Fats Navarro - Lady Bird Solo -- Db over Bb7?

[pauln]

For those keeping score at home... Everyone thinks he played Fm bar 3. Some think he continued Fm into the front of bar 4 Bb7. Some think he played Bb jazz blues for bar 4, some think Db after an intrusion of Fm.





I think he played Bb jazz blues the whole of bar 4. Nobody mentioned he played G major measures 1 and 2?


Navarro sounds very much like one of the horns on Coltrane's 1957 "Turning Point".

[Mick-7]

For those keeping score at home... Everyone thinks he played Fm bar 3. Some think he continued Fm into the front of bar 4 Bb7. Some think he played Bb jazz blues for bar 4, some think Db after an intrusion of Fm. I think he played Bb jazz blues the whole of bar 4. Nobody mentioned he played G major measures 1 and 2?

Navarro sounds very much like one of the horns on Coltrane's 1957 "Turning Point".

Paul, I was just dissed for that sort of scale analysis - the theory hounds here don't want to hear that, they want enclosures, neighbor notes, sequential embellishment, strong vs weak beats, etc.

[pauln]

Paul, I was just dissed for that sort of scale analysis - the theory hounds here don't want to hear that, they want enclosures, neighbor notes, sequential embellishment, strong vs weak beats, etc.

I was really trying to map some of the notes into Lydian Dominant.

[Tal_175]

He played notes from the 12 note equal temperament system.

[pamosmusic]

Paul, I was just dissed for that sort of scale analysis - the theory hounds here don't want to hear that, they want enclosures, neighbor notes, sequential embellishment, strong vs weak beats, etc.

Arent you the guy that likes to refer to the Compound Mega Minor Scale or whatever that’s like … eleven notes?

[Christian Miller]

Arent you the guy that likes to refer to the Compound Mega Minor Scale or whatever that’s like … eleven notes?

I mean that’s just money in the bank to. YouTube slop creator such as myself. I’ll have that in the back pocket for a slow month.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

The term "theory" has quite a range of implicit definitions on the forum. Some people define theory in a way that pretty much excludes anything in Mark Levine's theory book. The book is just a collection of common jazz tropes used by working musicians since he provides examples from recordings for every element in the book. Theory is when people try to work out an explanation of "why" something sounds good. The book doesn't really engage in that kind of analysis except maybe for a couple of remarks about the b9 interval. Even that can be considered an observation about the common practice.

On the other extreme, if you say neighbor note, some would call you a theory hound.

In a way both definitions are defensible.

[Christian Miller]

Attachment 127011

Mick, yes that works very well indeed. Well done.

Bb Bebop Major has the Gb.

Edit: But, David Baker invented the term 'Bebop Major' in the 1970's-80's.

It’s usually a passing tone though in the bebop major.

V7b9 in major key common since the 1700s.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BreckerFan]

He played notes from the 12 note equal temperament system.

That's all the analysis you need. Some of these theory hounds want to talk about scales and tonalities, but I just let my ears figure it out.

[Mick-7]

Arent you the guy that likes to refer to the Compound Mega Minor Scale or whatever that’s like … eleven notes?

Nah, you're confusing me with Nicholas Slonimsky.

[Christian Miller]

The term "theory" has quite a range of implicit definitions on the forum. Some people define theory in a way that pretty much excludes anything in Mark Levine's theory book. The book is just a collection of common jazz tropes used by working musicians since he provides examples from recordings for every element in the book. Theory is when people try to work out an explanation of "why" something sounds good. The book doesn't really engage in that kind of analysis except maybe for a couple of remarks about the b9 interval. Even that can be considered an observation about the common practice.

Well, there's always an implicit understanding that whatever resources are on offer in books are to be used in the making of NEW music - not a musicological study of Great Works like you have in modern classical music theory - so in a sense, no it's not a theory book. It's a practical guide. But then most of the literature on jazz theory out there fits that category.

So TBF I do think that's a very narrow definition of theory that almost no-one except prof Robert O Gjerdingen uses. I wish there was a widely used term that differentiated this more explanatory tendency from the practical, resource-led side.

That said there is some (big T) Theory built into discussing jazz solos and improvisation by default. It IS helpful to give things labels obviously - Dorian mode, clave, quartal voicing - and these labels do have an aspect of explanatory abstraction built into them. So obviously, a hip Joe Henderson lick imight belong to the Dorian mode, but not all things that belong to the Dorian mode are hip Joe Henderson licks. So there IS always an element of boiling and reducing stuff down, which is where chord-scale theory for instance runs into issues as an improvisation method.

So it's not cut and dried necessarily. I would suggest that all theory is based around a reduction or simplification of the complexity of actual music to try and distill some understanding of it. A dramatic example is Schekarian analysis, where the ultimate background level reduction (Ursatz) is that a Beethoven symphony or Mozart string quartet is I-V-I and Mi Re Do. Recognising that the pitches of jazz line conform to the notes of a scale is another, less dramatic example, but basically the same process.

That said, I do think jazz theory often offers glib (circular) explanations about why things sound good - usually involving upper extensions relating to chord-scales - in a style Beato took to the bank with his channel...

I think this is benign but more or less meaningless verbiage that doesn't relate to how any of this stuff is actually practiced. Where it can become problematic is when half the lesson gets into why things sound good rather than the student learning the sound and practicing it. You still have to practice the bloody tritone sub at the end of the day, innit.

So I have to be on my guard about that tendency. The real reason do things because they sound good, and we hear other people whose music we like doing them. Not all things sound good in all styles of music. The better we get, the more of these details and nuances we perceive. While theory is about abstraction, I passionately believe real musicianship is about detail.

So. I think we can cut most of that stuff out of our teaching without really losing anything. Problem is most jazz students are clever and naturally curious, so it's easy to get sidetracked.

[GuyBoden]

The Fats phrase is much easier to transcribe than analyse with theory.

Here is the phrase slowed down:

[Christian Miller]

Yeah - the other thing is analysis is really subjective. So you can take a line like your Parker lick above - just a few notes long - and different people will analyse it differently.

And that's absolutely fine ...

but also the way the line sounds is kind of more important. And we can use our ideas about what it is to mess around with it, once we've learned the line and can play it in different keys etc etc.

[Christian Miller]

For those keeping score at home... Everyone thinks he played Fm bar 3. Some think he continued Fm into the front of bar 4 Bb7. Some think he played Bb jazz blues for bar 4, some think Db after an intrusion of Fm.





I think he played Bb jazz blues the whole of bar 4. Nobody mentioned he played G major measures 1 and 2?


Navarro sounds very much like one of the horns on Coltrane's 1957 "Turning Point".

I'm hearing that #4 in bar 2 more as a chromatic enclosure of the root the F-7 chord along with the G and E.

Also, yes it's the Bb minor blues in the second half of the Bb7 bar - but it really doesn't sound like it to me. Again, I think I'm hearing this in forward motion - moving towards the G in the last bar. So the b6-b7-b6 figure is a classic in bebop language, and we have the lower neighbour F# added to it. TBH it seems to me like he's playing an altered V7 chord in the Bb7 bar.

We have that chromatic line Eb-E-F-F#-G there too.

Still not sure what's going off with that Db haha. To my ears the whole bar gives off G7alt-C vibes.

[Tal_175]

.

Still not sure what's going off with that Db haha. To my ears the whole bar gives off G7alt-C vibes.

As you know G7alt = Db7. Thr Bb7 line after the first beat can be called either. I agree that it's an idiomatic resolution phrase.

[Christian Miller]

As you know G7alt = Db7. Thr Bb7 line after the first beat can be called either. I agree that it's an idiomatic resolution phrase.

Yes I think that's probably right - from what the notes seem to suggest looking at them and analysing notes over chords - maybe chromatically embellished Db major pentatonic - which is common sub for G7. Also Db major pent with add b3 = Bb minor blues. The tritone sub dominant scale gives you the whole chromatic gamut in combination with the I6/9 chord - including in C, that F# lower neighbour at the end. It's like a sort of fancy enclosure.

This feeling is perhaps reinforced by that Eb-E-F-F#-G line in the lower implied voice

I think to the ears, the actual pitches over the chords are less important than what they do - which is resolve into I with heavy forward motion. Db/D doesn't much affect the sense of the phrase.

What I'm saying is that it's spicy V-I. You can always V-I.

[Mick-7]

To my ears the whole bar gives off G7alt-C vibes.

Would you say that if bar #4 had Eb^7 or Gm7 rather than C^7?

Why is the idea that he would use an Fm scale over a Fm7/Bb7 progression controversial?

[Christian Miller]

Would you say that if bar #4 had Eb^7 or Gm7 rather than C^7?

Why is the idea that he would use an Fm scale over a Fm7/Bb7 progression controversial?

I mean it's what I'd do - but it's not what I'm hearing. I'm hearing a Db7/G7 alt sort of thing going to G. Which is a subjective answer, but there you are.

[Christian Miller]

I mean what it comes back down to is that F-7 Bb7 C and D-7b5 G7 C are basically interchangeable.

Which is probably something like what Fats was thinking, I suspect. The F-7, Bb7 and D-7b5 are all more or less the same thing. The Bb7 is the basic scale choice for D-7b5 in the Barry Harris system. F minor is also available.

The difference is the leading note or the third of G7 - B - which you can omit from your lines over a minor II V I perfectly happily as Barry taught (in fact he suggested it might be advisable. There are no B's here.

The G7 can be a bit more fruity than the Bb7 if you add in the b5 (D flat) but it does the same job.

OTOH a lot of people analyse what I would think of as 'backdoor dominant' lines as altered scale lines, because it can be ambiguous. In practice they all belong to same family.

So I sort of agree with Mick in principle, but with Tal in the specifics of this particular line. It's Db7.

