Well You Needn’t Changes

[Bobby Timmons]

That's quite a young Monk in the photo there. I wonder what happened to the specs when he got older.

He didn't wear glasses. I think those were just for looks like his hats.

There's a key difference in Monk's identity between when he was young and old, do you know what it is? Compare his pictures from the Minton's era in the 40s when he was around 30 to his later career in the 60s when he was around 50. The forum isn't letting me post pictures.

It's all about chords at the moment. But has anyone got the soloing down yet?

Yes, I can solo over the tune. You can just use 1 idea over the chords, or you can follow them. If you listen to the players, that's what they do, blend the approaches. Follow 1 idea/scale/what have you over the chords for a bit, follow the chords for a bit, play off the melody, play some blues vocab, add some chromatic dissonant stuff etc.

[ragman1]

You can blow F blues through the whole thing if you want.

I'm not sure I do want :-)

[ragman1]

Yes, I can solo over the tune. You can just use 1 idea over the chords, or you can follow them. If you listen to the players, that's what they do, blend the approaches. Follow 1 idea/scale/what have you over the chords for a bit, follow the chords for a bit, play off the melody, play some blues vocab, add some chromatic dissonant stuff etc.

Maybe, maybe not...

'Monk's compositions, though built upon traditional 12-bar blues and 32-bar ballad forms, were stripped to essentials and so cunningly constructed that they presented an immense challenge to even the best soloists. John Coltrane once said that "when you learn one of Monk's pieces, you can't just learn the melody and chord symbols. You have to learn the inner voicings and rhythms exactly. Everything is so carefully related; his works are jazz compositions in the sense that relatively few jazz 'originals' are."'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-52b1ae2a662c/

[JazzPadd]

This thread is really blossoming into something informative and interesting. It's as much about Well You Needn't and Monk as about us. I'm enjoying all the various takes on, and digressions from, this one tune.

Inspired by this thread, I called Well You Needn't at last night's weekly jam session. I used to play it quite often at jams (but not at gigs) before the dark days of corona. Last night was the first time in a long while.

First, just a word about the context, which I think is important given the twists and turns of this thread. The venue is one of four within reasonable driving distance, what are known in Japan as Music Houses or Jazz Cafes. They all hold jazz jam sessions, some weekly, some twice a month, some monthly. All told, in any given month, there are 7 or 8 opportunities a week to jam. The venues each have their own character and clientele (for the curious, I've written about them in my monthly Jam Session Journal). Last night's jam was at a small Mom and Pop shop that holds 30 people on a good night. Mom and Pop are musicians and the venue is multi-genre with various kinds of performances all week, including gigging acts, open mics and the weekly jazz jam session that I frequent. At this venue, the jam session audience is mostly the other performers (sometimes with friends, colleagues, family). That imparts a casual vibe to the performance. We don't need to cater to a paying audience; we pay to play, 1000JPY (7-8USD), including one drink.

Last night there were about a dozen people over the three hour session, including three guitarists, two bassists, a pianist, a drummer and a horn. There was also a couple of spectators, friends of participants.

I called Well You Needn't early on. It was my turn to play and it was a guitar trio on stage, so I thought it apt. The others didn't know it, to them it was a routine call at a session; if you don't know it no biggie, take out the book, and see what happens. In this case, the bassist was reading. The chart that we use is from the Jazz Standard Bible (functioning something like a Real Book in other locales). The JSB chart for WYN is the Miles Davis version (G on the bridge, etc.). The chords are written almost entirely as 7ths, but in a trio no need to adhere to that. The bassist was mostly outlining the triads, so it left a lot of space for me.

My intro was simple to give the drummer the feel, basically moving between the F and Gb in a moderate sorta swingish way. I played the A section in the lower register with a kind of choppy, almost spastic, attack and for the bridge used the Kenny Burrell style voicings, basically 6/9 stacked 4ths shapes sliding up and down the neck. It worked fine and got the trio into the groove. I don't recall how many choruses I took, it was maybe 3 or 4. For the A section, I didn't outline the chords, nor did I use scales or modes (though, as Kenny does and some of you mentioned, the Fm pentatonic scale works fine). I began by emphasizing the C note (as the 5th of the F and #11 of the Gb), rhythmically locking in with the drummer, and then weave in some simple snippets that come out sounding something like a mode of a melodic minor (A, Bb, C, Db, Eb, F), though not by design, and certainly not thought of as a scale. It seems to depend on where you place the notes in the two chord vamp. Just one of countless approaches. For the bridge, as others have noted I used a combination of outlining the (6/9) chords and chromaticism. The suggestion some one made in this thread about using C or C# diminished is intriguing, but it wasn't under my fingers at the moment. The bass took a short solo and we traded some fours, in which the drummer seemed to be having fun, and then we reprised the head and took it out. For the ending, we just stopped dead on the last phrase of the main riff (BCFC). It was nothing very spectacular, but it was enjoyable and interesting and we were in the groove.

