Could you guys explain to me what reharmonization is and how it works? I've read about it alot and I'm clueless about what it is. If you have any sites and/or articles about it would help too.

so :help: me guys :D

thanks already

In it's broadest sense, reharmonization is taking a melody and "reorganizing" its harmonic structure (ie the chord progression). Which you can do in any number of ways.

You can use chord "substitutions"- chords that fill the same function as another chord because they contain enough of the same notes or shared tones.

You can "extend" the harmonic underpinning by implying modulations (basically just setting up some dominant chords ahead of your "target" tonality.

You can abandon any relation to the current function and treat the section as creatively as your imagination and ear allow. Minor becomes major, everything becomes a dominant, major becomes minor, extended passages of one tonality become sections where every melody note is harmonized.

You kinda need a good foundation in hearing this stuff, it's not really something that is well conveyed in an article. Mark Levine's JAZZ THEORY book will cover some of the material, and there's soem other paino player who may be Dick Katz or Dick Hyman that has a fake book that has some nice reharms fo standard tunes. So if you know the tune, you can kind of get where he is coming from with the reharm, how he's hearing the tune.

I guess a simple analogy would be - driving to Philadelphia. If you know where Philadelphia is, in relation to where you are, the more familiar you are with all the roads and shortcuts and backways, the less you need to stay on the Garden State Parkway. And if you really want to go by way of Harrisburg, you can.

You first have to get a handle on how to harmonize a melody. A text book on harmonization will give you a good foundation on that and it also helps if you do the excercise yourself i.e. take a melody and harmonize it i.e. select some chords for it that make the melody sound fuller.

Here's a simple harmonization of the C major scale:

CMaj7 Dmin7 Emin7 FMaj7 G7 Amin7 Bmin7b5

Here's another:

Emin FMaj GMaj Amin Bdim CMaj Dmin

* Assume each note of the C major scale is a whole note.

Ed and all the fellas in the big town;

Are reharms generally worked out before you hit the bandstand, or are you pretty much at the mercy of the chordmeister? Are there certain "standard" reharms for certain tunes? Howzat work?

Kinda depends. If somebody has something tricky for the head, they'll generally give you a heads' up. Once you're into solos, it's kind of expected that you keep your ears open.

If there is an extensive reharmonization/arrangement you generally get a chart or a verbal rundown "You played 26/2 before? No, OK it's CONFIRMATION with Trane changes and here's where the bridge goes" kind of thing.

Ed and all the fellas in the big town;

Are reharms generally worked out before you hit the bandstand, or are you pretty much at the mercy of the chordmeister? Are there certain "standard" reharms for certain tunes? Howzat work?You get up there, use your ear and play. Remembering a time playing with Buddy Montgomery. He started playing "Afternoon in Paris" a song at the time I was unfamiliar with. I hunkered down and felt the pedals thru the tune. After the song, Buddy was smiling. I said, "Sorry about that Bubby." He said, "What do you mean? I thought you were just throwing some hip pedals on me." Just shows to go ya.

You get up there, use your ear and play. Remembering a time playing with Buddy Montgomery. He started playing "Afternoon in Paris" a song at the time I was unfamiliar with. I hunkered down and felt the pedals thru the tune. After the song, Buddy was smiling. I said, "Sorry about that Bubby." He said, "What do you mean? I thought you were just throwing some hip pedals on me." Just shows to go ya.

But Buddy wasn't really reharming the A section, right? You were just trying to hear the changes to the tune. If he had reharmed the head so that it was an Abaug going to a G7, and you DID know the tune, well you see where I'm going.

I used to hear Buddy play (trio) at the Parker Meridien in midtown in the late 80s, were you in that trio? Oh, and if you haven't checked it out yet, there's an interview with Neal Miner in the FEATURES section, he has a funny story about sitting in with that group.

But Buddy wasn't really reharming the A section, right? You were just trying to hear the changes to the tune. If he had reharmed the head so that it was an Abaug going to a G7, and you DID know the tune, well you see where I'm going.

I used to hear Buddy play (trio) at the Parker Meridien in midtown in the late 80s, were you in that trio? Oh, and if you haven't checked it out yet, there's an interview with Neal Miner in the FEATURES section, he has a funny story about sitting in with that group.

We were talking about Buddy on another thread having to do with non-reading "ear players" His ears are something else. But so were Wes'. Another one was Flip Nunez...I worked with these guys in the Bay Area. You know Flip Ed?

But Buddy wasn't really reharming the A section, right? You were just trying to hear the changes to the tune. If he had reharmed the head so that it was an Abaug going to a G7, and you DID know the tune, well you see where I'm going.

I used to hear Buddy play (trio) at the Parker Meridien in midtown in the late 80s, were you in that trio? Oh, and if you haven't checked it out yet, there's an interview with Neal Miner in the FEATURES section, he has a funny story about sitting in with that group.[QUOTE+bass_means_LOW]I see where your going!:) I played with buddy in Oakland for a minute. What a magnificent musician and composer. Handy told me a story that I tend to believe. He said that when the Montgomery brothers hit NYC in 1956, all the cats in town went down to the Village to check out Buddy on piano, not so much Wes or Monk.[QUOTE=bass_means_LOW]

Flip Phillips, yes, Flip Nunez, no.
How bout those MasterSounds? Wes, Monk and Buddy, who was on drums?

Flip Phillips, yes, Flip Nunez, no.
How bout those MasterSounds? Wes, Monk and Buddy, who was on drums?Benny Barth did it for a long time. (I had to call Bruce Forman for that answer.)

Benny Barth did it for a long time. (I had to call Bruce Forman for that answer.)