This is a useful result because there are many tunes that do things like - D-7 F-6 Cmaj7, Fmaj7 Fm6 Cmaj7, D-7 D-7b5 C, and so on - and it's good know you can just treat them as a II-V-I (D-7 G7alt C) if you like.

[Strat-itis]

Using "Chord Scale Theory" to analyse Bebop will be a long, long, long road to nowhere fast.

Don't let my comments stop you from using "Chord Scale Theory" to analyse Bebop. I was taught a similar "Chord Scale Theory" method 20-25 years ago to play jazz. "Chord Scale Theory" didn't work for me, but obviously it has worked for others.

Also, obviously, George Russell's 'Lydian Chromatic Concept' was a method of applying 'a scale to a chord' (but, that's early 1950's not 1940's bebop). But yes, listening to 1940's Bebop, they definitely play scalar lines, but usually over more than a single chord to my ears.

I can tell you were being polite, but can you define what you mean by cst and why you think it's incorrect? Cst kind of feels like a red herring to me.

After giving it a college try of trying to figure out what people likely precisely mean about cst, they mean the systematized approach of canonically associating a scale to each chord in the tune, like dorian, mixolydian, ionian. This was codified in the 70s.

On one hand it's true that bebop (an example we're using of foundational jazz) would not have used an approach codified post hoc in the 1970s. They also did not canonically stick a prescribed, codified scale over every chord. So it's fair to discredit cst on those terms. On the other hand, bebop does employ some sticking scales over chords in verifiable instances, with the devices they used at the time. A quick scan of the Parker Omnibook proves this.

All I did was list devices that Fats could have been using over the section of tune - which the beboppers did do. They used devices to create the eloquent harmony in their lines. Then you labeled what I was doing as cst and then declared it manifestly false. So I don't quite get what you mean. Perhaps you could clear it up since this misunderstanding comes up a lot. It feels like a red herring to me.

[josh74]

I'm partial to the theory that Fat's was playing a Db triad idea over those last 3 beats and then using an enclosure to land the 5th C. This to me functioned as a tritone sub of G so a V-I (as other people have pointed out).

One of the alternatives was the blues scale theory. That he was playing 3 beats of Bb blues scale with the enclosure landing on G.

Above is Fat's line from the 2nd chorus. Looks like he plays an AbM7 arpegio (or F-9) into beat 1 of the 4th bar. and then descends the Bb blues scale.

Does this 2nd phrase change your interpretation of the 1st phrase?

[pamosmusic]

Would you say that if bar #4 had Eb^7 or Gm7 rather than C^7?

Why is the idea that he would use an Fm scale over a Fm7/Bb7 progression controversial?

It’s not, but I’m going to ask a touchy question …

Have you played it?

[pauln]

I can tell you were being polite, but can you define what you mean by cst and why you think it's incorrect?

Incomplete might be a softer description than incorrect.
Harder descriptions might be:
Vanilla, Safe, Unenlightened, Paint By Numbers

It suggests scales that go OK with chords - things that won't sound like a mistake but may not sound as musical. Its window of application is narrow - the present harmony; it does not extend to include a sense of motion invoked from the preceding and subsequent chords, forward targets, voice leading, or resolutions.

There may be advanced levels of CST that incorporate more complex structures.

Bars 1 and 2 call for Cmaj7.
The notes are C major except for the F#.
Those notes would be G major.
If he were a guitarist he might have been hearing this
8 10 7 7 7 7
or this
8 9 9 9 8 x

I suspect CST grinds its gears when the chord names get longer.
The mighty and majestic online Chord Namer calls that first one:

C6add9add#11add14omit3
CM#11add6omit3
C6add9addb5add14omit3
CM9add6addb5omit3
C6sus2add#11add14
CM#11sus2add6
C6sus2b5add5add14
CM7sus2b5add5add6
GMb11sus2sus4/C

and the second one:

CMb11addb5omit3
CM7b5add12
CM7b5add5
F#7#11b9sus4/C
F#7b9sus4b5/C
GM13b11sus4/C

[Mick-7]

It’s not, but I’m going to ask a touchy question … Have you played it?

Yes.... As I said earlier, "a scale is a particular set of notes, one can emphasize whatever notes within in it one wants to suit the chord progression."

I mean what it comes back down to is that F-7 Bb7 C and D-7b5 G7 C are basically interchangeable ... So I sort of agree with Mick in principle, but with Tal in the specifics of this particular line. It's Db7.

His line does not include the b7th of Db7 (Cb), there is a C natural.

[Mick-7]

Above is Fat's line from the 2nd chorus. Looks like he plays an AbM7 arpeggio (or F-9) into beat 1 of the 4th bar. and then descends the Bb blues scale.

Does this 2nd phrase change your interpretation of the 1st phrase?

That is essentially an ascending/descending F minor scale (includes an E nat. passing tone). F natural minor is the relative minor of Ab major.