Experiment

[Christian Miller]

It is ENTIRELY possible as I indicated above the Bb7 shenanigans is an intuitive aspect of my music making here as I recorded a few passes and to some extent may have been ‘refining’.

I’m literally not responsible. But music is not my entire responsibility as Eliot wrote in that poem in theist terms ‘for thine is the Kingdom.’ Kind of fancy but I do feel strongly that the good music we make does not stem from ourselves (or at least or everyday selves). Which is probably inconsistent with other positions I have held.

In which consciously analysing the intuitive aspects of music is philosophically interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

1. sweet Jesus don’t start on the original changes to Stella on this forum unless you’ve got a week to kill.

2. most American songbook tunes can be interpreted as having simpler changes originally …. or at any rate more internal harmonic motion but fewer ii-Vs and quick root moves like that. I’m not real big on the whole “original changes or death” thing, but it’s another reason not to be too religious about the usual changes in ireal or whatever

Anyway … part of the deal is that I want folks to start mapping the harmonic movement of the tune more than getting hung up on the individual changes since a lot of those changes aren’t original anyway.

Everyone who wants to get seriously into Barry Harris is obliged by jazz law enforcement to discuss the OC of Stella.

Special assignment for Ragman: Write down the timecode in min:sec form for all occurrences of the tune in the movie.

THE UNINVITED 1944 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Sorry I could not resist ...

EDIT: Resistance is fruitless and is gonna be punished by conscription for the Mike Moreno "Standards From Films" course.

[Christian Miller]

These are identical to the real book changes.

And to all the Stella Originalists out there.

Have mercy on this man. He knows not what he does.

Am I not merciful?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ragman1]

Peter -

This might be it although I'm not sure now. It certainly leaps about, anyway.

[Mick-7]

I don't know what you're talking about. There's no G7 or CM7 in the CPW chart. And I used the #11 on the AbM7 (D, bar 3) and the FM7 (B, bar 4).

Sorry, I had the wrong chord names, I was referring to bars 2 & 3 (Bbm7-Eb7/AbM7), the note D is played over the Bbm7/Eb7 (= Maj.7) and held over the bar line on the AbM7 (= #11th) followed as I said by the 4th & #5th of that chord - ergo no resolution.

On the chart, I put in what the chord becomes/sounds like when the melody notes are added to it (i.e. A7 + C = A7#9).

o.k., but on my planet adding a Maj. 7th to a Eb7 chord does not make it sound like a EbM7 chord.

https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/atta...itledxxxxx-jpg

While we're at it, that vanilla chart of Stella is not Ralph Patt's. This is Ralph Patt's:

Attachment 113904

Ah, you're right, wrong vanilla changes, the ones I posted are from Bob Taylor's Vanilla book, he changed the song names slightly to avoid copyright hassles. Guess today's my day for clerical errors.

[Mick-7]

These are identical to the real book changes.

Which ones? The ones labelled "jazz changes," that's to be expected, I didn't check the Real Book chart.

[pamosmusic]

Which ones? The ones labelled "jazz changes," that's to be expected, I didn't check the Real Book chart.

The ones in the post I quoted. The ones you said were close to the original changes and that you said were from the Ralph Patt site.

[Mick-7]

The ones in the post I quoted. The ones you said were close to the original changes and that you said were from the Ralph Patt site.

Real Book I, Vol. 6 (I threw out most older editions, too many errors), looks identical to the "jazz changes" in the Keith Jarrett thesis - except for all the 7b9 chords, whoever wrote the RB chart must be very fond of them.

[pamosmusic]

Real Book I, Vol. 6 (I threw out most older editions, too many errors), looks identical to the "jazz changes" in the Keith Jarrett thesis.

Right. You cited essentially those changes and said “I find it useful sometimes to see the original score to better understand the composers harmonic intent.”

What are we talking about here?

[Mick-7]

Right. You cited essentially those changes and said “I find it useful sometimes to see the original score to better understand the composers harmonic intent.”

What are we talking about here?

Too many different charts posted, bound to create confusion....

My sentence that you quoted accompanied the chart in this post, so "original score" would be the changes labelled "Original" on it (assuming the author is correct) - Experiment

[Christian Miller]

Which ones? The ones labelled "jazz changes," that's to be expected, I didn't check the Real Book chart.

Nice chart - haven’t seen this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ragman1]

Sorry, I had the wrong chord names, I was referring to bars 2 & 3 (Bbm7-Eb7/AbM7), the note D is played over the Bbm7/Eb7 (= Maj.7) and held over the bar line on the AbM7 (= #11th) followed as I said by the 4th & #5th of that chord - ergo no resolution.

