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

lalalala....grrr.

not available internationally. I thought that the states was one of the Canadian provinces. What the...?

Oh my...I guess they think you Canadians will steal the tunes

Well back to the drawing board on this one. Too bad you can't select a specific tune on Pandora.

About Very Early; I've transcribed a few version and looked at others I found on the net. He plays F major over Ab7 frequently, like you talked about. He also treats some bars as II-V like the Bb7 in the 2nd bar where he frequently plays Eb and dissolve it to D, he does that over Ab7 as well. Over, Dma, Aminor, F#minor and B7 he plays different upper structure 1-2-3-5 chords that doesn't always fit the changes chord-scale wise. Amadd9 or Cma7 over F#minor for example. He also plays with some rythm displacement over these chords. He never plays G# over F#minor like in the melody except in the first version from Moon Beams. So he really treats F#minor and B7 as F#mb5 and B7 as B7#5b9 (CmAdd9 common upper structure) He also used the same solo break twice and with slight variation in a third example. Also the ending of the solo seems pre arranged with chromatic descending minor thirds.

Very detailed analysis KlinkKlonk. Thanks. I will have to listen to it again to see if I hear what you're saying.

I guess when Evans recorded different versions he didn't know that both would one day be released and someone would be comparing them in such detail. But it lays bare the truth that even the best improvisers do sometimes have pre-existing ideas of what they will play at different points. Composition and improvisation isn't really divided by the sharp line that many people think.

Generally I am amazed how different the various takes of the same tune are, and how spontaneous the music can be. Even with Evans, who constructed his playing to a very high degree, often the different takes go to quite different places.

The question though is that on a tune like Very Early, once you get past the melody, what is really the significance of playing Ab7(b9) or Ab7(9)? Although it goes it spurts, these are really snippets of functional harmony (ii-V's) to me. So I'd say I'm not tied to specific alterations here. And of course Evans did the variations himself.

I'm just comparing to Nefertiti where the chords seem completely non-functional. There I felt that the alterations were critical.

I have multiple takes of Coltrane doing Giant Steps, and it is obvious he worked it out and he's playing the same patterns but just in different orders.

But the problem with accepting this at face value is that we start assuming that EVERYTHING (by the best) is worked out. And clearly it isn't.

On Very Early, there's a specific thirds pattern (downward moving) that Evans plays on at least a couple of the versions. It's so difficult to do and clearly that kind of thing has to be worked out in advance. In fact, my fingers get all jammed up when I try it.

Evans seems to work out some things in advance. His versions of Autumn Leaves are all the same. Too bad we can't ask him why sometimes he goes with composition and less improvisation in these cases.

However, I have no doubt he can improvise without preparation.

I don't see it as anything bad, just a part of the arrangement.

Speaking of working things out, can anyone point to any artist that does not have signature licks? It is very common for every artist, well known or otherwise to use what they know. It is their vocabulary. Those that are more adventurous and actually record things that are new to them are few and far between. I think it is how they disguise the things they know to make them sound new that more listeners don't pick up on the fact that most improvisors are really just using themes and variations on what they have previously practiced.

Of course this isn't to say there is no originality in their improvisations, it's just pointing out that chances are much greater that an artist will sound the way they do because they use many, many patterns, formulas, riffs, rhythmic elements etc that they are already comfortable with and will employ these to the maximum degree possible. How else does one create? The more I listen to any given artist the more I find this to be true. However, I'd welcome anyone to point out an artist to me that not only sounds unique, but also does not use familiar items to express themselves. I hope this isn't akin to proving there is/isn't a god...

I think that this specific to certain players. Bill Evans certainly had his signature note choices and arpeggios though I wouldn't call them licks.

Oscar Peterson's licks to me are very recognizable.

But what is a Keith Jarrett signature lick? What is a Chick Corea lick? These guys have vocabularies so massive that even if they had one, it wouldn't matter since we would never know it

sceptical...yeah, most jazz artists do use cliches and licks, even the greats. Chick Corea even said as much, that when he improvises alot of it is pre-planned or thought out already.

If you want someone really unique in jazz, try Nguyen Le, he plays guitar but mixes tons of Asian and ethnic music into his playing. Still jazz, but like no player you've ever heard.

As for some inspiration, here's one of the most swinging versions of Autumn Leaves I've ever heard. Kenny Kirkland was a monster on the keys!! :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KvCFneCbBc&feature=related

circling the chord notes comes to mind for Jarrett. As in 721, 243, 465, and variations on that such as 71271 45645 23423. He does this all the time with different rhythms, but it is there quite frequently. Like I said, it can be disguised in slightly different ways too, such as he can circle extentions the same way or approach the same pattern with a leap of a third or fourth.

As for Chick, I don't listen enough to him but from what I have listened to he'll use tritone riffs quite frequently and superimpose these on upper structure stuff.

The problem is if a lick is defined in as few as 4 notes, then everything we do is a lick.

There are only so many chord tones available at any given moment.

er...can you answer me why Peterson doesn't sound like Jarrett and why they both sound different than Mehlau? And can you identify which one might be playing at any given time? If so, you've identified how they approach expressing themselves. Similar, I suppose to how one might be able to identify another's writing style. We all have access to the same English language, but most of us will probably use familiar patterns to express ourselves. This why I's not be confusing, then, see? Gotcha! Bingo! ---just as an example of how I don't write or speak and how another might. Although it was fun saying 'Bingo.' Man, I really let loose there for a bit. Need to sit down again...

So, yes, 4 notes can and often does identify an artist. But moreso how often they use a sequence/pattern of notes would be a bit more telling. How else would you explain that they sound different? How they swing? Sure, I suppose, but then what else?

Not talking about any player in particular, but we know there is a specific bebop melody vocabulary. I'd say it's a cliche line, taken from the original greats. Some lines even a have names, like the "Duke Ellington ending".

The key about these licks is that they are used frequently. Not just by one player but many.

I was taught a large collection of these by a prior teacher.

Sometimes I listen to the Jazz station and I hear some newer players play only these cliche lines. I can understand purposely making a play on quoting some famous line because it can come unexpectedly. But when a player makes a career of this, I'm shocked. And there it is being played on the radio.

Whoever these players are, usually they're some hired gun, often by a vocalist so that might explain it.

Comments?

BTW - on a Chick Corea recognizable pattern, I suppose you can call any quartal/pentatonic line something he does as a signature approach. Although I doubt he's that predictable nowadays unless you go down to 4 notes.

But I am hard pressed to hear a line by itself and say "that's Jarret's signature". In his interview on Improvisation, he says he makes an effort not to do anything repeatedly.

So if you hear a KJ recording, would you be able to identify that it is Keith Jarrett? Or would you say "Wow, I don't think I've ever heard this guy before?"

Jarrett is an exception in that he's got such a huge range of musical ideas. If I listen to one of his standards trio songs though I usually can tell it's him. His touch on the piano is quite unique.

I love many of the intros he does prior to a standard, kind of like a mini free improv. The lines he uses are cliche free, but you can tell his sound, especially if he starts grunting or howling!

Just want to comment on another thread I saw, the Talent "Myth".

This reminded me of something I heard from the Marsalis family, who is known as the family of jazz.

Would you say Branford or Wynton is more talented?

Ellis, their father said something poignant. That Branford was more naturally gifted, and Wynton worked harder. Not to say Branford didn't work hard or Wynton wasn't talented, but some people are just born with it.
Also, that the youngest son Jason, a drummer was probably the most gifted of them all.

Yes, this is my point. It sounds like Keith because of what he does. Others may sound like Keith because they are trying to do what he does, or have simply absorbed what he does and they now do it to the extent that they sound like him and not like Jacky Terrason (sp?) or Cecil Taylor or?

I don't really know of any famous artist that has not developed their own signature sounds. This is what made them famous in some respects, isn't it?

One other thing: It's unfair in some ways to compare someone from the 50's who is now dead to someone that is current because of course the current players have 50 more years of reference material to use and shape and modify whereas the players like Tatum, Evans, and even Peterson didn't have the same pool of resources to draw from. I suppose Peterson did, but I doubt he felt the need since he was successful without having to change and adapt.