Well You Needn’t Changes

[pamosmusic]

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

Ah yeah.

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.

The most common answer for a working jazz musician would probably be that they don’t use charts for standards at all.

If “accurate” refers to what I want the music to sound like then … I mean … yes? That’s kind of my job if it’s my band.

Allan already said he likes the way the Kenny Burrell one sounds. So he’s transcribing it. Which seems pretty darned reasonable to me.

[Bobby Timmons]

Yeah I agree, Christian. Didn't object either, Peter.

[pamosmusic]

Yeah I agree, Christian. Didn't object either, Peter.

Oh okay.

For the record, I have this weird idiosyncrasy where I generally log references to something as being “unproductive blather” and “silly” or “stupid” as probable objection.

[Christian Miller]

Right then, I’m off to sniff some corks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

I find it calming


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

Also for what it’s worth, there are only very few of the Jazz composers (as opposed to the American Songbook) that you just cannot avoid.

Duke Ellington and Billy Strayhorn.
Monk.

Maybe that’s it?

Lots of other good ones, but you can go to a lot is hangs without having to play Horace Silver tune or a Coltrane tune that isn’t a blues.

Mingus is another one probably, but that’s more in the larger composed-group vibe.

[Bobby Timmons]

Oh okay.

For the record, I have this weird idiosyncrasy where I generally log references to something as being “unproductive blather” and “silly” or “stupid” as probable objection.

Yeah. If you go and read the thread it's like wtf is everyone on about.

Necessary info for the op question:

1. There are 2 versions: the original Monk version, and the one where performers did a tritone sub bridge.
2. As always, you'll probably have to do some transcribing of the specific recording if you want to be more accurate/deep than the sheet.

Yet 4 pages of idiocy. Not illegal, but still funny.

[Bobby Timmons]

Anyways, I'm done revenging. We got it sorted. AA likes the KB version, so he's transcribing that. We figured out that has an alternate tritone sub bridge starting on G. The original Monk version starts on Db. Although there doesn't exist a chart with accurate chord quality, so that'll have to be transcribed. We figured out that Christian and Peter said you're always better doing ear work on the tunes than being mediocre etc.

[AllanAllen]

Also for what it’s worth, there are only very few of the Jazz composers (as opposed to the American Songbook) that you just cannot avoid.

Duke Ellington and Billy Strayhorn.
Monk.

Maybe that’s it?

Lots of other good ones, but you can go to a lot is hangs without having to play Horace Silver tune or a Coltrane tune that isn’t a blues.

Mingus is another one probably, but that’s more in the larger composed-group vibe.

Don't forget Sonny Rollins. Oleo is the standard rhythm changes for the jams I've gone to.

[AllanAllen]

Anyways, I'm done revenging. We got it sorted. AA likes the KB version, so he's transcribing that. We figured out that has an alternate tritone sub bridge starting on G. The original Monk version starts on Db. Although there doesn't exist a chart with accurate chord quality, so that'll have to be transcribed. We figured out that Christian and Peter said you're always better doing ear work on the tunes than being mediocre etc.

Sounds like a successful thread to me

[pamosmusic]

Don't forget Sonny Rollins. Oleo is the standard rhythm changes for the jams I've gone to.

I mean more like composers where a substantial part of the catalog is non negotiable.

though I did notably forget Charlie Parker

[grahambop]

The original 1947 Monk version (on ‘genius of modern music’) doesn’t really have any chords at all, he mainly just plays the melody, maybe a few very fragmentary chords in his solo. He is only accompanied by bass and drums.

Which explains why the Steve Cardenas Monk Fakebook (which is really good) only gives the basic chords, i.e. no extensions at all (not even dom 7ths). I was a bit baffled by this until I checked the recording!

It’s worth noting that Monk did not like handing out charts to his sidemen, or telling them stuff like chord changes (according to the excellent biography by Robin Kelley). I don’t think he thought in those terms much, and he expected them to use their ears above anything else. Although that was no doubt demanding, I guess he thought it would make them play better (if they could handle it!)

[Christian Miller]

Yeah. If you go and read the thread it's like wtf is everyone on about.

Necessary info for the op question:

1. There are 2 versions: the original Monk version, and the one where performers did a tritone sub bridge.
2. As always, you'll probably have to do some transcribing of the specific recording if you want to be more accurate/deep than the sheet.