This is gonna be like old home week...Low, please say hi to Bruce...We use to play alot together. And yeah, it was Benny but there's someone we're missing .And speaking of Flip Phillips did you guys ever see his Gall Stones? He had a whole bunch taken out and had them gold plated and made into a huge necklace!
Going back to this thread....There are some tunes that have been re-harmed to the point that some of the young guys don't even know the original changes. A case in point is "I Can't Get Started With You" I think Mingus was the guy that first came up with that B- to E7 Bb to Eb7 ETC. I sometimes suggest alternating these changes with the originals, or at least using the originals on the head.......PROBLEM--some people don't know the originals. With the advent of the Real Book guys are looking in there for the definative changes for a tune and don't have a hint of what the original changes really are. A pet peeve of mine.

Paul: how do know you've got the original changes to a standard with so many variations in so many books (unless you were born when they first came out? :D ) let alone recordings.

And to flip this about, book changes often don't tell you the changes that all the other hip guys usually use (Ok - tell me to use my ears! :eek: ). I got books giving loads of options as played by various great and good. I started to wonder if there was an original and did it matter anyway?

BTW Paul - on the some principal, do you play Fly me to the Moon (its either that or Beautiful Love - not sure at the mo) in the original 3/4? I can never imagine it but its what it says at the foot of the tune on Chers Vol 1 (oops - just admitted to a fake book).

FLY ME TO THE MOON (or SING AMONG THE STARS) was originally in a waltz. You find out the original key and changes by going to the original lead sheet, published by the composer (well, his/her company). And you can find many many strange changes, long sections over static harmony, a change evry two bars instead of every two beats.

It's important because of the way that game TELEPHONE works. If what you are playing is a version of a version of a version (especially if it's a version transcribed by a Berklee student) you will have a hard time understanding the essence of the song. If you can't undersand the essence of a song, it can become just a series of changes (one of the 119 basic progressions, remember that?) and whatever the composer was trying to communicate with THAT melody and THAT harmony can get lost.

The same way "Britney Spears defecates on the head of a small weasel" becomes "Bret and I definitely can't make the dead eat a boll weevil". If the TELEPHONE line is long enough.

If I read PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST, I can open avenues of thought and consideration. If what I am working from is somebody's best recollection of what PORTRAIT was about and dealt with, my own thoughts and considerations are coloured by the "filter" that my understanding came through.

edit - right, IN OTHER WORDS. I must have Jazzheimer's, you start forgetting titles and changes.

A case in point is "I Can't Get Started With You" I think Mingus was the guy that first came up with that B- to E7 Bb to Eb7 ETC.

I always thought those were Dizzy's changes. I think I read that in his book, I'll go check this weekend,

and whatever the composer was trying to communicate with THAT melody and THAT harmony can get lost.


Yes it can Ed, but this is getting into folkies territory or going back to using hard to play original instruments in the classical field. Should every piece of music be intimatley studied like a classical conductor does before approaching performance? What about the mass approariation of standards for be-bop blast-aways like Cherokee, Beautiful Love, Indiana etc. No-one will ever truly know what the composer was up to - quite often it might have been 'lets try and write a hit' and they often did.

Now I know you haven't argued for preserving things is aspic, so perhaps we need a Smithsonian archive of songs so we can always re-refer to the original, even if it was composed on a Friday afternoon before a weekend date. Many a composer (Minugs too) revised there work, and the classical mob are always arguing about the relative merits of each version and which best reflects the composers intention. Trouble is, composers never wrote what they meant and the music they left behind didn't always expain it. And when it comes to standards, I know you will be one that has read the lyrics. Go on - tell me how meaningful most of them are. You heard Miles famous rendition of Blue Room after doing Cold Turkey - pure heart-rendingly beautiful - now read the words.

BTW, in UK we the Telephone game is Chinese Whispers. If you want to be horrifed about re-harms and intentions hows about this then: our tenor payer comes in with a transcription he's done of a tune called A Pint of Bitter. We were impressed. The chords were odd. "How did you get them down?" we asked. "Oh", come the reply, "I just clicked the harmonize icon in Band-in-a-Box once I'd worked out the melody". This is how its gonna be - GBF - don't worry about re-harm, someone will have a program somewhere to do it soon if not already :bawl: .

I think you're right Ed. Those changes first appeared on the 1945 record that had Red Norvo, Dizzy, Bird, Slam Stewart, , Flip Phillips, J.C. Heard and Teddy Wilson. You hear, on I Can't Get Started, the B-7 E7, Bb-7 Eb7 etc. w/ a specific bkrd. melody as well.

...this is getting into folkies territory or going back to using hard to play original instruments in the classical field...

Yes, it's just like that.
Sigh. What is it with you Brits and yer nits? Did you not like the Joyce analogy cause he's Irish? No, CRUMPET, it's not like playing Tommy Dorsey tunes on sackbut. Think of it more like trying to write a book report (what do they call those in Perfidious Albion?). And instead of getting to read the book, you have to have the plot described to you by someone else. Their entire take on the book is going to be based on THEIR experiences and THEIR range of knowledge. So rather than you forming your own thoughts and feelings based on the book, you are at a remove. Your understanding is colored by THEIR understanding. Plus you don't get the whole beauty of the language, the way stuff sits on the page pretty much the whole "artist manipulating their medium" part of reading.

