Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Jazz Study Group 2: Advanced Players

Thanks for finding that transcription Etcetra, very interesting to play.

I was trying to play Very Early in 5 today. The tune works well but it is pretty hard and I can't really relax on it yet. Always good to have something to practice though.

beeboos,

are you doing it as 3+2? I would love to hear it once you feel comfortable with it

Yes 3/4 + 2/4, but also I am trying 5/8 + 5/8 and as many other varieties as possible.
Over the first 3/4 I am trying putting 4:3 there and then 3:2 for the 2/4 and so on.
I'll try and post something when it is sounding a bit better.

Like I said before, LISTEN to what I recorded and tell me what is different from the real book. I find it interesting how you decided to ignore this. The changes I wrote in my first post, are not exactly what I PLAY.
So, I'm kind of done trying to explain something as basic as 'stop getting hung up on what I wrote' because obviously we're not going to move beyond that.
And please excuse the term 'Jazz Nazi' I should have used a smiley face after that, but I find them a bit silly.
So, believe me, I don't need a teacher to tell me that all the chords I PLAYED were identical to the real book.

If anyone chooses to get back to the discussion at hand, I was talking about how I APPROACHED playing the piece. I was encouraging others to LISTEN to it to learn it. While I was LISTENING and TRANSCRIBING it, I found it to be a very harmonically rich piece. And that later when I looked at the book, yes technically the chords could all be maj7 and 7 chords, but they all had different qualities and extensions that you'd only figure out if you heard Evans play it.

Why is everyone so hostile about this? Seriously, what have I done wrong besides trying to defend listening and transcribing as a way to learn a piece rather than just learning it from a book?

Like I said before, and suppose need to say again is if you haven't taken the time to listen to what I recorded, but chose to attack the chords I WROTE, then the discussion ends here.

And I suppose I need to point out again to some people that I was a professional jazz musician, but currently teach music full time now. So, even though I don't at all doubt there are many things I can still learn, the changes to Very Early are definitely not part of that. The interpretation of those changes, yes, I think I'd like to discuss and learn about that more, but not from individuals who are not listening to what I played.

So, where does this discussion go now? I'm not prepared to talk about what I wrote anymore. I'm more than willing to talk about what I played though. And like I said before, let me know which chord you think is not part of the real book.

And yes, it can be laid to rest. I have a question for those that see slash chords such as C/Bb: Does this always suggest to you that the C is a C maj (ie CEG)? If so, then my apologies again. Like I said earlier, I wasn't too careful to point out what my voicings were for this or other chords (even though I thought I was being as careful as I could while writing them). For me, the C/Bb was a hybrid chord, not just C major over a Bb in the bass. I do, at one point hear an actual C chord over a Bb in bar eight I think which is labelled a Bb7#11, but otherwise I was treating the chord in the second bar as a passing chord from a tonal centre of C maj to Cm (Ebmaj) in the third bar. As most people know, there is Ebmaj and Cm share the same scale notes for the most part, so the fransition in my mind was more of a sus sound. No, I didn't hear an Ab in the chords when Evans played it on the recording I was using. It may be there, but for whatever reason I couldn't hear it, so I omitted it as having any great importance, thus a sus sound. (CDFG over Bb).

So in the spirit of learning again, does anyone really see a problem with omitting an Ab from the aforementioned Bb7 chord, despite what one may do in the solo?

Again, my apologies to those I may have offended by suggesting that the real book changes were misleading. I am playing those changes (listen to my recording). I did not arrive at them by reading the book, and have put in the 9, 13 etc that I think I hear Evans play.

I would say it does. Usually at least, unless somehow specified differently. Everyone has their own way of using chord symbols and the convention is loose. Especially problematic is where you want to notate a polychord, like C maj over Bb maj for instance.




You can put it in or leave it out as you like. I was listening to a very fine version the other day by Bobo Stenson and he is rather more vague with the harmony than Bill. I think he often plays that chords as a Bb11 (ie Ab/Bb). So you can play what you want. You don't even have to play a chord at all.

I believe that as players we have an obligation to redefine and change the way the tunes are played. This is what jazz is about for me, the exploration of new interpretations. This is why I am unconcerned by authenticity. I don't want to sound like Bill Evans in 1970, I want to sound like me today.

Scep, I stand corrected. On the actual head that you play, you were sounding like the Real Book. It was when I was listening to the 1st instance of the solo, that I was comparing it against the listed chords. I realize you're playing it more modally so the harmony was vaguer but frankly, I was biased by what you wrote so I was listening for those. At least in the A section, I didn't hear you play a b7 of the Eb chord or the Db chord which would have matched what you had written as the chords. I actually tried those out you know.

If I just stepped back, and take it for what it is, then you're right, you're vindicated.

I don't disagree with what you say Beeboss. The difference in the discussion was to determine what Evans was actually doing. And so it was a test of ears I suppose.

In the end though, playing this music is about coming up with a pleasing product. We all want to go back to the composer's intent oftentimes because he/she was successful and the tune worked out. So it only makes sense to study the original intent and see if we can improve upon the original or at least emulate the end result (a pleasing performance).

