Well You Needn’t Changes

[Bobby Timmons]

Uh oh, he got you rag. Lol!

[ragman1]

You mean like someone who jumps into a conversation and immediately calls it stupid?

It was stupid. It was over the head of and inconsiderate to the person whose thread it is. In the end he said he was just confused. And that was page one.

I appreciate people trying to help, but can we start at the start? As the thread goes on I’m more and more
confused.

Beware gurus. Beware the world and his wife all tripping over each other to show how much they know. And especially beware of people who slag off other posters because they think they're god's gift to everything. We all have something to give.

My advice is 'narrow', not because I don't know stuff, but because the questions asked are generally narrow. Anything broader would almost certainly be passed over. The responses are tailored to the questions. It's that simple.

[ragman1]

Uh oh, he got you rag. Lol!

I suspect you posted that before you saw my reply :-)

God, this is so tedious.

[pamosmusic]

I suspect you posted that before you saw my reply :-)

God, this is so tedious.

Given the time stamps on the posts in question, I would say so.

[Bobby Timmons]

Going to have to echo rag that this is a goofy af, excessive thread. However, that usually happens and:

I would rather have 30 posts on an actual jazz tune than politics or whatever is going on in the colonoscopy thread now.

Valid point lol.

AA gave us his explanation, that he wants to work out the tunes ear grass roots. Nothing wrong with that:

I picked the Burrell one because it's a monk tune, but played straight and cool. The subtext here is, it's a version I think I can pull off, with the pedigree of "I learned it from a Kenny Burrell record" if anyone asks why I'm playing it like that.

Just merely a coincidence it matches the Miles Davis changes, which is a bonus for me since the one I like matches the RB which means I don't need to write anything for my trumpet player. If he's unfamiliar with the song, he can just read it. Then, like I said, we can get through it on a gig.

In response to ragman tho, kind of agree. Bruh, listen to the tune, look at the chart, play the tune, job done. No beard scratching and rocket science required.

Allan -

This is getting beyond stupid. Here's the friggin lead sheet. Turn on the Kenny Burrell version and play some shells over it. F7 - Gb7, etc. It fits. Fancy that. The bass plays the occasional C nat over the Gb7 because that's the b5. But he doesn't even do that every time. That's all.

The play G7 -- Ab7 --- A7 Bb7 B7 Bb7 A7 Ab7 G7 Gb7 over the bridge. Voila, it fits.

If you want the clip of me doing it over the recorded tune you can have it. It's not rocket science.

It's really not worth this absurd beard-scratching over one bleedin tune. Just get on with it. Nobody cares.

It's the soloing you need to worry about!

Attachment 108688

Explanation about the 2 different versions, which I don't think has been done explicitly and accurately so far. The lead sheet rag posted is the alternate set of changes with the same A and the alternate bridge. What's used in the Kenny Burrell take and in the Miles take. Cork sniffing about chord quality aside, the chart in the latest version of the real book is basically the correct form and root movement of the Monk version. Fancy that, right rag?



Sure, going deep dive to understand what different chord qualities are being used is good. However, Monk and everyone else will play different things each time, and besides you're going to have to wing it anyway to play over the weird changes.

[Bobby Timmons]

I suspect you posted that before you saw my reply :-)

God, this is so tedious.

You do that all the time tho. :P

[ragman1]

You do that all the time tho. :P

True. I post it and then have doubts that it reads right. It's a curse :-)

Fancy that, right rag?

Fancy that indeed.

[pamosmusic]

Ah yes. The arbiters of whether or not a discussion is interesting or productive are here to have a conversation about each other, and with themselves.

[AllanAllen]

That sheet is all 7ths though. Monk melody under Miles chord flavors with the right bridge triads but wrong extensions.... Now I see why Reg said this is the worst option.

[ragman1]

PS. The tune's different to the one I posted. If AA is going to swap to the Db7 bridge he'll have to learn a different melody. Maybe the trumpet player too.