Now I don't know how much you play this music so I don't know if I'm preaching to the choir here or giving you an insight you haven't had before, so bear with me.
Sometimes, when cats are coming up in this music, the lead sheet is GOD. You play THAT chord change every time through every chorus every time you play that tune. Well, you get to the point that the chnages of the tune are a loose harmonic framework that your ears can guide you through in a multitude of ways. And so, when everybody else in the band is basing what they are playing on a dominant 7 b9#9b13 chord, but the original change was a simple diminished chord, suddenly the world you are looking at is not the same world they are looking at. Not good players don't really hear it, and goodplayers hear it and it can make everybody very vague and thoughtful and listening really hard to try to understand what everybody else is hearing in that part of the tune. Kind of like us typing here and suddenly I start using this one phrase or some words in Farsi. Sudeenly instead of a free and open exchange of information, you got to remove yourself and scan for context, any other clues that might provide meaning. And once you've done that, you aren't in the moment anymore.

It gets worse when what you're reading is an incorrect transcription off a record that the cat playing wasn't quite sure of what the change was, so he just played THIS chord cause it kinda made sense.

Yes, it's just like that.
Think of it more like trying to write a book report (what do they call those in Perfidious Albion?). And instead of getting to read the book, you have to have the plot described to you by someone else. Their entire take on the book is going to be based on THEIR experiences and THEIR range of knowledge. So rather than you forming your own thoughts and feelings based on the book, you are at a remove. Your understanding is colored by THEIR understanding. Plus you don't get the whole beauty of the language, the way stuff sits on the page pretty much the whole "artist manipulating their medium" part of reading.


Dude, you just described Cliff's Notes.



Come to think of it the Real Book is a lot like Cliff's Notes!

Did you not like the Joyce analogy cause he's Irish?
You could'a said Finegan's Wake, a book I have started at least twice - is this Farsi? :D

No, CRUMPET, it's not like playing Tommy Dorsey tunes on sackbut. Think of it more like trying to write a book report (what do they call those in Perfidious Albion?).
No Ed, Tommy Dorsey had have to be played on a 30s 'bone which is fine but for bass players to sound authentic, maan that is painful on the hands and the pocket for those expensive guts. Book reports are reviews over here. Talking of perfidy, I've just read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (miaow!!).

And instead of getting to read the book, you have to have the plot described to you by someone else. Their entire take on the book is going to be based on THEIR experiences and THEIR range of knowledge. So rather than you forming your own thoughts and feelings based on the book, you are at a remove. Your understanding is colored by THEIR understanding.
Ok - point taken but problems:
Books and music are an impressice analogy - music without words is entirely abstract. You can make of it what you will and how it affects you. So do arrangers of light music who commit crimes against humantity by turning every tune into a an insipid jollity. There is a school of thought that its all just a vehicle and well, you are free to abuse it as you will. Like say Handel who recycled soemwhat profane excerpts to sacred use in the Messiah?

This is sort of what Miles did to Blue Room, a melody of great potential otherwise a song with few other redeeming features. Miles again, went and upset Zawinal on 'In A Silent Way' by ditching Zawinal's rather good and cherished harmonisation for a modal approach.

At least Miles got the original and his thoughts from the horses mouth. So in the end, it comes down to personal integrity I supose :confused: ? Am I going to interpret this tune in the knowledge of having read the original or treat it with the limitations of just what I know at the moment? Often you don't have the option, but yeah, I see the value in this. (I can do a bit of nerdishness -'I know what you don't - na na na ne na na').

In my experience jazz education has a role in all this, as it is constantly urging people to consider options to the extent that the original never gets a look-in and nobody cares - at all - never crosses the mind to get to the other side.

Funnily enough or not funny at all, I used to go round to my Grans when she was alive with a keyboard so we could have a singalong of most things from 1910 to about 1950. A great education. I was always saying to the band when they'd found a new tune - guys, if you knew what this was about you'd look at it a little differently.

I know what you're talkin' about for the rest but thanks for mentioning it - you can never assume. (Note I didn't say I was playin' this way - sometimes - and sometimes just becuase I can usually follow accidents)

Yup, I guess it's all down to integrity, which although I don't think I've seen you use the word, it is a recurring theme of yours and I applaud you for it. :hyper: All respect due.

ps one case you don't make but I think is valid is an understanding of the social and technical context in which music is created. For instance, those trad plonky rythmn sections playing for three minutes were a product of the recording and playback equipment of the time, and at that time this was black music to dance to. A lame eg but you get the drift.

How about what Miles did on "When Lights Are Low"?

How about what Miles did on "When Lights Are Low"?
Gotta admit I don't think I know that one - can you tell me what it's on and I'll get hold of it - Thanks :help:

Gotta admit I don't think I know that one - can you tell me what it's on and I'll get hold of it - Thanks :help:

It's on one of the PRESTIGE sessions, I'll have to check which one.

But Miles couldn't remember the real bridge, so he took the melody and harmony of the A section up a fourth. And that got transcribed and put in a couple of books. the real bridge is MUCH prettier.

And that kind of thing is what Paul is talking about.

Thanks - and good point/example.

It's on one of the PRESTIGE sessions, I'll have to check which one.
but Miles couldn't remember the real bridge, so he took the melody and harmony of the A section up a fourth. And that got transcribed and put in a couple of books. the real bridge is MUCH prettier.
And that kind of thing is what Paul is talking about.

Sorry I had to go sell a bass......Yeah, that's the kind of thing I was talking about. Fly Me To the Moon is Actually.."in Other Words" If the title can get changed, the changes can get changed! The re-harms get re-harmed, and how do I know the real changes? Because i'm old God damn it!! Seriously, i'm always saying on this forum that one of the only good things about getting old is I know most all the standards and the original changes, because If I wasn't around when they were written, I learned them from someone who was.
Also, Ed...on that Jim Hall Red Mitchell thing, there's a GREAT re-harm of "In Other Words" Using that b5 to split up and identify the first A section from the second almost identical section. They also change a chord to a minor that was originally a major.
And the Miles "When Lights are Low".... There aren't a lotta people around with enough clout to change a complete tune to suit them, but i'll bet there are still alot of people around playing the bridge the way that Miles did.... which, of course, was wrong. And, as Ed pointed out, it was a very pretty bridge. But, on the other hand, that's one of the things I love about Miles.
A quick story about changing up titles to tunes...I worked quite a bit with a comedian named Pete Barbutti. Some of you know his work i'm sure. He was actually a jazz comedian! Marcus will have either heard about him from A mutual friend or know him. He would do this bit....A guy came in this bar where a pianist was playing a single type piano bar and ask the pianist: "Play 'Tear the wings From Birds' " To make a long, long bit short for my example, he was actually asking for an old tune called " Don't Take Your Love From Me" One of the lines in the lyrics being: " Would you tear the wings from birds, so that they can't fly?" An example of what can happen to tune titles, let alone re-harms and melodic goof-ups.
But, see, if you're old, you know all of this!

I think you're right Ed. Those changes first appeared on the 1945 record that had Red Norvo, Dizzy, Bird, Slam Stewart, , Flip Phillips, J.C. Heard and Teddy Wilson. You hear, on I Can't Get Started, the B-7 E7, Bb-7 Eb7 etc. w/ a specific bkrd. melody as well.

msw, don't you mean to the best of your knowledge those changes first appeared on that record?
Think about this.....I still think those changes on I Can't Get Started were Mingus'. Red Norvo was on that session you mentioned. Who was Red's bassist at this time?
I really don't know who came up with those changes and I don't think any of us can prove it, but it is fun to speculate.
By the way, looking at your profile, you have great taste in bass players!

I wouldn't say that you can never know the composer's "original intent", but musical historiography isn't any different than any other kind. Once enough time has passed, you'll never know for sure. Enough time goes by and everything turns into either oblivion or myth.

As for original intent, though: ever check out Hoagy Carmichael performing Stardust? Dunno about you, but it makes me glad he sold it...

I've been so busy I've missed this thread so far. VERY interesting stuff, and something for all of us to consider. In the beginning of this semester's Grad jazz theory class, we spent a couple of days looking at the concept of "what are the original changes to standards?". Our conclusion was that we will often never know because of the "aural tradition" of this music. But in the process, we chose a couple of tunes - "I Should Care", and "I Could Write A Book" - and looked for as many different versions in as many different fake books as we could find. I think we found 9 different versions of each, and no two were identical. Not only were there different keys involved, but also so many reharms it made my head spin, not to mention different variations in harmonic rhythm based on the generic Bb diatonic changes. I've always been fascintaed by this. A thread I started about this topic can be found Here (http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101752).

Paul - What are the original changes to "I Can't Get Started"?

Well, a couple years ago I was charting out Billy Strayhorn's Blood Count and wanted some clarity on the changes. At the time it was a choice between buying the whole book or walking down the block to the Library of Congress and asking for the sheet. Two days after my request they emailed that they had it from storage so I went at lunch time to copy it. Turned out they gave me the original manuscript written out in pencil. I have to admit that my hands were shaking a bit just to hold it. I was afraid to photocopy it so I wrote out the melody by hand (in the library, of course, as nothing leaves the building). I still didn't get the changes, however, as no chords were written on the sheet. And, the melody was different in several places compared to three or four recordings I have.

-Roger

walking down the block to the Library of Congress and asking for the sheet. Two days after my request they emailed that they had it from storage so I went at lunch time to copy it. .

-Roger
Some years ago, I was unable to get a copy of Claude Thornhill's "Snowfall". The publisher of record had no copy! I wrote to the Library of Congress, which told me to get permission from the publisher for them to copy what they had. I did, and they mailed me a Xerox of a the kind of chart you would buy in a music store.

Great tune, and I see no justification whatsoever for anyone to "reharmonize" it. I see that as smug and arrogant.

If anyone knows the tune, I arranged it for a capella SATB quartet, retaining the bass ostinato figure. No small feat, imitating the Thornhill band.

Great tune, and I see no justification whatsoever for anyone to "reharmonize" it. I see that as smug and arrogant.
It is smug and arrogant...that's like reharmonizing a Bill Evans tune like Turn Out the Stars!
If anyone knows the tune, I arranged it for a capella SATB quartet, retaining the bass ostinato figure. No small feat, imitating the Thornhill band.
I read a chart on Snowfall with that bass figure...I loved it.

Chris...To the best of my knowledge where the B-7 to E7 ETC. reharm starts, E-7/, A7/, D-/ Eb dim/ E-7/A7/D-/G7/C7/ (to bridge) Of course, the first time it doesn't resolve to C7. just another E-7 to A7.

I don't see reharmonizing tunes as neither smug nor arrogant.
Just because the original changes are nice doesen't mean you cant expand upon that and alter a few things to make them more personal to you. After all, isn't that what jazz is all about? Reharmonizing and altering already written tunes is something jazz muscians have done since day 1 and I don't think anyone should find that disrespectful to the original composer.

/lovebown

I don't see reharmonizing tunes as neither smug nor arrogant.
Just because the original changes are nice doesen't mean you cant expand upon that and alter a few things to make them more personal to you. After all, isn't that what jazz is all about? Reharmonizing and altering already written tunes is something jazz muscians have done since day 1 and I don't think anyone should find that disrespectful to the original composer.
/lovebown

We didn't say it was arrogant or smug to reharmonize ALL TUNES! Dono felt it was arrogant and smug to reharm one tune ....Snowfall!
I feel it's arrogant and smug to try to reharm Turn Out The Stars or any Bill Evans tune for that matter.