To me, Monk's music is first and foremost playful. I know some take it dead serious, but he just strikes me as a playful fellow (wearing glasses and hats, getting up and walking around the stage, etc.). But he's also dead serious about certain things. As someone mentioned, and his own lead sheets seem to show, he was very particular about how his tunes were to be played (e.g. Miles played WYN "wrong," etc.). There's a few films about Monk, one of which has a scene where he is teaching the drummer a precise pattern to use on the tune they are rehearsing in the studio, and the drummer was not getting it at all, so Monk kept him at it (this might've been an audio recording, perhaps someone can ferret it out). So he's playful AND serious.

I very much enjoyed the clips you've posted of how others approach the tune, and they're very instructive. I also gathered a lot from Bill Frisell's point about learning Well You Needn't (to me, he talks and plays like Monk seems, with a hesitant, but not quite stuttering delivery, yet always somehow getting a point across). In any case, he extrapolated some very valuable advice, a simple principle, that you don't need full chords nor scales, and can explore well chosen fragments of each, sort of like Jim Hall, and back to Monk, too. That kind of advice is enough to keep one busy practicing and reflecting and jamming for many years.

Jam sessions, of course, are their own thing, and in my limited experience, they appear to be primarily participatory, and more about the process of playing music with others. Going to concerts to enjoy virtuosic performances, perfecting recordings for others to listen to, etc., these seem to be more about the product. Casual participation and professional production, process and product. I think both are crucial to keeping alive and relevant and vibrant this wonderful, strange, playful music with which we have all fallen in love.

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

Just in case s/o wants to learn the lyrics.

[Bobby Timmons]

Maybe, maybe not...

'Monk's compositions, though built upon traditional 12-bar blues and 32-bar ballad forms, were stripped to essentials and so cunningly constructed that they presented an immense challenge to even the best soloists. John Coltrane once said that "when you learn one of Monk's pieces, you can't just learn the melody and chord symbols. You have to learn the inner voicings and rhythms exactly. Everything is so carefully related; his works are jazz compositions in the sense that relatively few jazz 'originals' are."'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-52b1ae2a662c/

Are you intimidated about soloing over the tune and assume that everyone doesn't know how? :P Monk happens to be my first and longest lasting influence. I started working his tunes including ear work in college in the 00s. So it's intuitive to me to play and solo over his tunes. The thing is you have to use tricks to build functional melody over the not really functional base. Because it isn't a modal tune, you can't just play 1 scale over it, you have to have a set of devices. While it isn't the usual approach with more flowing functional harmony.

[ragman1]

Are you intimidated about soloing over the tune and assume that everyone doesn't know how? :P Monk happens to be my first and longest lasting influence. I started working his tunes including ear work in college in the 00s. So it's intuitive to me to play and solo over his tunes. The thing is you have to use tricks to build functional melody over the not really functional base. Because it isn't a modal tune, you can't just play 1 scale over it, you have to have a set of devices. While it isn't the usual approach with more flowing functional harmony.

Good question. No, not intimidated, that would be the wrong word. Cautious and not glib about it would be better. Obviously I've already tried it quite a few times. And I've said it's not really a difficult tune and quite fun. And I've listened to almost every version by a host of players now.

I actually agree with what you've said. You need a bagful of tricks to get through it convincingly. One scale seems too simple and wouldn't do it. And there's that piece I found with the quotation by Coltrane in it. Now, if he thought it wasn't a stroll in the park then I'm sure we should be paying attention!

[ragman1]

I called Well You Needn't early on... The chart that we use is from the Jazz Standard Bible (functioning something like a Real Book in other locales). The JSB chart for WYN is the Miles Davis version (G on the bridge, etc.). The chords are written almost entirely as 7ths, but in a trio no need to adhere to that. The bassist was mostly outlining the triads, so it left a lot of space for me.

My intro was simple to give the drummer the feel, basically moving between the F and Gb in a moderate sorta swingish way. I played the A section in the lower register with a kind of choppy, almost spastic, attack and for the bridge used the Kenny Burrell style voicings, basically 6/9 stacked 4ths shapes sliding up and down the neck. It worked fine and got the trio into the groove. I don't recall how many choruses I took, it was maybe 3 or 4. For the A section, I didn't outline the chords, nor did I use scales or modes (though, as Kenny does and some of you mentioned, the Fm pentatonic scale works fine). I began by emphasizing the C note (as the 5th of the F and #11 of the Gb), rhythmically locking in with the drummer, and then weave in some simple snippets that come out sounding something like a mode of a melodic minor (A, Bb, C, Db, Eb, F), though not by design, and certainly not thought of as a scale. It seems to depend on where you place the notes in the two chord vamp. Just one of countless approaches. For the bridge, as others have noted I used a combination of outlining the (6/9) chords and chromaticism. The suggestion some one made in this thread about using C or C# diminished is intriguing, but it wasn't under my fingers at the moment. The bass took a short solo and we traded some fours, in which the drummer seemed to be having fun, and then we reprised the head and took it out. For the ending, we just stopped dead on the last phrase of the main riff (BCFC). It was nothing very spectacular, but it was enjoyable and interesting and we were in the groove.

I wouldn't mind seeing that. No one was videoing it, I suppose?

[AllanAllen]

Here's something I thought about last night on my way to sleep.

Why should we give Monks changes all this respect when we laugh at Jerome Kern getting upset at jazz mutilating his songs?

[James W]

Here's something I thought about last night on my way to sleep.

Why should we give Monks changes all this respect when we laugh at Jerome Kern getting upset at jazz mutilating his songs?

Maybe because Monk is jazz first and foremost whereas Kern never liked any jazz interpretations of his music anyway?

[mr. beaumont]

This has been a fascinating thread.

I'll be perfectly honest-- I learned it from the Kenny Burrell version years ago because it was easy to hear and went with it. Always something else to learn...always...

[ragman1]

Jerome Kern getting upset at jazz mutilating his songs

I didn't know about that. Got a link for it? I can't find anything. When you're awake :-)

[AllanAllen]

I'm afraid I only have circular references. Like it's in the Unavoidable Composers thread, and I think it was mentioned in the Ken Burn's documentary. But like you, I can't find a source on google. Wikipedia has 'citation needed' next to that part of his bio.

[pamosmusic]

Here's something I thought about last night on my way to sleep.

Why should we give Monks changes all this respect when we laugh at Jerome Kern getting upset at jazz mutilating his songs?

A good question but maybe not quite the right one?

As far as I know Jerome Kern (and some others) were aesthetically opposed to jazz. I would wager they’d object less to, say, a Broadway singer interpreting the song with a piano accompaniment or whatever.

So I’m all for people reinterpreting monk. I played Well You Needn’t last night with a bass player who always sets it up with a funk groove.

The thread I would say is more about learning the original tune well as a departure point for whatever you do with it later.

So I guess the better question is why don’t we insist people learn the original All the Things that well before they start playing the Bird intro.

[mr. beaumont]

I think the big thing is in understanding the tunes.

We're "reverent" of Monk because of how idiosyncratic he was...it's like, "how can I add anything to this before I know what he was doing in the first place?"

Kern, a great songwriter, was working within bounds that most people could comprehend...

Furthermore, a lot of great players DO go back to the original versions of standards...Bernstein is huge on this.

[Christian Miller]

A good question but maybe not quite the right one?

As far as I know Jerome Kern (and some others) were aesthetically opposed to jazz. I would wager they’d object less to, say, a Broadway singer interpreting the song with a piano accompaniment or whatever.

So I’m all for people reinterpreting monk. I played Well You Needn’t last night with a bass player who always sets it up with a funk groove.

The thread I would say is more about learning the original tune well as a departure point for whatever you do with it later.

So I guess the better question is why don’t we insist people learn the original All the Things that well before they start playing the Bird intro.

Barry hated that intro haha. He liked the verse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[enalnitram]

I'm afraid I only have circular references. Like it's in the Unavoidable Composers thread, and I think it was mentioned in the Ken Burn's documentary. But like you, I can't find a source on google. Wikipedia has 'citation needed' next to that part of his bio.

If you search google for "jerome kern hated", or "jerome kern jazz" and click on "books" you'll see some info.

"Modern Jazz Trumpet Legends" p 65: "Jerome Kern disliked jazz and was annoyed with jazz artists interpreting his compositions..."

"Jerome Kern" (1943): "...detested jazz arrangements of his songs..."

[Bobby Timmons]

Here's something I thought about last night on my way to sleep.

Why should we give Monks changes all this respect when we laugh at Jerome Kern getting upset at jazz mutilating his songs?

You can go deep with standards too. I think it'll always make the music more interesting if you do some ear work or home work rather than only read the vanilla changes in the real book. They do that here. It gets going around 10:15.

[ragman1]

If you search google for "jerome kern hated", or "jerome kern jazz" and click on "books" you'll see some info.

"Modern Jazz Trumpet Legends" p 65: "Jerome Kern disliked jazz and was annoyed with jazz artists interpreting his compositions..."

"Jerome Kern" (1943): "...detested jazz arrangements of his songs..."

Entitled to his opinion, I suppose :-)

Thanks for finding that.

[pingu]

1317368[/URL]]I think it'll always make the music more interesting if you do some ear work or home work rather than only read the vanilla changes in the real book.

i agree
but just on a point of nomenclature

Vanilla changes = the reduced to the
bare bones changes

ie not what the real book often
presents you with

[Bobby Timmons]

Yeah I was thinking that.

[mr. beaumont]

The Real Book has definitely become the chubby kid with thick glasses and asthma singled out during High School PE dodgeball.

Can't play? Definitely the book's fault

[pingu]

hey …. i like the real book !

it’s just one way of playing a tune
(and it’s wrong sometimes)

[AllanAllen]

hey …. i like the real book !

it’s just one way of playing a tune
(and it’s wrong sometimes)

Everything is wrong sometimes.

[Bobby Timmons]

Everything is wrong sometimes.

Especially ear.