Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner - Non Classical jazz exercise 2

Hi!
I am playing Jazz exercise 2 (Oscar Peterson):
https://www.scribd.com/doc/241554591/Sheet-Music-Piano-Oscar-Peterson-Jazz-exercises-pdf
In bar ten there is something strange going on. I am talking about those dotted notes. If you play them as written then they will definitely not sound like swung eight notes. My piano teacher said that these notes could just be played as swung eight notes.
How do you interpret these notes?

The dotted sections sound just like the straight 1/8th note ones

Sometimes swing is hardly even third subdivisions but is just a slight weight emphasis on the up beats with the down beats having just a bit more length in time than the upbeats.

Swing can even be equal length 1/8th notes if the upbeats are weighted right.

The dotted sections could then be phrased as a classic shuffle, which would give a recognizable contrast.

This playing is too mechanical. In fact, it is necessary to articulate each sound differently - like in a talking. There will also be slight changes in rhythm. By the way the difference between the accented and unaccented notes comes from the English language; This is not my native language, and accents seems are excessive.

https://yadi.sk/d/eHY5GFLzsbtfB


Notes in brackets - ghost notes, they should try to swallow. In classical music, they do not exist at all ; their origin from African languages.
Of course, what I play is my personal interpretation within the genre.

One is sometimes taught that eight notes in shuffle and swing have the same feel/sound. Is this a bit wrong according to you?
And maybe here's were "simple" blues (a term from Ireal pro) and jazz-blues differ in the bluesy feel they have. Is this how you see or feel it when you play?

Yes to both of your questions.
I tried to address your first post based on that link.

Here an example of how Peterson plays dotted rhythm:



0:05 - 0:06 , 0:09 -0:10

Short sound - ghost note, and should be indicated by brackets.

It is worth slightly delve into the concept of performance melodic lines in jazz. If the ideal of classical melodic approach - singing, based on Italian bel canto, in jazz takes place synthesis of percussion sound and converting the touch of spoken English in (Afro -) American version. Hence, all sounds contain different measures of emphasis, and the only kind of unaccented sounds - ghost notes.
Therefore, jazz does not tolerate equal rhythm and strictly identical sounds - this is what classical musicians usually don't understand.Well-trained classical pianist can play perfectly straight eighths without any accent. In jazz, it creates the effect of polka.
Especially short sounds often are swallowed (ghost notes); but if their emphasize strong , they require space:  or a large melodic interval , like in a bar 10 on first beat ; or a pauses before or after(large time interval ) ; like in end of a bar 17 . Therefore, dotted rhythm on the second beat of tenth bar looks somewhat illogical - the fifth in itself creates a strong accent, and subsequent intervals are small.

For rhythm section blues players this is true to all intents and purposes. Lead and soloing players tend to be a little looser with time.

In jazz the idea that swing should always be a straight triplet went out of the window quite some time ago (tho it can still be). Even in the 60s, Tony Williams playing with Miles Davis would close up what was commonly a triplet skip on the ride cymbal to something tighter even than a 1/16 note (which is sort-of where Oscar is placing it in Nahum's example).

Before Tony Williams did it in the '50s Art Blakey; and perhaps he was of the first. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N_OywebpG4

I had that record and played both those Timmons' compositions (/This Here) but hadn't at the time noticed Blakey's drumming. I see what you mean.

Instead traditional Taatss-ka Taatss-ka Taa he has played Taatss-chKaatss-chKaa

This exercise, I guess, is just an exercise but I still want to look at the chords.
Bar 1 is just a G9 chord with 1-3 in the LH. In bar 2 we have C7 and C#dim if we look at the LH. My question is: why would one choose to play C# in LH after the C? My piano teacher told me that this is a coorect analysis but...this piece seems so primitive like Charlie Patton tunes are primitive. C7 followed by a C#dim doesn't seem like something you would see in a leadsheet. It could simply be a C7 written and then you happen to play a chromatic key in the LH. How would a real jazz-blues pianist (I'm just a beginner) view this?

Then in bar 2 we also have a strange this occuring. The mixed minor/major blues scale does not include a F#. Why then play it unless it would be a chromatic note which it isn't?

As natural as the rising sun. If you look at the RH you're only changing one note between the two chords. Very common, though I haven't done a survey of lead sheets. If you extend this to:-
C7, C#dim, G/D, D# dim, Em; it immediately sounds like gospel to me. Richard Tee would have played it to death.
More generally, the dim works well in a chromatic climb, as here.


Not sure what you mean by that. (eta; if you mean, why not just play the C7 and let the bass climb - yes, that works fine providing you don't play the C natural in the RH. It's only if you feel it's worth being rigorous about what's going on that you would bother to label it C# dim)


But it sounds great, 'right' even. So what do you make of the rules you're learning? If you, too, think it sounds good then ignore the 'rule' that says it shouldn't sound good.

My take on the F# is that he avoids playing B, D, F which make up a Bdim chord. He also ends up playing D, F, A which constitutes a Dmajor chord. In bar 3 he really aims for the major sound by playing G major7 chord (something I never hear in eg. chicago blues).
Is this also how you think about it?

Yes, Gma7 at the beginning of bar 3. So the triplet at the end of bar 2 is anticipating that chord (actually Gma9 which amounts to the same thing and is much the same as D major with a G root - D/G).

Chicago blues will be much more raw, basic, so a ma7 is not what I'd expect either. I haven't studied blues in a detailed comparative way but it's clear that over time it becomes more sophisticated. Is there even an example of a 1625 turnaround in Chicago blues which is quite common in the jazzier form? I don't know but I doubt it.

Can you spot the 1625 here?

Subscribe with both hands. Paul Simon - Bridge Over Troubled Water ; O.Peterson -Hymn To Freedom.
I suddenly thought about harmonic line cliché : I/I - I/VII - I/VIIb - I/VI - I/VIb - I/V . The aforecited upward movement of bass is a kind of mirror reflection. Common points between them : both ending on V and in the melody or chords key tonic or fifth are static.

I hear bars 3 and 4 as Bm7 - Em7 | Am7 - D7. It's a pretty obvious diatonic 3-6-2-5 progression, IMO. The first chord could also be Gmaj7, and therefore 1-6-2-5, as dire tonic suggests. Either way, that's one of the things that distinguishes jazz-blues from "simple" blues: more complex harmonies featuring circle-of-fifths chord progressions, as well as note choices that aren't restricted to simple blues scales.

Also, I think it's worth remembering that this is a "jazz" exercise, not a "blues" exercise. As a whole, the piece is really constructed around fragments of the "I Got Rhythm" changes (kind of sliced and diced), rather than a blues form. The use of blues vocabulary is an essential part of jazz playing, but analyzing the harmonic structure and note choices in terms of simple blues chord progressions and scales is not sufficient to understand what's going on in this piece.

1625 or 3625, the 1 and 3 at the start are negotiable although the D root on that first chord makes a difference to my ear.

The '2' chord here is an A7 rather than Am7 and the final 5 chord being not fully defined I would take as D11 (C/D) given the persistence of the G melody note in that bar.

Oops, you're right about that A7 chord. I'd call that last 5 chord just a 1-7 shell for a simple D7, though.