[AllanAllen]

PS. The tune's different to the one I posted. If AA is going to swap to the Db7 bridge he'll have to learn a different melody. Maybe the trumpet player too.

Thanks for the heads up, I can read enough to catch that. Which I'm bragging about right now.

[Christian Miller]

Going to have to echo rag that this is a goofy af, excessive thread. However, that usually happens and:

Valid point lol.

AA gave us his explanation, that he wants to work out the tunes ear grass roots. Nothing wrong with that:



In response to ragman tho, kind of agree. Bruh, listen to the tune, look at the chart, play the tune, job done. No beard scratching and rocket science required.



Explanation about the 2 different versions, which I don't think has been done explicitly and accurately so far. The lead sheet rag posted is the alternate set of changes with the same A and the alternate bridge. What's used in the Kenny Burrell take and in the Miles take. Cork sniffing about chord quality aside, the chart in the latest version of the real book is basically the correct form and root movement of the Monk version. Fancy that, right rag?



Sure, going deep dive to understand what different chord qualities are being used is good. However, Monk and everyone else will play different things each time, and besides you're going to have to wing it anyway to play over the weird changes.

Cork sniffing? Flipping heck, lol. It’s not rocket science, much of the time Monk is only playing two or three notes in the left hand. Is not like that flipping Dolphin Dance chord is it? That really does get to cork sniffing.

In any case these chord qualities are incorrect to what the man himself played. That’s a D on the Eb chord. The root movement is ok.

EDIT: the A section is a separate discussion…

Probably be ok for a jam. If you want to play Monk’s music with a working outfit, I think the “cork sniffing” is what other people might term “love and respect for the music.”

[ragman1]

That sheet is all 7ths though. Monk melody under Miles chord flavors with the right bridge triads but wrong extensions.... Now I see why Reg said this is the worst option.

Burrell played it 7ths probably because he's a blues player. Actually I don't think it matters much. Play 6's, 7's or 13's. They all sound good. Storm in a teacup. Settle on one which attracts you... which you'll do anyway. Honestly, no one cares. But if you like it, you'll play it better.

[pamosmusic]

Burrell played it 7ths probably because he's a blues player. Actually I don't think it matters much. Play 6's, 7's or 13's. They all sound good. Storm in a teacup. Settle on one which attracts you... which you'll do anyway. Honestly, no one cares. But if you like it, you'll play it better.

No one cares, except the people on this thread who are discussing it. But the discussion is stupid. Because no one cares.

[ragman1]

“cork sniffing” is what other people might term “love and respect for the music.”

Ah, he's got you there, folks, you useless prols. Emotional blackmail. If you like a different version it's Not Respecting The Music and you're a heretic and an outcast.

Bollocks.

[pamosmusic]

Ah, he's got you there, folks, you useless prols. Emotional blackmail. If you like a different version it's Not Respecting The Music and you're a heretic and an outcast.

Bollocks.

For what it's worth, I don't think Christian was referring to "liking a different version." I believe he was referring to "uncritically playing the chords from a google search without checking them against the source material they claim to represent."

[ragman1]

How about if you reharm it a little, stick in a groovy rhythm, and create your own version? Is that disrespecting the music?

Answer it.

[AllanAllen]

[Christian Miller]

Ah, he's got you there, folks, you useless prols. Emotional blackmail. If you like a different version it's Not Respecting The Music and you're a heretic and an outcast.

Bollocks.

Well if you don’t love and respect the music and want to play it well, why play it? Play something else!

Besides, it doesn’t sound like you like Monk very much, and that’s fine.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

How about if you reharm it a little, stick in a groovy rhythm, and create your own version? Is that disrespecting the music?

Answer it.

Nope. I play in a group that does it with electric bass and lots of pedals and weird stuff.

It's nice to know the tune first though.

[Christian Miller]

How about if you reharm it a little, stick in a groovy rhythm, and create your own version? Is that disrespecting the music?