I don't know. If it turns out really great I wouldn't have a problem with a reharmonization of a Bill Evans tune, but hey if that's your opinion ,cool.

/lovebown

Look, i'm not saying there should be a law against it.....but when you spend a whole lot of time with these tunes they become part of your life. To improve on Bill Evans changes on his own tunes would be next to impossible to me. And yes, at least understanding a little bit of the DEPTH of Bills abilities in this area, it would be smug and arrogant. Yes, that's only my opinion.

And the point is, it's easier to make those changes in a viable sense that keeps the integrity of the tune if you do it from what the original function was.

DEMON - don't get too sidetracked by "composer's intent", I mean for most of the theatre stuff, the intent was "I hope to god we have enough tunes by opening night" or "I got I mortgage, I hope one of these is a hit". This is the same argument I was having with ninestring, to him all tunes are the same, you aren't playing a song, you're just playing a bunch of changes. The C-7 in SOFTLY AS IN A MORNING SUNRISE = C-7 in HOW DEEP IS THE OCEAN = HOW ABOUT YOU=HAVE YOU MET MISS JONES ad infinitum. What having the most vanilla changes (which are most often the composer's) and melody does for me is the same thing that transcribing a Sonny Rollins solo does. It gives me an insight into how the author (tune or solo) was thinking about this particular composition.

I have to think that some of Paul's objection isn't so much about the version that somebody learned as it is with the tendency of any number of players to continually pound out the changes they know with no regard for what they are actually hearing unfold around them. After the 4th chorus of trying to get some idiot to hear that he's going to E-7 instead of B-7, you just add another name to that side of the book.


BONEBATO - I don't find it disrespectful. But if what I want to do is expound on Picasso, then I should work from a Picasso. Not what David Hockney came up with when he expounded on Picasso. Cause then what I'm doing is expounding on Hockney.
But hey, you keep playing the changes you want at the tempos (or non-tempos) you want, and we'll see how that works out.

BONEBATO - I don't find it disrespectful. But if what I want to do is expound on Picasso, then I should work from a Picasso. Not what David Hockney came up with when he expounded on Picasso. Cause then what I'm doing is expounding on Hockney.

Sure, did I somehow disagree with this?


But hey, you keep playing the changes you want at the tempos (or non-tempos) you want, and we'll see how that works out.
......yeah...

/lovebown

, To improve on Bill Evans changes on his own tunes would be next to impossible to me. And yes, at least understanding a little bit of the DEPTH of Bills abilities in this area, it would be smug and arrogant. Yes, that's only my opinion.
And mine

Sure, did I somehow disagree with this?


Well, you sure seem to be "correcting" Paul's post and Paul's point was "learn the original changes". But after all, Paul is only basing his "opinion" on playing with Bill Evans and a number of years performing(actually he has been playing for more than the 23 years I've been playing added to the 2 or 3 you've been playing) so I can see how anything he says is suspect.

Thanks so much for pointing that out and keeping us all on track here.

Don, too. I've got a picture of him playing and it's with Toots Thielman and I swear I think that's Tal Farlow (might be Eddie Hazel though, I really can't see his face). My god man, practical experience like that is just not to be listened to.

I don't think we're really disagreeing here, so, no further argument from me.

/lovebown

Well, you sure seem to be "correcting" Paul's post and Paul's point was "learn the original changes". But after all, Paul is only basing his "opinion" on playing with Bill Evans and a number of years performing(actually he has been playing for more than the 23 years I've been playing added to the 2 or 3 you've been playing) so I can see how anything he says is suspect.


If Paul's advice is suspect, then maybe someone should notify Sam, who last I checked was playing sideways while lying on the floor at Paul's suggestion.


I'd also like to thank everyone for keeping this little disagreement relatively civil, and availing yourselves of the neat little P.M. feature we have here at TB. One thing I would like to mention is that we have a goodly number of folks from across the globe - for instance, if I'm not mistaken, MUDTHROWN hails from Sweden. When any of us Yanks happen to take issue with something said by one a' them dang furriners, we should always try to figure out if the second language issue is involved. I don't think it was an issue here (and would add that ADOREGRISTLE'S English is a hell of a lot better than my Swedish), but it's worth remembering. I seem to remember a certain hick from KY ripping ET TU, AHLO? for something he said that turned out to be a mistranslation. Just a reminder to all. :)

Well I can't do it, I've been playing for awhile myself. Maybe somebody could get Mike Money to let him know?

Don, too. I've got a picture of him playing and it's with Toots Thielman and I swear I think that's Tal Farlow (might be Eddie Hazel though, I really can't see his face).
I wish.
Neither one.
Vinnie Bovino. A good player.

It just kind of looked like Tal from the back. I know I don't have a lot of experience looking at Tal Farlow from the back, but apparently that shouldn't matter.

I don't have a lot of experience looking at Tal Farlow from the back...


...And in some ways, that's a good thing.

...but that where the bass player stand, right?

I'm pretty sure a discussion about knowing Tal Farlow from behind is off topic...

Don, too. I've got a picture of him playing and it's with Toots Thielman and I swear I think that's Tal Farlow (might be Eddie Hazel though, I really can't see his face).
A propos of nothing, an Eddie Hazell/Tal Farlow story:
Eddie had a gig "down the shore", as they say in Jersey. He opens up his case and there's no guitar in it. The bartender says "I'll be right back." He was a friend of Tal Farlow, who lived a few blocks away. He comes back and hands Eddie one of Tal's guitars.

