-
So I understand that the objective of the bebop scale(s) are to give you a chord tone on the down beat. What if you plan to play a syncopated note, like a quarter note preceded by an eighth rest? Would you play the chord tone on the off-beat, basically anticipating the downbeat, or play the tension and leave it ringing through the next downbeat.
I realize that neither is "wrong" and it comes down to personal taste and what type of feeling you are going for etc. However based on the philosophy that chord tones on downbeats are preferable as a default, what would be the preferred approach?
-
10-26-2015 01:59 PM
-
Short answer: do what ever sounds good to you
Longer answer: that's a very good question. Structurally, there are two types of off beat in jazz lines as I understand it.
Connecting - an 8th note on an off beat followed by a note on the beat - this could between two other 8th notes - such as two 8ths followed by a 1/4, or even three 8ths after an off beat.
Pushes - a note starting on an off beat without a following note on the next beat. This could be a longer value note or an off beat 8th followed by a rest. This is to be understood as a note syncopated - or pushed - ahead of the beat by an 8th.
It's my understanding that both types of notes are to be felt slightly differently - check out Mike Longo's rhythm reading book for more info. Very interesting stuff.
This affects the harmonic context, too.
Soooo - the bebop scale concerns running scale notes together with connectors - hence the chord tone/passing tone pattern.
Your example is a push, so it would be customary to use a chord tone as if the note was on a beat, although bear in mind that this might well be an upper extension such as a 9th.
It's the same as comping - if you see a chord chart with a push on 4+, you play it using the chord on the next bar... Same with soloing....Last edited by christianm77; 10-26-2015 at 07:21 PM.
-
Chord tone/non-chord tone, it matters not a jot. The whole 'bebop' scale thing is based on earlier convention...partly born out of big band arranging. If you sit at a piano and play non-chord notes directly with/against harmony in the left hand, all in 'concerted' (played together) rhythm, you hear those clashes more than if you stagger the hands rhythmically. In the same way, during the Swing era when the whole rhythm section used to chonk out harmony/pulse 4-to-the-bar, you'd notice clashes on the down beats, because that's where there was rhythmic stress. The offbeats though? There was nothing going on there stress wise...unless an arrangement strayed from the conventional 'foxtrot' or 'swing' 4-pulse rhythm, or the whole ensemble played a concerted, syncopated line...otherwise, the offbeats were where all the passing notes/anticipations/suspensions happened: dissonance is softened when left and right hand (so to speak) don't coincide rhythmically.
In the case of anticipation, you can either anticipate a chord tone, or create a 'prepared' suspension. Either way, the note is tied on the following downbeat, therefore you avoid that rhythmic stress on the downbeat. In the case of a suspension, you crate soft dissonance by avoiding that stress. The note can either resolve on the offbeat, or on the following downbeat.
It's an old fashioned concept, one that I don't pay much attention to unless I'm in arranging mode (you need to think about all this stuff when section writing). Within the context of playing in a modern ensemble though, who the hell plays 4-to-the-bar anymore? In arranging, one basic rule is that any one part can move while the others remain static. Similarly, an improvised line can move how it likes while harmony is sustained. So you can get away with murder if a pianist/guitarist is laying down a pad of harmony. It's only those places where you coincide rhythmically that you notice dissonance, cue to rhythmic stress...and even then differences in timbre between instruments means that the punch is pulled when it comes to creating clashes. And when you do get clashes, that's part of the modern jazz sound. Nicey nicey can be pretty dull all the time.
That said, when playing with another guitarist you have to be careful because so many of us go for a generic jazz guitar sound...easy to sound like a car crash if you don't show some respect for each other.
-
Incidentally, if you want to retain the 8th note, chord tones on the downbeat thing after playing a prepared suspension, the resolution is delayed until the next downbeat by inserting on the offbeat either the note above the suspension (echappee), or the lower auxiliary (diatonic or chromatic) of the resolution note (encirclement). Not sure if that's clear, but it's the best I can do at this time of night!
-
Gerry, what you have to say is really interesting, but I feel it muddies the water slightly - the OP asked a very simple question. Learning to play bebop scales is about preparation to play music - it's not actually music any more than species counterpoint is. It's not about the 'big picture' either. It's a practice exercise. The simple chord tone on the beat, passing tone on the off beat pattern might not reflect real music in all it's messiness, but it is a good thing to work on.
Incidentally, I would be careful about applying the term 'bebop scale' - there are many ways you can add in chromatics to make the chord tones come out on the beat. Also adding chromatics in this way is something that's been around since the 19th century!
The Barry Harris stuff is really good for this, and I would also recommend David Baker's books.Last edited by christianm77; 10-27-2015 at 06:07 AM.
-
The point of its value as an exercise is a good one, I think.
Originally Posted by christianm77
It's a little confusing. I've heard people say not to worry about the beat/on beat part as much as tension /release considerations. Then, other folks talk about beat/on beat considerations as actual "rules".
The truth is that jazzers don't think of "the beat" as being a static thing, not in terms of melodic and harmonic rhythm. So on-beat "rules" work off the beat, but the musician isn't really thinking of it as syncopation as much as just kind of "messing with" the beat. This creates cognitive dissonance of sorts when the beginner musician realizes that the "rules" are broken by real players.
It's with good reason, however, that chord tones on the beat are taught as common practice in the beginning most everywhere. It teaches really good concepts. In the real world , jazz musicians make a habit of messing with time though. Fitting eighth note patterns over triplets, triplet patterns over 16th notes etc., while actually using the same "rules" for each.
I'm not a player or teacher of jazz. These are just my own observations and reflections, as a "student", of many players and teachers who would otherwise seem to be saying opposite things. I think it's mostly semantics.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 10-27-2015 at 06:50 AM.
-
I would agree 100%. The same points count for other classic jazz exercises such as outlining the changes in chord tones, breaking down rhythms mathematically, playing the same chord tones on each chord and so on. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
A big conceptual leap came to me when I realised the fundamental difference between real practice and actual music making. That's an easy thing to say, but it can take a long time to really understand in your bones. Practice is rational/formulaic/difficult/tiring. Music is right intuitive/creative/natural/energising - but you need one to fire up the other....
Before I start a massive discussion - there are activities that fall in the middle, and you may well spend some time in your practice schedule playing music as well as practicing. But a bit of hard core thinky practicing is essential for the craft of music. The danger comes when the thinking goes over into the art of music....
Kenny Werner is really good on this by the way.Last edited by christianm77; 10-27-2015 at 07:27 AM.
-
Granted, it's a 'practice exercise' nowadays, but it wasn't in the past. In the formative days of Bebop, that 4-to-the bar pulse was still convention, and those scales developed from that convention. And they were used. I also feel it's important to understand some of the history behind their development. That can help you decide whether to accept or reject those conventions (context is everything). My old guitar teacher was really pedantic about this approach...I chose to reject it. Too old-fashioned for me and it discourages logical/natural phrasing IMO (hence the confusion of the OP). Chains of never ending 8th notes...blugh. Originally Posted by christianm77
Either way, my comments about 'recovery' from syncopated anticipation/suspension still hold if you want to retain the pattern of chord-notes on the beat.
Incidentally, I have an old '40s publication that outlines the whole 'Re-bob' (the name wasn't even formalised then) scale approach. If I have time later in the year I'll scan it and post. Nice bit of history.Last edited by GuitarGerry; 10-27-2015 at 08:13 AM.
-
Fantastic, I would LOVE to see it.... That would be really interesting and I'm sure it would fill in some of the history for me. Right up my street. Originally Posted by GuitarGerry
Anyway, like I say I think your posts were really interesting reading, and I also hear what you say re: chains of 8th notes... That isn't what bebop is either (just listen to Bird.) That said I have got an awful lot out of Barry Harris's approach and I would recommend this to anyone interested in learning more about bop. In BH's approach there's a lot more than just 8 note bop scales...
To move the discussion forward, could you describe some simple practice activities that would work on what you are talking about?
-
Quite happy to take the discussion forward Christian, but I'm not sure what you mean (bit confused...but that's my default state so don't worry about it!) Originally Posted by christianm77
I've got shingles at the moment and feel like crap. When I'm over it I'll scan the Re-bop book. I have a fetish for old books. Mostly arranging and drumming, but the odd theory/piano book crops up now and again and I can't resist. I can't remember much about the content of the book, but was impressed with how up-to-date it was (I think it was published circa 1947), especially as the author was British (must have been over to the States, or had some lessons from visiting artists...although he does mention transcription a fair bit, IIR).
-
Man, sorry to hear about that, sounds like no fun at all. Originally Posted by GuitarGerry
I'm also into that sort of thing ;-)
I suppose I'm just not 100% sure how you'd go about practicing what you are talking about, and I'm not 100% sure I've completely grasped the whole concept...
-
I'm not really advocating anything Christian, merely explaining where the convention of playing chord-notes on the beat comes from: why players in those days felt need to invent 8 note scales. The extra chromatic note landed all chord notes on the important stresses within a bar (downbeats). I don't think anyone was pedantic about it, but it was a convention that made you sound more 'right' than 'wrong'. However, how relevant is it to modern jazz, considering that members of a rhythm section comp freely (thereby avoiding the trap of tying an improviser to a rhythmic pattern). Originally Posted by christianm77
My old guitar teacher was taught by Ivor Mairants, so I got all that 30s dance-band era stuff second-hand (so to speak). From what I gather, the 'be-bop' scale thing was something that was used at that time (at the very least it was the approach taught by Mairants). And from studying old arranging books, the chord-tones on the beat thing was probably inherited from the dance-band era (it tallies with dance-band convention of the time). I've never liked the sound. My guitar teacher would have said (and I'm sure many here would agree) that by disciplining yourself to do that, you have more choices. My argument was (and still is), why spend valuable time and effort mastering something that merely sounds OK. Surely it's better to focus your time on approaches and ideas that sound 'strong'.
That said, reply no. 4 addresses the OP's question (though my explanation could have been better).Last edited by GuitarGerry; 10-28-2015 at 05:47 AM.
-
Well I think it's pretty relevant if you you want to study bop or swing. Originally Posted by GuitarGerry
The history is interesting. It sounds like what you are talking about forms the basis of Barry's teaching (which should come as no surprise.) As someone who plays a lot of locked in 4/4 stuff, this is of great use and interest to me. I really enjoy practicing it and working out new patterns and ideas based on the system.
Nowadays, I felt that this type of traditional information is much harder to come by. Players used to have something to rebel against - the fuddy duddy dance band thing. Now, that generation is teaching Kenny Wheeler and Pat Metheny in colleges and younger players often have to really have to seek out the tradition. You may have rejected you teacher's approach ultimately, but knowing about it is no bad thing - it enriches you.
However, this forum does turn into a talking shop! How do you go about developing strong ideas during practice? What exercises would you do, or otherwise stop yourself from merely noodling away your practice time?Last edited by christianm77; 10-28-2015 at 06:27 AM.
-
I'm in total agreement Christian. Ironically, these days I'm more inclined to listen to '30s swing than the progressive jazz I listened to as a student. As for fusion, I wasn't keen on it back then and it sounds positively dated now. And yes, I'm all the better for understanding the development of music/improv. I didn't appreciate it at the time, but having that link back to the 30s (via my tutor) was unique; and even though I rejected a lot of his approach (and still do), it has relevance in other areas (all that stuff still holds when arranging, especially section writing). Originally Posted by christianm77
Where do I start ?!!! Originally Posted by christianm77
All this stuff is very individual/subjective. The important thing to do during practice time is be consistent and remain focused. I don't really practice these days (certainly not regularly), but I only ever worked on weaknesses when I did. It can be disconcerting at first because most of your shedding will sound awful. However, keep plugging away at one or two things (at most) until they become strengths, then move on to the next thing (preferable related, so that you can build on those strengths). Don't noodle around playing stuff you can do in your sleep. That will always be there: like breathing, you don't lose the ability to do it (although a bit of 'exercise' now and again helps keep the system in shape).
That's all I can say (for now). What is 'strong'? (I'm sure our opinions would, understandably, differ).Last edited by GuitarGerry; 10-28-2015 at 07:25 AM.
