BLINDFOLD TEST #4 - ANSWERS

[couw]

It's funny that you identify an improvisation on a theme by the chord changes, although these can't be copyrighted! Of course this is common practice, and I would have explained it the same way you did, Jim ....it ain't Nature Boy, no way, though I hear the resemblances you talk about, couw. Sometimes the references to a certain song or melody are done unconsciously, I'm convinced, sometimes it is a creative game. It's part of the game ever since beboppers wrote new themes on standard chord changes.

On the other hand, take blues changes: They are all the same, and nobody would discuss similarities between themes, because it is expected to be that way! There a many roads to travel ...

Now, in light of the recent discussion on playing Monk tunes, where both you and Jim stated that "it's about the melody, forget about the changes" or something in that vein (I have probably skewed the meaning of your words, forgive me -_- ), how does this all add up?

I mean, I hear a melody or some derivation thereof throughout Iapetus, and it's Nature Boy, and people seem to agree on hearing that. But you tell me it's about the changes and not about the melody. Then some one else tries to play a Monk tune and it doesn't work out all that well and you tell him to play the melody and not to bother too much with the changes. Monk defines his songs by melody and not by the changes is what I read there. And Cecil Taylor seems to be on the Iapetus side by defining his song completely on the changes and not on the melody at all. Yet blues songs are never defined on the changes 'cause they're all the same. Are there examples of musicians who change the changes but still call the song by the melody?

Can you guys understand that that's a bit too much for a simpleton like me?

Playing the devil's advocate here of course, but still I'd like to know how this stuff works.

[JSngry]

Ok, here's how it works. Maybe.

I suggested using the melody to a Monk song as a basis for improvisation, true. But when doing that, you've got to fit the melody to the changes, more or less, and the structure of the song, the number of bars and where within those bars the changes come, is going to remain constant, at least as a basis. So it's not like I'm saying "Ignore the changes and the structure". It's more a matter of what do you use as a starting point for your improvisation.

Now, let's say that a player gets so deep into a tune that he/she evolves a new melody and new changes to go with it that spring from the original source but end up something else entirely. You now have a different song, especially if the # of bars is not the same as the original. Or if everything stays the same "foundationally", you could an abstraction of the original, which is what Steve Lacy does a lot of the time playing Monk, especially when he plays solo.

But just becasue you allude to the melody of, say, "Well You Needn't" over a structure that has a different set of changes and a different # of bars, that doesn't mean you're playing "Well You Needn't", unless you're doing a deliberately stated re-/de-construction of it. All it means is that you've created a new piece, an original piece, whose melody is reminiscent of that of "Well You Needn't" .

As far as musicians who change the changes but still call the song by the melody, it happens all the time and is called a "reharmonization", or "reharm" for short. It happens mostly, but not exclusively, on standards, and if you saw the original sheet music changes for most standards, you'd realize that it happens damn near every time out, especially today, when harmony has evolved far beyond that used by the majority of Tin Pan Alley songwriters.

But it also happens on "jazz originals" too. I'm embaraased to say that at this exact moment I can't think of any obvious examples other than Miles' reharm of the bridge to the aforementioned "Well You Needn't". Monk goes to Db, Miles goes to G. The easiest place to hear this being done is in a piano trio, becasue for some reason most every pianist likes to reharm their standards, sometimes it's subtle, sometimes not.

Try THIS ALBUM for a conspicuous and deliberate example of what I'm talking about.

Hope this helps at least a little. If not, don't sweat it. Just enjoy what you hear and let it be.

Edited January 6, 2004 by JSngry

[couw]

Okay, I think I understand. Maybe.

now, about 2-9 and my request above

[couw]

and... where to start with Warne Marsh?

I'm not much of a big band guy I'm afraid.

[JSngry]

That can easily be done. But honestly, I'm drained to the max right now. November & December were intensely packed with work and everything but sleep. I'm backed up with some pretty old things I need to get out/to.

Remind me in a month or so, please. But - it's no problem.

[JSngry]

Ok, Warne -

Keep an eye for when Chuck reissues ALL MUSIC. It's coming soon, lots of new material and spectacular sound.

Besides that, start here:

Mind boggling stuff, it is.

Then go for the various Storyville & Criss Cross dates, and then go for it all.

[couw]

harumph. it seems the second hand copy of that half note 2CD was sold just now at amazon.de. it's still listed, but no more after you click further...

will keep an eye out for this

[mikeweil]

Sent you a PM, John .....

[Man with the Golden Arm]

Been a while and I should probably be listening to the new BFT but pulled this one out this afternoon. Had one of those headaches-the kind with a tear in one eye- popped some aspirin and cued up. My own little lab-rat to see if all would cancel out. Boy that first disc is a trip. Especially the way it opens up after "Puttin' on Dog" then through the military installations with a stream of conciousness as quick as a winter melt. Winds it's way into the Goodman set up and then that Jim Hall solo, ohh boy and finally that Hampton ringing that closes the set so perfectly. Doctor I'm cured!

[couw]

now to put on BFT 5 to get that headache back....