The picture with Toots was the first gig on my comeback after breaking both arms and both wrists in six places.

The picture with Toots was the first gig on my comeback after breaking both arms and both wrists in six places.

I gotta bite...what happened?

I gotta bite...what happened?I fell 2 and a half stories head first onto an asphalt driveway. We're drifting off the subject.

I fell 2 and a half stories head first onto an asphalt driveway. We're drifting off the subject.

Jeeze, a bass player just happens to mention that they broke BOTH arms and WRISTS in SIX places and expects everyone to ignore it? C'mon man! Other than that, how was your day???

I was thinking the same thing, Paul. Short of actually dying or becoming mentally incompetent (musically, anyway), that sounds like about as bad an accident as a bass player could have.

How long did it take to come back from that one, Don? Any lingering effects?

How long did it take to come back from that one, Don? Any lingering effects?
About 5 months.
The way my left wrist was set, I'm incapable of holding a bass guitar. Life is good. :D

Jeeze, a bass player just happens to mention that they broke BOTH arms and WRISTS in SIX places and expects everyone to ignore it? C'mon man! Other than that, how was your day???


Listen, I want to know what happened to the drummer!

Good points about reasons for knowing the original changes, but how do you find them out practically? I can't really afford to fly to the library of congress (I live in the uk).

Good points about reasons for knowing the original changes, but how do you find them out practically? I can't really afford to fly to the library of congress (I live in the uk).

Short of not having a local old guy like me, try some of these sheet music places. I know, that would get expensive. How about I come and live with you for a while....after having traveled around the world playing jazz with more names than you'd want me to mention, I never made it to two places....England and Brazil, the two places i'd rather go than anywhere. My father was from Manchester and there's a town, I understand,right outside of Manchester called Warburton!
Seriously Olie, there's a big black fake book that's been around forever with alot of tunes with the originals. There's somebody here on TB that sells some books...maybe? When we talk about original changes, we're talking about the changes that have been around "most" for many years...not necessarily the ones that were involved on the original manuscript. Some of those were so bizarre, you'd hardly recognize the tune. Many tunes in the "Real Book" are confusing. If you use good sense and a sensitive ear, you can figure them out. Take a look at my example of " I Can't Get Started" on the other page...You can easily see how those guys came up with those subs. Except maybe the Eb dim chord, which is my favorite change in the originals and is really nothing more than a "passing tone " for the bass.

Hell Paul, I'm sitting here in Manchester and never heard of the place. Grabbing an atlas I now find that it does indeed exist on the SW side, just past Partington. Well well - and Olie is from Manchester too.

...there's a big black fake book that's been around forever with alot of tunes with the originals.

Paul, I would very much like to know the name of the big black book that's been around forever. I don't want you to go hunting for it though. Anyone know which book this is likely to be?

Chances are good I may already have it, just in a form in which (ahem) I don't notice the name of the book. I'm more curious about which book it is that Paul Warburton thinks of first when it comes to documenting "original" changes...

Paul, I would very much like to know the name of the big black book that's been around forever. I don't want you to go hunting for it though. Anyone know which book this is likely to be?
Chances are good I may already have it, just in a form in which (ahem) I don't notice the name of the book. I'm more curious about which book it is that Paul Warburton thinks of first when it comes to documenting "original" changes...

Damon, I don't know if it even had a name. The book i'm thinking of was, maybe, the very first fake book on the scene. It was the book that ALL the piano players lugged around with them. It had maybe 2 tunes a page and was a big mother. I will call a couple old guys in town about it because i'm curious myself. I'll let ya'll know.....

Many tunes in the "Real Book" are confusing. If you use good sense and a sensitive ear, you can figure them out.Chuck Sher gave the job of transcribing tunes for the Real Book to Bob Bauer. I played with Bob in a group for a year-huge ears could hear around city blocks. Before any composition got into the Real Book, Chuck would send the transcribed version to the artists for their approval, at least the artists that were still alive. This would have been in 1981. Chuck would get a corrected version back from the composer.

The Chuck Sher books are really good, and until this year, I thought they all had the composer's exact original changes. This year, one of the students in my grad jazz theory class brought in Kenny Kirkland's original manuscript to the tune "Dienda" (he was close to Kenny before he died). The changes in the Sher "New Real Book" were nearly the same, but many of them were written as upper structures instead of the altered chords (i.e. - F/Db instead of DbMa7#5, etc.) in Kenny's original version. It was interesting, because the Sher chords made it easier to comp logical voicings to the changes (which are farily difficult until you sink your teeth into them) on the piano, while the original changes were easier to navigate while blowing. Either way, that is one gorgeous tune!

Chuck Sher gave the job of transcribing tunes for the Real Book to Bob Bauer. I played with Bob in a group for a year-huge ears could hear around city blocks. Before any composition got into the Real Book, Chuck would send the transcribed version to the artists for their approval, at least the artists that were still alive. This would have been in 1981. Chuck would get a corrected version back from the composer.

I hope you don't think I was putting these guys down. I was referring to the "old standard tunes" in the first Real Book that could be confusing. Certainly not the "jazz standards"
And the other quote of mine that you're using was in terms of trying to figure out what the original changes to a particular standard tune was.

I hope you don't think I was putting these guys down. I was referring to the "old standard tunes" in the first Real Book that could be confusing. Certainly not the "jazz standards"
And the other quote of mine that you're using was in terms of trying to figure out what the original changes to a particular standard tune was.No, man, it's all good. I used to play with a singer who would bring out all this 70 years old sheet music and insist that we do it with the same chords. What a drag. All those diminished that are logically more like a dominant b9, etc. By looking at that sheet music, though, a guy could read into the changes much more than say what limitations a fake book may place on those songs. We all know there are about a gazillion ways to play standards and I'm not the one to say what's right, I can only go by what my ear tells me has got some pinache and that could be another 57 verions.

The changes in the Sher "New Real Book" were nearly the same, but many of them were written as upper structures instead of the altered chords (i.e. - F/Db instead of DbMa7#5, etc.) in Kenny's original version. It was interesting, because the Sher chords made it easier to comp logical voicings to the changes (which are farily difficult until you sink your teeth into them) on the piano, while the original changes were easier to navigate while blowing. Either way, that is one gorgeous tune!Chuck has always been into bitonality; i.e., different chords in the left and right hand. I'm not surprised he'd write it this way. Do you have Graham Bruce's fake book? It's great! "Educational tool." Graham called me one day and said, "Jamey Aebersold called and woke me up at 8AM, he's got a check in the mail for my book. I've got to mail it to him this afternoon."

Chuck has always been into bitonality; i.e., different chords in the left and right hand. I'm not surprised he'd write it this way. Do you have Graham Bruce's fake book? It's great! "Educational tool." Graham called me one day and said, "Jamey Aebersold called and woke me up at 8AM, he's got a check in the mail for my book. I've got to mail it to him this afternoon."

I've never heard of it. Do tell!

There does seem to be a huge variation between different fake books... the other day I was playing "you'd be so nice to come home to" from my real book, which is a warner brothers publication(!) called jazz standards, and the guitarist I was playing with had the pocket changes book, there was barely a chord in common (apart from them being in different keys). But it sounds like, from reading stuff on hear and also from reccomendations in the Mark Levine book, like the Sher real books might be more consistent than either of the above...
and then my attempt by work out by ear what ron carter is playing on the gorgeous jim hall version is quite differnet from either...

paul - if you ever do make it to manchester, let us know you're coming

The changes in the Sher "New Real Book" were nearly the same, but many of them were written as upper structures instead of the altered chords (i.e. - F/Db instead of DbMa7#5, etc.) in Kenny's original version. It was interesting, because the Sher chords made it easier to comp logical voicings to the changes (which are farily difficult until you sink your teeth into them) on the piano, while the original changes were easier to navigate while blowing.

That is interesting - there's a local pro Jazz (sax) player who writes a lot of very interesting original tunes and his lead sheets are all full of those (I call them slash chords, but I'm probably wrong) and I asked him why he notated the chords like that. He said it was because he wanted to force the piano player to play particular voicings - i.e. how he heard it.

That is interesting - there's a local pro Jazz (sax) player who writes a lot of very interesting original tunes and his lead sheets are all full of those (I call them slash chords, but I'm probably wrong) and I asked him why he notated the chords like that. He said it was because he wanted to force the piano player to play particular voicings - i.e. how he heard it.

I think that's the best reason to use them, especially when you want the upper extensions of a chord without all of the lower notes that would have been "implied" cluttering up the sound. Our own Tom Baldwin has written some really nice tunes using this device, and they're much easier to voice because of the upper structure/slash chord notation. The terms are nearly synonymous as far as I know.

I think that's the best reason to use them, especially when you want the upper extensions of a chord without all of the lower notes that would have been "implied" cluttering up the sound. Our own Tom Baldwin has written some really nice tunes using this device, and they're much easier to voice because of the upper structure/slash chord notation. The terms are nearly synonymous as far as I know.

The thing that gets a little wierd is that, for some compositions, the slash chord does a great job of defining a voicing for the head, but once you get to solos it can act as a 'lock' that keeps you looking at a chord from one angle only.

Also, folks can get so used to having the voicing "defined" by a slash chord that (like the last chord of the bridge in NAIMA) when they see a chord just written simply, the tendency is to default to all the "tricks" you have about voicing chords. I was playing the above example with a piano player who insisted on "interpreting" the chord from what was written instead of looking at the chord, looking at it's function and seeing that he shunta been adding the tensions he was adding (melody note clash).

In the case of a slash chord, once you get into the solo choruses I tend to go with what my ear is telling me it really wants to be.

The Chuck Sher books are really good, and until this year, I thought they all had the composer's exact original changes. This year, one of the students in my grad jazz theory class brought in Kenny Kirkland's original manuscript to the tune "Dienda" (he was close to Kenny before he died). The changes in the Sher "New Real Book" were nearly the same, but many of them were written as upper structures instead of the altered chords (i.e. - F/Db instead of DbMa7#5, etc.) in Kenny's original version. It was interesting, because the Sher chords made it easier to comp logical voicings to the changes (which are farily difficult until you sink your teeth into them) on the piano, while the original changes were easier to navigate while blowing. Either way, that is one gorgeous tune!

The Sher books are really nice and they pay royalties too! Yay for Chuck Sher. And I'm sure that they do the best job they can about checking with the composers where and when they can, but Charlie Haden told me that no one contacted him about his tune SILENCE (in the WORLD'S GREATEST) and that he definitely had some changes fro the changes.

Mostly it was as you say above, same general function but specific voicing kinda thing.

Ed says "The thing that gets a little wierd is that, for some compositions, the slash chord does a great job of defining a voicing for the head, but once you get to solos it can act as a 'lock' that keeps you looking at a chord from one angle only."

Now before anyone gets this wrong I agree with all of Ed's post but just want to add advice I've been given at workshops - because others will have heard this too - that where you see slash chords try soloing on the top chords. This gets you away from rootitis and into playing and hearing extensions. However, unless readers know what the slash chord is in generic terms the lesson is lost. Alternatively, this lesson can be developed by trying to think of all chords as slash chords. Its best looked as a developmental exercise preparing for the real world I guess.