-
Well, I dug out my copy of Re-Bop by George Evans (published 1947). This little paragraph confirms what we've been discussing (the convention of chord-tones on the beat being a swing idiom):
...we notice that a lot of the "queer" notes [in Bebop] are in fact passing notes, but with a difference. This difference being that they fall on the beat instead of the hitherto customary after-quaver, thus coming into direct conflict with their accompanying harmonies (or chords) through being sounded simultaneously...
Pretty much backs up the info I got (albeit secondhand) from Mairants.
I'll scan the whole book sometime in the next few days and post it in this section of the forum (I'll also link to it in this thread). I've yet to work through any of the examples, but this publication would have informed a whole generation of UK musicians, so it's a little slice of history worth studying.
-
I think I will go on referring to it as Re-Bop from now on. Originally Posted by GuitarGerry
It's something I've been thinking about a lot - that music had been about putting the harmonic notes on the beats and coming up with lines that work this way, using scales, arpeggios and passing tones. This is called (of course) functional harmony....
Thing is, most young musicians now learn modes first, meaning that the first time they come into contact with functional harmony stuff is when they are at college struggling to learn bebop. Some jazz courses go earlier, of course, but bop is the foundation for most players now. So they see all this stuff and associate with bebop.
Of course bebop was identified with a break from that tradition - and that the innovation was centered around rhythm even when it came to harmony. The example I like to give is Now's The Time - we can imagine how this tune might sound if it had been written by Lester Young say, but having set up a clear rhythmic/formal pattern, Bird's composition goes off on one in the second half of the tune.
Furthermore, while a lot of Bird's playing employs very conventional melodic material for the time - triads, neighbour tones, blues, scalar runs, even upper structure triads were in common use by the '40s - his usage of them rhythmically and formally is very different. Much more irregular. The best known example is the way Bird would anticipate or prolong chords in his line, but even on the level of the quaver off beat there's loads of stuff going on. I believe this relates to Mike Longo/Dizzy Gillespie's 5/8 phrasing concept. Certainly it comes through when you play the rhythm of Bird's music on hand drums.
This kind of chimes with reports that Parker would turn the beat around on purpose - partly this can be done harmonically.
Obviously bebop wouldn't have worked if it was only subversion and no pattern. In fact we can see lots of clear changes playing, perhaps even more so in the second generation players. But needless to say (and this is point - see there was one!) you have to learn to do it the 'normal' way first.
Incidentally - David Baker disagrees with everything we have said. He says in his Introduction to the How to Play Bebop books that the use of chromaticism became more regular with the development of bebop and during the 30's use of chromatics was quite haphazard. Certainly Charlie Christian's use of chromaticism is pretty irregular, but beyond that I don't feel qualified to comment, CC was an innovator in any case. Any ideas?
(I would mention that Baker comes from a slightly later generation of players....)
PS: there's more than one way to learn how to improvise with chord tones on the beats...Last edited by christianm77; 10-28-2015 at 03:39 PM.
-
I think 'haphazard' is the wrong term to use. Idiosyncratic, perhaps, but I can think of plenty of examples where you hear chromaticism during the pre-bop era. Especially harmony. Granted, there was less use of ornamentation and chromaticism than during the re-bop era (you've got me doing it now!). When you listen to/scan through printed Ragtime, the melodies were pretty bare. Similarly, early barrel-house piano-player cylinders and recordings lack some of the tension of later boogie-woogie, though you can hear the genesis of that music in those early recordings. Originally Posted by christianm77
One thing that crops up when you read interviews with a lot of arrangers from the Swing era, is how their hands were often tied by band-leaders. A lot of arrangers wanted to push the boundaries, but weren't permitted to. The most exotic harmony that a lot of them were able to use was the maj 6th chord, or occasionally the dom9th. Passing notes were typically harmonised using diminished chords (I love that sound...a lot of post-war arrangers threw the baby out with the bathwater when they turned their nose up at Swing conventions). I think the same was true of a lot of the innovations that the re-bop crowd pushed for. They were off limits, because the band leaders had commercial concerns to deal with (that stuff was too arty for the average listener...or so it was thought).