Yet 4 pages of idiocy. Not illegal, but still funny.

Not quite.

I haven’t seen a chart that represents what Monk plays. There isn’t a Monk version chart. There’s charts that are less and more like it.

The Cardenas version Graham mentioned is the best.

If you want to learn the tune the way Monk played it I think you’ll probably need to use your ears. Unless someone knows a better chart.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rpjazzguitar]

Turns out, I've only played the Miles version, probably because it was in the RB. I hadn't realized that until now.

The 1947 Monk version, as others have pointed out, is substantially different.

So, this is a tune that requires some discussion, even though I've played it many times (Miles) without any discussion.

Well, better learned late than never.

I usually am impatient with the notion of "correct changes". I understand the point about respecting the composer, but it's jazz and you're supposed to be creative. Even if you play it the composer's way for the head, are you expected not to vary the changes in subsequent choruses?

Some of my favorite players take all kinds of liberties. For example, Robert Glasper playing fragments of Stella and eventually soloing only on the last 8, repeated. Or Trio Corrente's incredible version of Ipanema with only fragments of the original melody and multiple rapid time changes.

All that said, jazz has a tradition of creativity overlaying intimate knowledge of what came before.

[grahambop]

I don’t think the average audience will notice or care, as long as everyone in the band is playing the same version. Actually they probably won’t even notice if everyone is playing it differently.

Any musicians in the audience will probably find fault with your performance whatever you do, so not worth worrying about them.

[AllanAllen]

I don’t think the average audience will notice or care, as long as everyone in the band is playing the same version. Actually they probably won’t even notice if everyone is playing it differently.

Any musicians in the audience will probably find fault with your performance whatever you do, so not worth worrying about them.

Yeah, this sums up my experience.

[pauln]

[AllanAllen]

Too bad it’s satire. I like it.

[Bobby Timmons]

The original 1947 Monk version (on ‘genius of modern music’) doesn’t really have any chords at all, he mainly just plays the melody, maybe a few very fragmentary chords in his solo. He is only accompanied by bass and drums.

Which explains why the Steve Cardenas Monk Fakebook (which is really good) only gives the basic chords, i.e. no extensions at all (not even dom 7ths). I was a bit baffled by this until I checked the recording!

It’s worth noting that Monk did not like handing out charts to his sidemen, or telling them stuff like chord changes (according to the excellent biography by Robin Kelley). I don’t think he thought in those terms much, and he expected them to use their ears above anything else. Although that was no doubt demanding, I guess he thought it would make them play better (if they could handle it!)

I don't think that's accurate to say Monk and his band didn't operate using music fundamentals like chord symbols. We've been over this before. There's literal footage of Rouse asking Monk the changes and Monk gave them to him. I think it's obvious if you listen to Monk's bands that they all agreed on the changes.

Further, there's footage of Teo, the recording engineer, asking Monk to play a free form piece and Monk wouldn't do it. Ergo because he operated within the structure of explicitly composed tunes.

Although for this tune it's probably realistic to just have only the roots, written as triads. Rather than try to notate the full quality of each chord since on band recordings Monk would do creative stuff not representative of the chords. But the bassists absolutely would stick to the form of the tune and outline the changes.

Again, if you wanted more info on the chord quality, you'd have to pick a definitive recording, maybe a solo one, and just transcribe it.

[Bobby Timmons]

Not quite.

I haven’t seen a chart that represents what Monk plays. There isn’t a Monk version chart. There’s charts that are less and more like it.

The Cardenas version Graham mentioned is the best.

If you want to learn the tune the way Monk played it I think you’ll probably need to use your ears. Unless someone knows a better chart.

I know. I said that earlier in the thread, post 99 and 109. But not in that cursory post of mine that you quoted.

But yeah, I even looked in my Monk fake book and it only has triads.

[Bobby Timmons]

Too bad it’s satire. I like it.

Larry Goldings. Great organist!

And the Jimmy Version of the tune in question.

[grahambop]

I don't think that's accurate to say Monk and his band didn't operate using music fundamentals like chord symbols. We've been over this before. There's literal footage of Rouse asking Monk the changes and Monk gave them to him. I think it's obvious if you listen to Monk's bands that they all agreed on the changes.

That’s not really what I said, I said Monk was reluctant to tell them stuff. He often liked them to figure it out themselves, after they’d learned the melody (which he usually taught them by ear from the piano). Of course there were exceptions to this practice sometimes.

It’s one reason why Monk’s recording sessions often overran and annoyed his producers!

Here are a couple of quotes from the book:

[ragman1]

Turns out, I've only played the Miles version, probably because it was in the RB. I hadn't realized that until now.

The 1947 Monk version, as others have pointed out, is substantially different.

So, this is a tune that requires some discussion, even though I've played it many times (Miles) without any discussion.

Well, better learned late than never.

I usually am impatient with the notion of "correct changes". I understand the point about respecting the composer, but it's jazz and you're supposed to be creative. Even if you play it the composer's way for the head, are you expected not to vary the changes in subsequent choruses?

Some of my favorite players take all kinds of liberties. For example, Robert Glasper playing fragments of Stella and eventually soloing only on the last 8, repeated. Or Trio Corrente's incredible version of Ipanema with only fragments of the original melody and multiple rapid time changes.

All that said, jazz has a tradition of creativity overlaying intimate knowledge of what came before.

I don’t think the average audience will notice or care, as long as everyone in the band is playing the same version. Actually they probably won’t even notice if everyone is playing it differently.

Any musicians in the audience will probably find fault with your performance whatever you do, so not worth worrying about them.

EXACTLY - AT LAST!

This is the whole point. We're so scared not to copy. Of course you've got to play the tune but it's what you do with it. Have fun with it. You can play what you want.

This tune is actually great fun once you're not afraid to let rip. Don't imitate, it's absolute death to creative innovation.

And this tune is NOT difficult, really it's not.

[Christian Miller]

Turns out, I've only played the Miles version, probably because it was in the RB. I hadn't realized that until now.

The 1947 Monk version, as others have pointed out, is substantially different.

So, this is a tune that requires some discussion, even though I've played it many times (Miles) without any discussion.

Well, better learned late than never.

I usually am impatient with the notion of "correct changes". I understand the point about respecting the composer, but it's jazz and you're supposed to be creative. Even if you play it the composer's way for the head, are you expected not to vary the changes in subsequent choruses?

Some of my favorite players take all kinds of liberties. For example, Robert Glasper playing fragments of Stella and eventually soloing only on the last 8, repeated. Or Trio Corrente's incredible version of Ipanema with only fragments of the original melody and multiple rapid time changes.

All that said, jazz has a tradition of creativity overlaying intimate knowledge of what came before.

A good example of interpretive freedom of the tune that works for me would be for me (naturally) Peter Bernstein’s version:

Sorry that’s the whole album - the tune is time stamped in the comments, but the record is great.

Pete doesn’t play it the exact way Monk does, but he is amazing at playing the spirit of the song while being creative and individual. The way he delays those phrases and those chord stabs feels authentically Monkish while being very Pete. He plays richer chords on the B and so on (6/9 chords with passing movement etc.) the bass is playing more F-Gb-F-E in the A which you hear in some of monks recordings (although I don’t think monk himself played those changes).

it’s all coming from a place of deep knowledge and most importantly LOVE of both the tune and Monk in general.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I

[Christian Miller]

I don’t think the average audience will notice or care, as long as everyone in the band is playing the same version. Actually they probably won’t even notice if everyone is playing it differently.

Any musicians in the audience will probably find fault with your performance whatever you do, so not worth worrying about them.

You are quite right, but I think going on that logic probably many audiences would prefer to hear no Monk (or for that matter jazz) at all lol.

I mean in New York you have tourists with no idea of what they are listening to hearing contemporary jazz bands at Smalls because it’s on the ‘things to do in NY’ list…. It’s a funny world.

I don’t think any of this can be in the driving seat when it comes to playing niche music like jazz. The open minded and interested audience we might want to cultivate for jazz I think is owed creative integrity rather than ‘ah that’ll do.’

(And this being all very much in an ideal world where you don’t for example, realise you need to fill an extra half hour over your usual set on a club gig fifteen minutes before the show …)

That integrity comes not imo from playing monk tunes note for note (although it could), but more widely from having some emotional investment in what you are doing - with the material and band and so on. if you don’t have this, how can one expect the listeners to?

And that’s not to do with (insecure) musicians who will find fault with anything. (But good musicians may be trying to help you.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk