> =
> I don't want to tell you what kind of music to like but ....
> I'll just say that my belief is that your impression of the solo as not=
> being exciting is most likely a case of intellect overriding reality...=
> In other words I question whether you would have that opinion if you di=
dnt
> have the advanced intellectual knowledge (from my post) that he was pla=
ying
> in one key but maybe that's just your opinion.... Most people that have=
> knowledge of jazz chord scales,etc usually don't notice that melodies
> and solos by the masters usually have this property. We are so conditio=
ned
> to see all these different chord scales, one after another that we fail=
> to see the obvious.
>
Actually I always found this solo enjoyable. To say I didn't find it
exciting doesn't mean I don't like it. "Exciting" is one positive
evaluation, but not the only one. What I love about this solo is the way
it exploits a comparatively compact range both of notes and ideas. I
like the use of the same idea over different chords, as occurs in
measures 9 and 11. When I said I found it somewhat static I was just
trying to be descriptive, not evaluative. I like the solo a lot. You
sound to me a bit defensive about the intellectualist bit. I may have a
PhD in my own field, but in music I'm definitely NOT an intellectualist.
I enjoy the history, but music theory always struck me as lesser minds
chasing after geniuses trying to figure out what they did. Criticism is
the complement mediocrity pays to genius.
=
> All the great standards by people like Harold Arlen, George Gerswin,
> ... have this same property. Is "Over the Rainbow" a really dull tune
> (when there is no accompaniment) because it only has one non key note (=
which
> BTW doesnt occur until the bridge)? What about "My Romance" which has n=
o
> non key notes? etc....
> =
I didn't say dull. You seem offended by my impression of the solo and
are overreacting. I like it. I wouldn't have transcribed it if I didn't.
That doesn't change the fact that, to me, it has a kind of beauty that
isn't the result of the dynamism I think I hear in other solos. As I
said, though, I am happy to be corrected. Spanked, no. Corrected, yes,
and thank you.
> All the great jazz players when playing over standard tunes are
> essentially playing in one key (or at least in large key centers).
> This is just an easy solo to get ones feet wet so to speak because it
> is so simple and yet so brilliant at the same time. The solo on
> "Confirmation" is no different from this one and we can look at that so=
lo
> next.
> =
> Chet is one of the greatest jazz improvisors to ever live and I
> wouldnt characterize his playing the way you do at all. His solos
> are brilliant improvised melodies and his ability to have that
> quality on the apparently hundreds or albums he recorded is
> amazing and also through such a huge vocabulary of different tunes.
> =
I was only talking about this solo, not Chet Baker's playing, which I
love, nor even Chet Baker. I was talking about the notes on the page and
my own feeble attempt to describe a feature of solo that I recognize as
great and enjoy very much.
> I'm just going to comment on the first 20 bars because that was all
> I originally posted (due to copyright considerations) though I know you=
> did the whole solo yourself.
> =
> Here is my analysis of the solo.
> =
> He is just improvising a melody in Db. Take a look at the original melo=
dy
> and you will see that there are only two non key notes, both of which
> are half step approaches to key notes. Would you say that "But Not For =
Me"
> is dull without the accompaniment?? What if Chet had been so brilliant
> to have just played that melody against the chord changes?
> =
> I'll focus on areas where he outlines chords and where chromatic notes
> occur. The rest is just an improvised melody. There is nothing more to =
it
> than that.
> =
> In Bar 4 he outlines a Bbm triad against the Bbm chord.
> =
Maybe I misunderstood. Here you can help me a bit. You have criticised
the approach of playing phrases based on the specific chord changes in
favor of a more straightforward approach of large key centers, an
approach I think is a very accurate description of how the great players
played. With that in mind, I labeled every note in the solo with
reference to the key of Db Major. Yet your analysis procedes to talk
about essentially arpeggios. Do you think Chet was thinking "Okay,
that's a Bbm7 chord, better play a Bbm triad?" or was he just thinking
"Just play in Db."
> In bar 9 he outlines a Gb triad agains a Gbmaj7 chord.
Same question as above. I'm not trying to be cantakerous, well, okay,
maybe a little. But I am trying to grasp how "just improvising a melody
in Db" turns up an analysis looking at arpeggios.
> =
> In bar 10 we see the first non key note, an Fb against the Cb7 chord.
> Is it really a b9? Look at what is happening, it is just resolving
> to an Eb note.
Again, my labeling of the note was with reference to Db Major, since I
was interested in how the whole melody looks with reference to that key
center.
> =
> What is really going on in this bar is an approach to an Eb note.
> The most common approach is is half step below, scale tone above.
> In this case he uses a half step above and half step below which
> gives that blusey sound because it's a b3.
> =
My only question here is perhaps too elementary. But since there are
only 11 different notes in the chromatic scale, and 7 of them are
diatonic in a particular key, it stands to reason that any "chromatic"
note is by definition a passing tone or approach tone since it is a
half-step from a diatonic note. =
Is the point you're making that the chromaticism is primarily or
exclusively the use of "neighbor" tones and not a chromaticism of larger
intervals, say a jump from a b9 to a 4th, or forcing a complete
chromatic phrase against the harmony? I'm not trying to
"intellectualize" here, since I know so little. I'm trying to clarify
whether you are basically saying most great soloists used chromaticism
mainly as a vehicle for approaching diatonic tones?
Thanks for your analysis. It remains a question for me why the
chromaticism that is "just an approach note" sounds great when Chet
Baker does it, but sorry when others do it. Put another way, why
throughout this solo are the e natural and a natural used so often, but
the b natural only once? Apparently either consciously or unconciously
there is a suitability of these two notes for this solo. What it comes
down to is choice, and there I think looking at the chords and some kind
of fit between the specific chord and the phrase, whether you want to
think of chord/scale or just arpeggios. =
> The next chromatic note is the E in bar 11. This is just a half step ap=
proach
> to the next note which is F. SImilarly for the A in bar 12 which is
> a half step approch to the Bb. THe exact same usage of an A occurs
> in bar 14.
> =
> Also note that in bar 14 he essentially ignores the Eb7 and just plays
> Bbm7 for the whole ii/V (a common device).
> =
> For all the guide tone and/or chord scale devotees, where are they in
> this solo? Is chet changing chord scales every other measure or
> targetting 3rds and 7ths? I don't think so.
> =
> This solo is not unique in this regard. As I stated in an earlie post,
> the Bill Evans solo for Little Lulu , which I posted a chorus of a whil=
e
> back, is no different than this as are just about every solo I've
> ever transcribed.
> =
-- =
//////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Lawson G. Stone=97Asbury Theological Seminary=97Wilmore, KY 40390
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////////
"You know, a long time ago, being crazy meant something. Nowadays,
everybody's crazy." Charles Manson