Mick, you're saying that notes referring to a chord must only appear under that chord and nowhere else. That isn't true. A note or a line can begin before the actual chord it refers to, which is called anticipation. It creates a certain tension which then resolves when the real chord appears.

This is nothing new in jazz or music in general.

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

Nice chart - haven’t seen this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's from here.

Dariusz Terefenko also wrote Jazz Theory: From Basic to Advanced Study.

[Christian Miller]

It's from here.

Dariusz Terefenko also wrote Jazz Theory: From Basic to Advanced Study.

I recognised the name. I haven’t done anything with his jazz ROs yet but it’s on my list to have a look at them.

He seems like one of the good theorists. (Because he isn’t a theorist ;-))


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[supersoul]

It's a bit of a mess but just follow the colours, man :-)

Attachment 113902

ahh, the colors make sense of it to me! I like colors. You're doing a sort of displacement, anticipating and delaying.

[pamosmusic]

Too many different charts posted, bound to create confusion....

My sentence that you quoted accompanied the chart in this post, so "original score" would be the changes labelled "Original" on it (assuming the author is correct) - Experiment

I was quoting post 148 which is not the chart you’re referencing.

And yes too many charts … most of which you posted. Anyway. Not important.

[pamosmusic]

Peter -

This might be it although I'm not sure now. It certainly leaps about, anyway.

This solo is about as inside as inside gets.

Other than some flat 3 blue notes on dominant chords, the only two extensions in the first two choruses are an F# over the Emaj in m22 and a Bb over the Fm7 and Bbm7 in m60-something.

Both somewhat instructive though I guess. In the first, the F# is a common tone with the B7 that comes before it and is an anticipation. In both they’re the top notes of really solid structures … big arpeggio lines.

So no … the tensions don’t need to resolve, but a lot of attention paid to how and whether they appear. A lot of the time those extensions are prepared this way by extended arpeggios or they’re included in super strong melodic ideas like triads and things.

[ragman1]

ahh, the colors make sense of it to me! I like colors. You're doing a sort of displacement, anticipating and delaying.

You've got it! Hallelujah!

[ragman1]

the tensions don’t need to resolve

Thanks, that was a very good assessment. Absolutely.

I thought m39 was interesting.

[pamosmusic]

AGHHH! N-O-O-O-O! YOU CAN'T SAY THAT IT'S FORBIDDEN DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!

Thanks, that was a very good assessment. Absolutely.

I thought m39 was interesting.

Yeah I think if you’re looking for why those extensions “make sense” but that people are saying they don’t sound good, that’s probably your solution.

It’s not that they don’t resolve, but that they aren’t incorporated into particularly strong melodic structures. Given that the harmony to the tune is unusual anyway, that’s a tricky mix to get right.

[ragman1]

Yes. When it was inside, it was inside. When it wasn't, it really wasn't! I liked the way he kept referencing the tune occasionally too.

[pamosmusic]

I’ll reiterate that the extent to which ragmans extensions did or did not work depends on the strength of the melody they were a part of.

#11 sounds fine when there’s a fifth in the chord. Provided the melody of which it is a part is compelling. Is there an interesting shape? Is it rhythmically interesting and played with good time? Are there compelling, identifiable melodic shapes?

Ill leave the answering of all those questions to the individual reader.

But the presence or absence of an Eb in that chord is kind of irrelevant.

[Mick-7]

I’ll reiterate that the extent to which ragmans extensions did or did not work depends on the strength of the melody they were a part of.

#11 sounds fine when there’s a fifth in the chord. Provided the melody of which it is a part is compelling. Is there an interesting shape? Is it rhythmically interesting and played with good time? Are there compelling, identifiable melodic shapes?

Ill leave the answering of all those questions to the individual reader.

But the presence or absence of an Eb in that chord is kind of irrelevant.

I’ll reiterate that the extent to which ragmans extensions did or did not work depends on the strength of the melody they were a part of.

That's too general a rule for me to completely agree with because the particular chord voicing played will affect how a line sounds (against it).

For example, I cannot say that it's irrelevant whether ragman plays the notes D, Db & E over Ab-G-C (AbM7 w/o 5th) or F-Ab-C-D (Fm6), or over Ab-G-C-Eb (AbM7).

[Bobby Timmons]

Now go away.

[ragman1]

Well, here's one more to see if you can figure out the modus operandi. Not that difficult. Up to you, anyway. After this it's probably goodnight Vienna

Attachment 113926