If that's not what we're doing, then one wonders why we need to worry about standards. We might as well compose something new each time where we can put more of our personality in.

Sometimes some reharms are interesting exercises but not necessarily better. So perhaps the studying of a composer's intent is like going to school and seeing what balance between tension and release created a great product.

You're more advanced so you're in graduate school so to speak.

True. I'm still sometimes caught up on the why (rather than the how) at times of certain composers. It's actually Piano World's fault, because before I came here I was quite happy improvising and playing standards to my own satisfaction. I'm the better player for starting this type of inquiry though.


Yes, I agree. I also don't want to sound like Bill Evans. I want to learn what he did, but I'm not prepared to ignore the advancements in harmony and rhythmic stuff of the last 25 years.

So who wants to talk about non-functioning chords, and what that really means? I'm not trying to start a war again, but I'm not sure there is really such a thing as a non-functioning chord. By definition (I think) it means a chord that does not serve as a dominant or tonic, or related function, but rather is used as a 'colour'.

First, is the definition off? If so, what is missing, or misrepresented?

The reason I ask is because, as may be evident in my playing, I'm trying to treat tunes having very large chunks only resolving maybe once or twice in any meaningful way, rather than smaller bits (ie what really is a 7 chord doing there? is it really supposed to be resolving to that temporary I?).

Comments?

Yay! Can I join the herd again? I guess I should be more careful about writing out chords in the future. I think I'll just post recordings more like the good ol' days.

Unless you indicate otherwise most people will assume that the C on the C/Bb will be a major chord. If you take a chart with C/Bb on a gig chances are most people will play it as such. If you want to minor triad you indicate by writing it like Cmin/Bb.

When you are playing you can do anything, you can reharmonize, play it as C/Bb, or Bb/Ab or not even play a chord at all. But since you asked for what Bill Evans intended, he is clearly thinking Bb7(Bb7sus or Bb7#11) there most of the time. You can tell by the voicing and the line he plays on that chord. Some of the voicing he uses clearly have Ab in it.

Btw CDFG over Bb will give you a Bbmaj6(9) chord and not a sus chord, which is totally different than C/Bb& I don't see how either of the chord will make a better "passing" chord to Ebmajor7 than Bb7.. it's a very weak passing chord for either Cminor or Ebmaj7. The problem here is that C/Bb is an ambiguous chord harmonically. You can use that chord over Bbmaj7#11, B7#11, and you can even use it as inversion of C7 chord. You can use that chord as reharm/arrangment or alternative voicing but I really doubt Bill was thinking about that chord as the underlying harmony there.

I did listen to the recording.. and all I can say is that some of the chord doesn't sound right. Yes most of it seem okay, but as far as I can tell there really wasn't any there that caught my attention. Like I said, if there was something really unique about your approach it should be evident in your playing, and we would be asking what you are instead. If it helps you play better that's great, but I don't know if your approach adds anything and I am not sure how it's helpful to anyone... in other words I don't see a clear benefit in using your harmony instead of the ones in real book.

BTW Bill Evans does use chords that doesn't clearly spell out the chords.. sometimes omitting 3rd or 7ths.. in that respect, he is just thinking of a specific voicing over a chord. That's what you may be hearing but the chord on the 2nd measure is still Bb7, and his lines/voicing will suggest that 90% of the time.

That is something I think about sometimes. When it comes down to it I don't think I like any jazz musicians who only play standards, almost all do their own thing as well.
But playing standards is still important for 2 reasons - 1, that it adds a element of tradition into the art of improvisation -- it is part of making what we play jazz as opposed to some other improvised form,
and 2 - that a form, despite being a restriction on freedom, actually playing on a form opens up many more possibilities than having a total unrestricted freedom to play anything. At first sight it seems contradictory that this should be so. The forms and structures of the standards are constantly in a state of change that embodies the development of jazz itself.

For me jazz is at its most interesting when the relationship between the written and the improvised is being explored. I am not really interested in a 'pleasing product', what I want is an interesting or exciting or surprising product, one that really deserves to be experienced, not just a tasty cake to be consumed and forgotten.

Studying form is important, but for me I think that's just the beggining. Most great players take all these well known standards and re-invent them somehow. I personally think the study of form should be aimed toward that.. to allow you freedom to reinvent, recreate something and doing it your way

Blackbird
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtLDz4Sa65I

Four
http://www.myspace.com/benjaminschatz

To me being able to do this is more important than understanding/analyzing in words. Mastery is when you can do anything over a given form... you've internalized the form so much that you can go anywhere from it.

Fair enough. I'll be more careful here in the future with my slash chords.

But you see, I didn't hear any Ab in the recording I transcribed from, so what to do? I left it out and arrived at the slash chord.

and ambiguity is what I thought he was intending. Like I said, I looked at the first 8 bars as one phrase.

So how is it different when you start knowing what Evans was doing and when I do it? Education? Does a Masters help? How many gigs need I go on to be considered a jazz musician? How old do I or you have to be? The point is, perhaps you do know more about his playing, but maybe you don't. In either case, it's probably best to keep an open mind, no? I've learned things from 12 year olds and 80 year olds that have helped me see things in different and better ways not only in piano but in many other areas of my life. I hope we're all still open to learning here, no matter the apparent source.