Answer it.

Post it and I’ll tell you if I like it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

Anyway that’s all a bit disingenuous because what you’ve done is posted a chart from the Sher New Real Book. All I can say objectively is that it does not represent Monks original composition. I can also say that there are some very good musicians who really care about this stuff, and that is also objectively true.

(A high level of curiosity about and attention to detail regarding music is something many high level musicians value very highly. Clearly not Miles though lol.)

In terms of my own taste, I really like Monks music. If you did an arrangement of it that was different, I might like it too. But that’s different from posting a shit chart and saying it represents the final word on the subject haha

Classic Motte-and-Bailey. Have you ever considered a career in political punditry?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bobby Timmons]

Ah yes. The arbiters of whether or not a discussion is interesting or productive are here to have a conversation about each other, and with themselves.

Hey, you were free to not blather unproductively and borderline unintelligibly for 3 pages. :P

That sheet is all 7ths though.

That's true. It's the correct root movement. You'd have to revise the chart if you want more accurate chord quality, which varies between each recording.

Cork sniffing? Flipping heck, lol. It’s not rocket science, much of the time Monk is only playing two or three notes in the left hand. Is not like that flipping Dolphin Dance chord is it? That really does get to cork sniffing.

Calm down Christian.

Probably be ok for a jam. The root movement is ok.

That's my point. Probably be ok for soundcloud tracks on the forum too or a free gig.

If you want to play Monk’s music with a working outfit, I think the “cork sniffing” is what other people might term “love and respect for the music.”

Do you create 100% accurate charts based on your listening for your bands every time? Yes, that's nice, it's fun and feels good to play the music accurately, you learn more about the music, it demonstrates the love for the music, but I doubt that's your convention. Noone does that every time. If you want to do that, great.

[ragman1]

Have you ever considered a career in politics?

I had an American friend whose father knew a senior Brit politician, well-known and still around. We went to see him. The atmosphere was evil, cold, infused with power, suspicion and aggression. He was oily and sleek, and that was when he was relaxing. Couldn't get out fast enough.

So I've never voted, except once in ignorance, something local when I was very young. That was enough for me, it was like treading in something dirty. But that's another subject.

[Christian Miller]

Hey, you were free to not blather unproductively and borderline unintelligibly for 4 pages. :P

That's true. It's the correct root movement. You'd have to revise the chart if you want more accurate chord quality, which varies between each recording.

Calm down Christian.

That's my point. Probably be ok for soundcloud tracks on the forum too or a free gig.

Why use that as an excuse for mediocrity? Jazz is not a tidy earner lol. It’s a labour of love. Esp if you are working for free, why would you just play music without care? What would be the point otherwise?

I see great musicians play for little or no money all the time. They do it because it’s the music they love. (They have pop gigs, shows etc.)

Do you create 100% accurate charts based on your listening for your bands every time? Yes, that's nice, it's fun and feels good to play the music accurately, you learn more about the music, it demonstrates the love for the music, but I doubt that's your convention. Noone does that every time. If you want to do that, great.

That’s a deep question which depends a lot on the nature of the repertoire, the band and what you are trying to do. In general the more you know about a song the better you play the song.

For standards I think it’s unlikely you will play the songbook changes as originally composed although that is knowledge which many musicians see as being valuable. In any case for a project I would certainly source or produce a chart that reflected my preferred basic changes based on my listening. Improvisation could be looser.

If it’s worth playing with a band, it’s worth doing some work on.

When I learn a tune, I try to get the general sense of the most common variations of changes etc. that’s easy these days with streaming and Google for charts etc.

I don’t regard Monk as being standards rep in that way. Unless I have some reinterpretation in mind, I would go to the source as carefully as possible. I think his music deserves it. It’s not tin pan alley jazz fodder but something much more specific. (Not that they aren’t great songs)

The point is - it comes down to listening. Every time I forget that I get rudely reminded of that fact haha.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk