I'm really happy that you are on the list.
>
>Well of course I'm interested in a critique from anyone on this list,
that's why I submitted these substitutions. But if I don't agree with what
your saying, or don't feel you backed up your point, youv'e gotta expect me
to reply. This is a jazz discussion group and what I'm looking for is
healthy discussion. I was joking about Reed's day job, I've had a few day
jobs in my time (my wife wishes I had one now) and I sometimes believe a
day job would be preferable to some of the gigs I have to take to make a
living.
>
okay, well I stated in my original message that I had some basic comments
but didnt have enough time in my mail to specifically go over the whole
arrangement.
It takes me several hours to do some of these posts and thats after I
already know essentially what I want to say. To work through your whole
arrangement and articulately describe what the problems are in a mail
message and check and re-check for typos and mistakes is probably at
least 3-4 hours of work. If you were at my house I could just verbally go
through
it quickly and you could ask questions. In email I have to explain
everything and
check/re-check etc. I'm not just spouting off the top of my head.
I spent probably an hour and half just doing the first post, which of
course included playing through the subs and thinking about how to explain
what I saw as the problems.
Initially to me I could hear what to my ears were some basic problems that
were being caused by bass motion problems. All I had time to offer
was the suggsetion that you try the bass line against the melody. To me
it was glaringly obvious where the problems were when I did that.
However you tried that and the bass line sounded fine to you. Maybe like
you said, it's just subjective.
There were certainly parts of the reharm that worked and I said that.
For me, getting the bass motion to be coherent is the most difficult thing.
I have a whole filing cabinet of transcriptions that I've meticulously done
and
had checked by Don Haas and have been through them and
substantial amount of the classical literature with a microscope. If I
put on my pickiest hat, I can't find a single problem in say any of Chopins
music or Bill Evans chord changes. Not a one. Unless you go to really avant
garde jazz,
Chopin is about as hip as you can get. All Chopin didnt know about was
maybe fourth
voicings and modal playing. Of course it's hard for me formulate this all
but you
are right that I'm stating opinions without supporting
information so I need to think about how to better articulate my comments.
On some tunes, I never come up with any interesting subs because every trail
I follow leads to some dead end even though I can get some measures or
even a few measures to work. I can't effectively connect the bass line that
works well locally with a bass line that works throughout the whole piece.
>Here's my point: Reed, you said the bass line makes no sense, you didn't
say why. That's not constructive criticism. You also said that I broke
certain rules that have existed from Chopin to Tatum to Evans and that you
have been talking about in your posts. I believe the bass line makes sense
according to certain guidelines that I have been taught and that I have
developed over the years.
>
>1: Strong root progression: down 5th, up 4th; ex. G7 C || down min 2nd;
ex. Db7 C || up maj2nd: ex. Bb7 C ||
>
>2: Precede V's with II's ex. D-7 G7 C || Ab-7 Db7 C || F-7 Bb7 C ||
>
>3: Sub for Dominant a Tritone away ex. D-7 Db7 C || Ab-7 G7 C || F-7
E7 C ||
>
>4: Passing dim. Ex. C#o7 C || Bo7 C ||
>
>5: sub for passing dim up min 3rd. Use II-7b5 V7b9 E-7b5 A7b9 C ||
D-7b5 G7b9 C ||
>
>6: sub by quality Tonic: I III VI: Sub Dom: II IV: Dominant: V VII
>
>I hope that some members on this list will find these guidelines useful.
I'm starting to use a lot more melodic minor harmony and diminished harmony.
>
Yes this is a good list. I'm not sure about #5 E-7b5 A7 to C though.
You might add Cdim7 to C and the variation F#mi7 B7 -> C.
There are a number of others I use. I guess its worth try to consolidate
these ideas into
a basic set of reharm guidelines. That might be usefule for people. I'll
have to go back
and look at my posts because I've listed already almost all the tricks I know.
I don't have time to do that right now.
Perhaps you would like to be the keeper of that list.
>Music theory is just that "theory" And our ears seem to be getting more
use to dissonance. In the 30's in jazz you would hardly ever hear a Maj7
chord just 6's. In the 70's I wrote a big band chart with a natural 9 on a
half-diminished chord and got marked down for it, now I hear them all the
time. In my reharm on Star Eyes, I can justify every change according to
one of these rules. I'll be the first to admit that doesn't mean its good,
but I have done my homework. My criticism of this reharm would be its too
busy, but I feel that it's interesting and valid. When I submit something
to this group I consider it a "work in progress" and I'm looking for
contributions and sugestions.
>
Well certainly over time peoples ears have accepted more things.
Cab Calloway used to yell at Dizzy for playing all that "Chinese music",
whatever
that means. Basically he wasnt ready to hear those sounds.
Bebop sounded like just alot of chromatic scales to Benny Goodman I'm told.
I'm going to go through your whole arrangement or "Star Eyes" and give
specifics but it might
be a week or so because I have alot of material I have prepared that I want
to post that's already in my queue and I have some deadlines on some other
work I'm doing.
reed
>
>
>
Reed Kotler
reed@justjazz.com
http://www.justjazz.com