I must confess, I have yet to plough through much of his mighty tome, but Gunther Schuller wrote an excellent analysis of Swing Era music. Simply called 'The Swing Era: development of Jazz. 1930-1945' it's a must for any serious student of Jazz. Packed with musical examples and comparisons. There's also a useful overview/comparison of different jazz styles in Leonard Feather's 'The Book of Jazz; from then till now'. By no way as comprehensive, but a good read nonetheless.Last edited by GuitarGerry; 10-28-2015 at 07:24 PM.
-
The bebop scales---what are they really about?!
Complicated issue....I don't think dance music, regularizing the use of 8-tone scales, as a segue into bebop makes a lot of sense....bebop is the anti-dance music...nobody dances to "Moose the Mooche" or "Groovin' High"---unless they suffer from St. Vitus' Dance (a disease characterized by spasmodic twitching)....Dizzy Gillespie got tossed from one big band for playing "Chinese music". Bebop flourished in small clubs, which got a boost when some dance halls were taxed, especially.
Keep in mind David Baker was trying to make a name for himself, and jazz studies, at a major institution (Indiana Univ.---which produces MORE symphonic musicians than anywhere else in this country), so his bebop book, and I've only read the 1st one, has some academic windiness to it. I don't see a lot of 8-note runs off of the bebop dominant in the Charlie Parker Omnibook....and yes, there is a lot more to it, than that....but, even so, that is only part of the story (explained below).
I love swing music and big bands, but in a way, jazz got more conservative, stylistically when it became popular. Compare big bands to Dixieland bands...lush, punchy arrangements in the former but not much room for soloists, unless you had a riff band like the early Basie Band. In contrast, collective polyphonic and multi- rhythmic music is found in Dixieland, and it's not surprising it spawned the first great improvisor, Louis A.
Bebop didn't invent passing notes...they are all over classical music, and some in ragtime...look at "The Entertainer" or "Maple Leaf Rag", and I'm pretty sure you'll find those sharp 5's (the bebop major note). The blues had sharp 4's all over the place, and even country uses a sharp 2 sliding into the 3, almost as a cliché. Chopin has chromaticism all over his stuff...and a lot of people commented on the famous Chopin rubato....a loose rhythmic feel...Chopin would often say to bad/young musicians that "he/she has no idea how to connect two notes together properly". I'm not a hardcore classical guy but even a cursory listening to Chopin shows a real "flow" to his lines, and music. (I also think he would have been a great jazz artist: He was known as a virtuoso, and great improviser.) In fact, there is an amusing story in the Schonberg book on great pianists in which Chopin had a bitter debate with another virtuoso about how to count a mazurka properly...Chopin insisting it was in 3 with the other guy saying no, it was in 4....Chopin basically said, look I grew up listening to the mazurka, a Polish folk dance, and if you'd done the same, you'd understand the way I feel it, and why I say what I'm saying...he then demonstrated.
I think, in a way, the same thing is going on in bebop...Parker and Gillespie and Charlie Christian, and Bud Powell looked for ways to add notes, but not in a conventional, traditional musical manner...I think there is way more music being played ACROSS bar lines, against the beat, subdivision of the beat, and anticipation and expanding and contracting the musical pulse in bebop than in swing music....they weren't trying to make swing music, "swing more"....they were trying to blow it apart....and when it's done well, it is really exciting. I think the overall sense of rhythm IS more based on, ultimately, African polyrhythms than on an attempt to fit "some more notes" into a traditional Western music framework....if that were not the case, bebop would be nothing special....I don't think there is anything harmonically unique about bebop....pretty much everything in it can be found in classical music in one form or another....I think Ellington listened to a lot of classical music, too, and his "weird chords" can oftentimes be traced back to Debussy or others, I believe.
I'm not saying anything very original here...Barry Harris says American jazz took over where classical music left off...at the point where/when the expectation of improvisation in classical music died...as the Romantic era of improvising performer ended, and as orchestras and scores got bigger, and more intricate.
I think a lot of younger people looking to learn this music would be well-advised to go listen to a lot of ragtime, and Dixieland, and the blues....that is where 90% of this music came from....trying to learn it, without hearing this background just yanks it all out of historical context. More than that, I think you need that rhythmic foundation to ever play this music well....to me, a great small group rhythm section can sound subtly busy, just like a Dixieland collection of musicians.Last edited by goldenwave77; 10-29-2015 at 01:12 PM.
-
Barry Harris don't like it when you say that haha.... I got a whole epic post about this from David Friedman quoting BH on the matter when I posted that statement on my FB wall a few years back. Suffice to say a lot of the original Rebop guys (see I said it) were keen dancers and in fact often played dance gigs. BH first say Charlie Parker in a Dance Hall in Detroit... Uptempo bop was often played for shake (burlesque) dancers and so on... Originally Posted by goldenwave77
Dizzy Gillespie for example was not just a dancer but one of the top amateur dancers in NY at that time (he got free entry to the Savoy, this was quite a big deal.) The Bebop (sorry Rebop) cats had dance in their blood. Diz believed in the danceability of bop, he even based some of his music on what dancers were doing.... Perhaps it was never suited to the general dancing public - too complex, but it was danced to in the early days.
In fact, the decline of social dancing to jazz was due to a number of reasons. I'm not saying that bop in it's refined, early 50's form, became a very danceable music for your average punter but there were all kinds of forces pushing it from the dance hall into the club environment, not least financial. In the end bop became more of an art music but in the earlier days it wasn't so clear cut. After all no one knew what bebop (Rebop!) was meant to sound like or even what it was called - just that this was clearly progressive music made by musicians using the raw materials of the swing era....
-
Sorry to post twice, but your post is very info rich and interesting...
Sure, and Mozart does that lower neighbour tone Django lick all the bloody time. Has he no originality? Bebop Dominant scale? What about JP Sousa - they should call it the Sousa scale. Originally Posted by goldenwave77
I don't think the bebop guys were trying to do anything - words are a tough one here. I do think that the swing feel in bop was a profoundly intuitive development and one very personal to Parker and Dizzy to the point that very few have successfully assimilated. I also kind of feel the same way about Monk and Billie Holiday... Originally Posted by goldenwave77
Parkers repertoire was quite specific/narrow, and harmonically he often simplified progressions, in fact. You don't find the complex harmony of Ellington in his music. In some ways Bird was a limited player - but he found freedom within a limited repertoire and certain types of harmonic movement that he could play better than anyone....
Don't listen to fecking Dixieland (well OK I do quite like Eddie Condon)! Listen to Classic jazz - Louis, Bix, Bechet and so on... Music on the cutting edge of its time.. Originally Posted by goldenwave77
-
Thing is, we tend to characterise the era don't we? At the same time Django was doing what ever the hell he wanted over any chord... Coleman Hawkins and Art Tatum too... Originally Posted by GuitarGerry
That said, whatever the harmony parts were doing, 7ths and sometimes 9ths were pretty common in melodies. In terms of block chord harmony you might harmonise a 7th with a dim7 chord, but in terms of improvisation, these notes were used by soloists of the time. So there is a dichotomy between common practice in big bands and what was going on in small groups which was presumably less commercial and more 'jazz.'
TBH outside of Early Basie, Fletcher Henderson and of course Ellington, per war big band music doesn't really grab me so much... I like it when I hear it just don't seek it out... you can't say Chick Webb and Jimmy Lunceford aren't swinging... But the small groups are what I'm interested in from that era.
And yes, 4 -way close in the saxes on the melody is a lovely sound, but I suppose it is such a cliche of the era? It is the bedrock of Wes's chord soloing style (in drop 2 form) and the basis of George Shearing's block chord approach though, so it did have a afterlife in bebop small bands. BH's harmonic approach is basically a development of this practice, of course.
I'm not sure I can take seriously anything Feather writes TBH after his hilarious dismissal of Django. On the other hand Gunther Schuller's book is very long and I have yet to properly finish 'Early Jazz'... Originally Posted by GuitarGerry
Last edited by christianm77; 10-28-2015 at 09:04 PM.
-
[QUOTE=christianm77;578813]
And yes, 4 -way close in the saxes on the melody is a lovely sound, but I suppose it is such a cliche of the era? It is the bedrock of Wes's chord soloing style (in drop 2 form) and the basis of George Shearing's block chord approach though, so it did have a afterlife in bebop small bands. BH's harmonic approach is basically a development of this practice, of course.