The only one that doesn't sound right is...ready for it... the B7b9 in the 12th bar. I played it C D# F G# over a B, with no A or F# in there. I'm still working on that one.

The benefit was to me, and I was sharing what I thought may help others extend their melodic lines instead of focusing on the constant V I resolutions everywhere. Epic Fail on my part as someone from your graduating class might say.

And let's be clear: I don't have a different harmony as it turned out(just a subscript I decided to share that is running in my head as I play). I'm playing the basic changes as laid out in the real book, and the passing chords that Evans used in that recording, but I'm not thinking of the original chords as just a string of V I V I V I.

Back to my original sentiments: I'm not certain learning Very Early from the book is going to be as useful as trying to transcribe it. Is this still debatable?

So, when can we start posting these interesting or exciting or surprising products? Is this the thread to do it in?

The one very cool posting that I can think of off the top of my head that is waaaaay back in this thread was Stella By Starlight that 7 Note Mode posted. For the life of me I couldn't hear Stella when he played it, but he swore it was Stella.

I remember you too Beeboss posted a cool reharm version of GBPPH.

Anyone care to post more interesting, exciting or surprising products? I'm in if anyone else is.

Well let's see

1)the little transcription i did on 2-3 different version indicate that the 2nd chord is Bb7 and Bill Plays Ab on his LH and RH

2)http://www.lucaspickford.com/transvery.htm

3)I looked at "Bill Evans Piano solos" published by folkway music..it's commercially available and transcribed by professional musician. And the transcription clearly has Ab on the 2nd chord and it's written as Bb7

4)On the youtube clip you snet me Bill evans is using standard LH voicings for Bb7 on the 2nd chord with Ab in it

So everything here indicates that Bill Evans wanted Bb7 as the 2nd chord. It has nothing to do with whether you went to school or not. It has more to do with the fact that Bill Evans plays Ab on the recording, and he does that on most version of Very Early, and every single transcription I've seen so far indicates that the 2nd chord is indeed Bb7. If you are basing your claim solely on the fact that there is no Ab in the 2nd chord, to me that's clearly a mistake.

Btw playing passing chords shouldn't change the underlying harmony to the tune. For example on "Beautiful Love" you can play Bb7#11 between E-7b5 and A7b9, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still minor ii-v in D. You can play all the passing chords, but you are still playing around the orignal real book harmony.

Well I listened to your recording again, and some of the lines seemed a little ambigouus harmonically, I am not sure if that's just a technical problem. Other than that i'd say most of it sounds fine(in respect to harmony). I have a feeling that maybe the problem is the way you are using these terms/chords.. it seems like you use them in a way that most people don't...at least the way you describe sus chord and slash chord do tell me that it's different than how most of us talk about those chords.

At least that explains why most people here are having trouble following what you are trying to say.

Regarding voicings -- Evans and others will often voice ambiguous chords on the LH to allow the RH to outline the harmony. I don't think it is intended to be an actual escape from the intended harmony. Evans is particularly careful about this I find.

My teacher always tells me to start with a shell voicing on the LH (instead of playing rootless). The reason he gives is that I am forced to outline the harmony in the solo and focus on those thirds and sevenths (by ear rather than tracking downbeats).

Rootless voicings by their nature are ambiguous (and pretty much invented by Evans) so this is why I listen to the harmony in the solo to guide my ears. If I don't hear the 3rd and 7th then the number of possible harmonies increase and some may be imagined by the listener.

And this is particularly true of functional progressions, which VE is. For example, if I hear a dominant, my ear expects some resolution sooner rather than later. If I play a V chord and then don't play the 3rd of the resolution chord following it, I'd probably lose track of the harmony.

Anyway, that's my take and why I'm guided by the 'outline the harmony' mantra.

I hope 'pleasing product' means exactly what you say. These tunes became standards because of that extra umphh.

Isn't the origin of playing standards because of jazz musicians not rehearsing and so some common platforms were needed to launch improvisation? You would think this would not be necessary now, but Keith Jarrett seems to do better with standards. Interesting.

When I first started to learn Jazz, I thought I'd rather play free as my preference. But the problem is that from learning standards, one realizes the immensity of the the musical content and possibilities that now it has to be my focus for a long time.

Man, this genre is just so huge that learning can never stop. All we can do is take little bites around the edges. You have been at this a very long time so you've bit more. That probably gives you a lot more room to explore. I hope to get there someday.

BTW - I often think that Jazz can only get more complex and that new things will have to invented. Then my teacher approaches Nefertiti at its simplest and I'm shocked I never looked the other way in that direction. So maybe relooking at the composer's intent allows that kind of view as well. Or is it about changing time signatures and sixteenths and total reharms all the time? I think it could be as simple as creating alternate melodies.

I'm recalling a version of Body and Soul by my teacher where he changed the original melody. He never plays the original melody at all in the entire tune but still calls it Body and Soul. This is an example of what I mean by going the other way.