand.

    Again, there are norms... the root tends to feature at the end of a standard melody, so don't play Fmaj7 there. A better choice would actually be F, F6 or even F#maj7 in a trio or duo...

    I think of this very much as a part of learning how functional standards type harmony works. It is not very obvious on the guitar, but if you do enough chord melody arrangements you'll probably start to notice this stuff.

    Anyway, I'm not going to give anyone a chart based on triads, don't worry, unless that's specifically what the style of the tune requires (for example James or an 1920s style band or something). If there's a need for decent sounding set of changes that a rhythm section can just read, it's up to me to supply that.

    Times you might want a triad... Well on the I chord of a bop tune, I or maybe I6... So if you go back and look at tunes like Blues, Rhythm Changes, old Swing Standards like Honeysuckle and Lady be Good, the basic repertoire of Bird, you'll find that there's a looseness with Lester Young, Charlie C, and Parker himself about the I chord - it could have a 7, b7 or 6.

    Today, modern jazz convention demands you specify the seventh. So in BFA for example, the melody outlines | F / Am / | which the charts call, not unreasonably sum up as Fmaj7. I hear an F triad from the piano there, but no matter, as a comper I think a more neutral major sound like F or F6 is the best choice given the first note. Let the horn give the maj7

    Thing is people seem to be under the impression that maj7 first chord is unique feature of the 'Bird Blues' or 'Swedish Blues' progression, when in fact, he'd often stick a prominent E on the first chord of any F blues progression. Au Privave springs to mind. OTOH bird will quite often put an Eb there on other tunes. Or a prominent D. And in standards too... So, keeping the F chord just as an F chord acknowledges the fluid nature of that chord. Perhaps one reason jazz has become less bluesy is because people are used to thinking of Fmaj7 and F7 as two very different things and playing blues on the I chord of standard might not occur to them.

    But those simple charts I put above that seemed to have alarmed you are more pedagogical, basic skeletons that you dress up with various progressions. I learned to think this way from Barry Harris, it's the way he teaches improv. He teaches you how to strip it down and how to build it up again.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 11-03-2021 at 07:02 AM.

  25. #49
    Dutchbopper Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Well you can always use better books, but inertia is a thing.
    No inertia here. I have moved on from my original question days ago and just practised the Bird heads over the original tracks. Where the RB was wrong I used my ears. No problem. Normally a RB error is no problem anyway but for my lil' private Bird heads project I just want to play Bird's tunes exactly as he wrote and played them.

    Anyway I uploaded 8 heads in the showcase section (you know, the section that gets the least views ahem) for those interested. If you think you know those heads already, try playing them unisono with Bird over the original tracks! Click here.

    So far I uploaded:

    Blues for Alice
    Relaxin' at Camarillo
    Confirmation
    Au Privave
    Donna Lee
    Billie's Bounce
    Scrapple from the Apple
    Ornithology

    DB

  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    I transcribed this head sometime back and included all the grace notes in an attempt to get the hang of Bird's articulation. Having done this for a number of his tunes, it's amazing how many inaccuracies exist in the "official" sources.

    Blues for Alice is wrong in the RB?-blues-alice-jpg