Re: ...if you just Smile
Phill Lear ( kinglear@cpuinc.net )
Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:46:49 -0600
Richard Tabnik wrote:
>
> >At 10:39 PM 1/19/97 -0600, you wrote:
> >>Anyone out there ever play 'Smile' by Charlie Chaplin? I totally dig the
> >song, but after finding a lead
> >>sheet found out the harmony is as follows:
> >>
> >|F|F|F|F|F/A|Abdim|Gm|D7|Gm|Gm|Bbm|Eb9|F|D7|Gm|C7|F|F|F|F|F/A|Abdim|Gm|D7|Gm
> >|Gm|Bbm|Eb9|F|D7|Gm|C7|F|F
> >>
> >>Aside from the obvious, can anyone hip this tune up? (Without losing the
> >feeling of the tune).
>
> In my opinion and experience, this request underscores the basic problem
> with the usual study of jazz improvising and harmony:
>
> one tends to require and use "predigested" things to draw on. A
> person is accomplished in direct relation to their ability to draw on a
> stock of vocabulary, melodic, rhythmic, and harmonic, in a playing
> situation.
>
> Perhaps the starting point theoretically speaking, is:
>
> see the chords as the tune's identity,
> and, therefore, "hipping up" the chords is the way
> to go.
>
> It is interesting to note that it is not the chords, but the
> melody, that:
> 1.] is what may be copyrighted
> 2.] is often neglected as the true identity of the tune
> [with lyrics, especially]. In fact, it is indeed the melody that contains
> or implies the harmony and the rhythm. Neither of those two imply the other
> two as melody does.
>
> It is also interesting to note that we are supposed to be
> improvising with a jazz feeling or improvising jazz, but what does that
> mean? Is it expressed most profoundly by using formula on a theoretical and
> technical level or is it more deeply expressed as a lifelong pursuit of
> expressing one's feeling in the moment, relating to the music, the
> musicians, even, perhaps the audience? [I mean, we are performing artists
> and we do feel the audience at least on an energy level.]
>
> This is not to say that one should not study the great art of the great
> improvisers, a study that is as indispensable as it is lifelong and joyous;
> however, the crux of the issue is:
>
> 1.] Which material?
> 2.] how is it studied?
>
> Without trying to get into the entire subject, the basic issue with point
> #2 is similar to the problem with much of the music business:
>
> the music ends up being in service of the business
>
> [whereas the business should be in service to the music!]
I agree with most of what you're saying. However, as a student, the need to study theory is important if we
ever plan to evolve. I played entirely by ear up untill about 6 months ago. Im sure I got alot of gigs because
of this too. This is still how I play over old school stuff...but I have no desire to be old school. Music
must evolve, new ieas must be formulated. Take Parker for instance. Scales, chords, licks, ect., alt. changes,
ect were essential to his sound. He practiced for near unfathomable periods of time. He approached in
analyticly, he studied, he found out how to put those "feelings" into a 'scientific' method. He inturn took
thoes theories and approached them in experimental ways. He took what worked and built apon that. HE EVOLVED
MUSIC. Thats what it's about. If you don't plan on taking music somewhere it's never been, then you're not
playing music, music's playing you. It's merely a hobby as for as defininitions go.