The Sher books are really nice and they pay royalties too! Yay for Chuck Sher. That's exactly the point. Chuck pays the do re mi.

For all you youngsters out there, there are some worthwhile points to be taken from all of this discussion about what are the original changes, what are the most commonly used changes, what are all the wierd subs, what are the best fake books, etc....

1. Know what your options are. Be flexible.
2. Try to remember who does what among the different people you play with.
3. Develop your understanding of harmony, along with your ear, so you can adjust on the fly.
4. Remember that lead sheets are just guidelines. Even if you know what are considered to be the definative changes, it is always the M.O. of the jazz artist to do something different, not always play it the same way.
5. Memorize tunes, then leave your real book at home. When you're using the chart as a crutch, you're not using your ears.

I have about 15 fake books. They are a good resource to have at home, for learning new tunes. I never take them to gigs, since I know about 800 tunes from memory (jazz tunes and standards - about half and half). If I have to play a tune I don't know, I can usually play it after hearing it once or in combination with a brief talk-through. This is because I have reasonably well-developed relative pitch and can recognise common harmonic formulae which tend to crop up all the time in standards. There are only so many ways to get from point A to point B.

Here is an example of a spot in a tune where more than one possibilty exists. All of Me, bar 26. Could be F-6 or F#dim7. Every time around the pianist is playing F#dim7, but you have your head buried in the Real Book which reads F-6 and it sounds like DOOKY. Instead, first time through play a note that works for both chords, like D, and listen to figure out what's happening. When it's determined what the chord is, you can usually count on it being the same for the rest of the tune in this case.

Another one is in bars 7-8 of Have You Met Miss Jones. It's either G-7 or Ab-7. There's not really a note that works for both, so you just have to guess and listen and adjust if necessary.

Somewhere I have a description of the different types of substitute chords, and how they function. If I can find it, I'll post. (For the Original Poster).

About slash chords. If you understand chord scale relationships (uh-oh. whole nuther can o'worms) it doesn't matter how the chord is notated because you know that F/Db = Db Maj7#5 = Lydian Augmented, and you know what that sounds like. And just in case there's any confusion, in most cases a slash chord denotes a triad or chord over a bass note. So it's not really polytonal unless you have a chord over another chord, and even then it's subjective. Because a D triad over a C triad (both major) is really the same as CMaj6/9#11, or C lydian. If you know that sound, when you see any of those on the sheet, it should trigger the sound in your mind's ear.

The thing about slash chords for me, is that, as the bassist, you need to know whether the composer wrote it that way because they wanted the pianist to voice a chord that way, as I mentioned - or if they intended the bassist to play that particular root - say when you have a pedal with changing chords over it?

That last example, it's pretty obvious what's happening - but I wonder whether there are other examples where it isn't entirely clear? So a composer might like the sound of a particular root progression in the bass against certain chords and so write bass notes that he intends you to actually play?

It's easy enough when the composer is standing a few feet away from you - you can ask him - but, if not and it's an original Jazz composition (not a standard) that you have never heard before......:hmm:

It's easy enough when the composer is standing a few feet away from you - you can ask him - but, if not and it's an original Jazz composition (not a standard) that you have never heard before......:hmm:Had a great gig last night with a tenor player from Kuala Lumpor, Greg Lyons. I'd say half the chords were 'slash chords.' Sounded great. A typical example was Gsus9/B no 7, or E/G, etc.

Yes - quite a few UK composers go for fusions of African music and Jazz - but when you see the charts it starts looking complicated, but actually they are often trying to get a simpler style - well in piano voicings anway!

So a chart I was given had lines like :

Bb , Bb7/Ab, Eb7/G, D7/F#, Gm, Gm7/F, C7/E, Eb7 etc. etc.

The Sher books are really nice and they pay royalties too! Yay for Chuck Sher. And I'm sure that they do the best job they can about checking with the composers where and when they can,
Lou Carter, composer of Detour (recorded by Bill Evans, Milt Jackson, et al), said he has never seen the right changes for the tune in any fakebook by anybody. And he's not hiding anywhere.

Lou Carter, composer of Detour (recorded by Bill Evans, Milt Jackson, et al), said he has never seen the right changes for the tune in any fakebook by anybody. And he's not hiding anywhere.
That's really amazing...I love that tune. Didn't John Frigo have a hand in writing that tune? I worked some of those jazz parties with him and was always gonna ask what the actual originals were but always forgot. Do you know the originals?I love the way Scotty plays on that cut off the Vangaurd stuff!

That's really amazing...I love that tune. Didn't John Frigo have a hand in writing that tune? I worked some of those jazz parties with him and was always gonna ask what the actual originals were but always forgot. Do you know the originals?I love the way Scotty plays on that cut off the Vangaurd stuff!
Wall Button:
I can find out. John and Lou collaborated frequently. Together with Herb Ellis, they wrote a beautifully sarcastic tune titled "I Told You I Love You, Now Get Out." Ever hear it?

"I worked some of those jazz parties with him" - Lou or John ?

Wall Button:
I can find out. John and Lou collaborated frequently. Together with Herb Ellis, they wrote a beautifully sarcastic tune titled "I Told You I Love You, Now Get Out." Ever hear it?

"I worked some of those jazz parties with him" - Lou or John ?
Those parties were with John...and Herb. I know that band they had called The Soft Winds is that right? I s John still with us? He was gettin' up there at that time....mid 80s
John is a piece of work. I really enjoyed the hell out of him. He was the bassist in that Soft Winds band I think?
And no, I never heard that tune HA!! This was about the time I worked with Herb and Emily Remler.