I should listen, and study, Wes M., more. So, it sounds like the time he spent with who was it....Lionel Hampton.?...gave him a lot of meaty stuff to work out on the guitar.
Funny re: the danceability of bop....I still don't think many classic bop tunes can be dance tunes. This is not to say that that superb rhythm is not needed for bop---in fact I'm saying the reverse. When my ex-wife and I were doing wedding dancing rehearsals, she kept criticizing me for constantly subdividing dance beats...."just dance it straight so I can follow"....but "that's not what I hear in the music I listen to", I would reply. "Well, I don't like that bebop stuff!" she would say. I chalked it up to her really wanting to lead....and not follow....but in retrospect, maybe she was right in saying I was wrong, dance-wise.
-
Re Bebop and dancing, there's a whole book written on the subject, though the name escapes me at the moment. Granted, there were signs up in small clubs banning people from dancing. However, it had nothing to do with the artists' wishes (as many would have you believe). Those signs were put there by proprietors so that they didn't fall foul of taxation laws that came into being in the 40s. Overview here:
How Taxes And Moving Changed The Sound Of Jazz : A Blog Supreme : NPR
-
My comments about limited harmony referred specifically to section writing in dance bands, not improvisation or construction of melodies. I base my comments on knowledge of arranging conventions of that era. Not only from the many arranging books I've read that were published during the 30s (and the 20s in one case), but also from transcription and analysis of scores. Originally Posted by christianm77
Of course you can find exceptions to the rule, but the point I was trying to make was that big band conventions were stifling. This is confirmed by interviews with many of the arrangers of that period. Many had their hands tied. It was partly that frustration that led talented arrangers such as Mary Lou Williams to go her own way. Although she is generally associated with the Swing era, she became a mentor to the be-bop generation and held court to the likes of Monk and Dizzy. She was playing quartal hamony 20 years before it was fashionable, yet she had to fight hard to incorporate even basic colour into her arrangements in the early days.
TBH I don't like many of the big names in Swing. Erskine Hawkins, however, is more my sort of think. He was hugely influential (his name crops up all the time in interviews with great arrangers). There are plenty of other acts who were in his league, you just have to search them out. For me, the appeal of his music (and others like him) is the rhythmic complexity of the arrangements. Not necessarily in terms of outlandish syncopation, it was the way all those old arrangements mesh together lead and background parts. It was ingenious. Post-war arrangers went for 'open' arranging, with less meshing of rhythms. When they did it wasn't as dense, rhythmically. Their music lacks the excitement of earlier bands IMO. In fact, I hate most post-war big band music. They all thought they were Claude Debussy...and it shows. Originally Posted by christianm77
That's only one arranging technique, which was still in use post-war. There's a whole gamut of tricks used by Swing era arrangers that were discarded by post-war snobs. Convention changed over time, even within the Swing era. A huge amount of stuff from the formative years of Swing was three-part writing, which allowed for greater manipulation of the inner parts (a hell of a lot harder to do with a 4 or 5 part section). Different end result. A cliche of the late 20s early 30s was shrill saxes, played in their upper range. Too penetrating to be popular, but it was idiosyncratic of that era. Then there's the clarinet lead over saxes cliche (which, shamefully, was totally discarded) and all manner of muted brass combinations that went out of fashion. Saxes doubled by staccato, muted brass to allow them to dominate 'tuti' sections. The list goes on. All these are useful arranging tools. Doesn't matter if you love/hate the music, if you're objective there's a lot to learn from earlier conventions. Originally Posted by christianm77
All critics are full of ****. I have my issues with a lot of what Schuller comes out with. That said, the good ones also make insightful comments. There's no point totally dismissing someone on account of the occasional sacred cow being slayed. Take the best, reject the worst. Originally Posted by christianm77
Last edited by GuitarGerry; 10-29-2015 at 05:49 AM.
-
Yes, I did know that. A misconception propagated by Ken Burn's jazz series... (I still think it's a great series, but it has become the basis of a lot of people's views on the history, without them realising it's a skewed perspective.) Originally Posted by GuitarGerry
Reply With Quote
Rialto Archtop Guitars UK
Yesterday, 07:04 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos