How do I make the most out of this book?

[Beast]

I recently picked up a copy of "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" because of the rave reviews I've heard of it, and my love for the music.

Aside from learning the transcriptions, are there any things that I could do to make the most out of the book? Like, typically for jazz solo books, like the CP omnibooks, I analyze the phrasing, chord/scale relations, and the progression. What can I do on this book that may help me in a similar fashion?

[Andrew Jones]

Same stuff.... maybe a little more thought on just the rhythmic phrasing.

Like the the bar that's a 1/16 followed by all eighths that lands on four 1/16's on beat 4. Just owning that rhythm will get you alot of smiles.



Aj

[20db pad]

Honestly, analyzing the phrasing, chord/scale relations, and the progressions of the material in SITSOM in the same manner as you would for a jazz solo is the way to go. I always imagined the scenario that the songs featured in SITSOM were presented to Jamerson as a chord sheet when they were originally recorded, and the book provides a solid guide as to how his muse and creativity functioned when playing those tunes. Also, I always advise people exploring this book to treat Anthony Jackson's written contributions and analysis very seriously. It's a set of lectures from perhaps the most qualified person to speak about James' playing.

Even before SITSOM was released, I paid a lot of attention to how Jamerson approached one chord vamps, repeated chord progressions, and the mechanics of how he played active parts while still supporting the tunes and how he avoided stepping all over the vocals while he did that. I also examined how he got in and out of verses, intros, endings, and breaks. SITSOM makes this process a lot easier because it's all written out.

Ultimately, I think that the best way to get the most out of the book is to learn the bass parts, phrases, and approaches you like the most, and figure out ways to plug that stuff into the music you play.

[daffy]

Also try and get the original recordings and nail Jamerson's phrasing and subtleties - some of the celeb artists on the CD play their parts well but others really don't have a funk/Motown feel and are just going through the motions.

So much of Jamerson's brilliance is in the way he phrased and the dynamics - you can't get that from the notes on a page or from a metal celeb bassist torturing the lines.

[Andrew Jones]

+1

That way you hear the vocals and hear the way the bass plays off them.


Aj

[mimaz]

I just saw the movie last weekend.......now I gotta get a copy of the book!

[HaVIC5]

Putting effort into analyzing chord/scale relationships is rather useless, IMO, for everything except jazz. What makes Jamerson lines so good isn't their harmonic innovation, but the rhythmic nuance. Most analysis should be done with the ears and not the eyes, and trying to figure out exactly how the bass lays in the pocket, and what you can do to play like that.

[Beast]

Thanks guys, you all kind've confirmed what I thought at first. This is definitely supposed to be approached more rhythmically than anything else. Thanks!

[JTE]

Read through Anthony Jackson's analysis in the book (I think it's called "An appreciation of style"). Then apply that same analysis to the other things. I'll disagree with HaVIC5's first sentence too. What made Jamerson's playing so different from so many of his contemporaries was that jazz background. It lead him to surprisisng notes, his proclivity for open string chromatics, and that's a good thing to learn from him.

Also, dig into how he alternates between busy and sparse phrases- he had a way of surprising the ear by playing busy when most would be more open, and being sparse when you expect him to be busy.

jte

[Andrew Jones]

I agree, to disagree with Havic (although I respect allot of what he has to say I just find it a little acute in nature)it's also Motown song writing, not stax or other styles of soul/R&B that use simpler harmony. The stuff isn't rocket science but it is on a par with most of the great American songbook. IE Kern ect. I think that has allot to do with why a jazz player was so comfortable.



AJ

[cnltb]

Originally Posted by HaVIC5

Putting effort into analyzing chord/scale relationships is rather useless, IMO, for everything except jazz. What makes Jamerson lines so good isn't their harmonic innovation, but the rhythmic nuance. Most analysis should be done with the ears and not the eyes, and trying to figure out exactly how the bass lays in the pocket, and what you can do to play like that.

I feel that , once ones "ears " have decided something is "good" it helps to use ones head to analyse , why it is so.
This applies to any style of music and not only jazz.
If information is communicated via the written medium , the eyes do come in handy.
To see something written out is, IMO very useful, granted that it is accurate, which I would always double check.

In short , I disagree with most said in the quoted post.

I think one of the things which made jamerson special was his sense of melody and his use of "melodies" rather than static "grooves" without getting in the way too much when playing behind a singer.

[mambo4]

I also very strongly disagree with HaVIC5's post
(but i suspect he may not mean exactly what he said)

IMHO how we support the harmony is the meat and potatoes of what we bassists do.

The best way to learn is to analyze how such giants as Jamerson support the chords. That means looking at the chords and scales and seeing what note choices he made.
It's not just rhythm that makes it sound good.

analyzing the relationship of the bass line to the chords is crucial to 'get' almost any genre, not just jazz.

and that is exactly what I did with SITSOM, to my enduring benefit.

[Scot]

Originally Posted by Beast

This is definitely supposed to be approached more rhythmically than anything else. Thanks!

No, I don't think so. His note choices and how he weaved through the harmony was a big part of his style as were the rhythms and articulations. Clearly, Jamerson had big ears and his lines indicate that he had a very advanced harmonic foundation. I wouldn't approach studying/analyzing those transcriptions any differently than I would a book of jazz bass lines or solo transcriptions.

[cnltb]

Originally Posted by Scot

No, I don't think so. His note choices and how he weaved through the harmony was a big part of his style as were the rhythms and articulations. Clearly, Jamerson had big ears and his lines indicate that he had a very advanced harmonic foundation. I wouldn't approach studying/analyzing those transcriptions any differently than I would a book of jazz bass lines or solo transcriptions.

+1

[cnltb]

Originally Posted by Beast

I recently picked up a copy of "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" because of the rave reviews I've heard of it, and my love for the music.

Aside from learning the transcriptions, are there any things that I could do to make the most out of the book? Like, typically for jazz solo books, like the CP omnibooks, I analyze the phrasing, chord/scale relations, and the progression. What can I do on this book that may help me in a similar fashion?

Given jamersons' rather melodic approach I would not treat these transcriptions much different to the lines in the omnibook.

[HaVIC5]

Whoa, hey, I think a lot of people might have misinterpreted my post (understandable, though). I didn't mean to take away from what Jamerson was doing, nor imply that he didn't have a high level of harmonic sophistication that he brought to those lines. All those cats were playing in jazz clubs before they were session guys, after all. I meant that using the specific technique of chord/scale analysis is only beneficial to jazz, and really mostly arranging versus anything, since in Jamerson wasn't thinking in scales - nobody at the time really was jazz or otherwise. It was chords, chord functions, chromatics and passing tones, like the beboppers. Jamerson also didn't innovate in terms of harmony - he was doing stuff very common to the jazz idiom - but what he did innovate was the method of application into a new rhythmic framework. The harmonic content is important, of course, when analyzing, but a better understanding of Jamerson's playing will come through the interpretation of the rhythmic structure through which he applied his knowledge of harmony.

I feel that , once ones "ears " have decided something is "good" it helps to use ones head to analyse , why it is so.
This applies to any style of music and not only jazz.
If information is communicated via the written medium , the eyes do come in handy.
To see something written out is, IMO very useful, granted that it is accurate, which I would always double check.

If you've read any other post I've made (such as in the "ESP analysis" thread), you'll know that I'm all for understanding music through the written word - it's one of my great interests as a bassist, composer and musician. However, rhythmic nuance cannot be adequately described by words, and it definitely CANNOT be described through the sheet music. Professional transcribers will tell you that most of the music that they transcribe is lost once its put onto paper. You think that Jamerson's playing can be readily reinterpreted just by note choice and metronomic rhythmic placement? Knowing that he played an eighth note on the and of 3 in the 56th measure is one thing, but you can sequence a computer to do that. It takes a connection to the actual music through using your ear to be able to replicate the groove - not simply reading the notes on the page from a book of transcriptions.

[bassrique]

Originally Posted by daffy

Also try and get the original recordings and nail Jamerson's phrasing and subtleties - some of the celeb artists on the CD play their parts well but others really don't have a funk/Motown feel and are just going through the motions.

So much of Jamerson's brilliance is in the way he phrased and the dynamics - you can't get that from the notes on a page or from a metal celeb bassist torturing the lines.

Lee and Entwistle come to mind. They just "mailed it in".

[Michael Case]

Practice the written music along with the actual recordings. If you have a bass trainer CD player or some software that slows down mp3's or CD's this will help. Start slow and work up to tempo.

[Bluesy Soul]

I guess I have a little different take on James and what can ge gleaned from SITSOM.

To me, the brilliance and genius of James Jamerson was that he did ALL the things mentioned better--and unlike--anyone before him. If you go back and listen to mid-60s bass parts, NO ONE was doing what James was doing melodically, harmonically OR rhythnically. IMO, he broke new ground and opened up ears and minds in all three areas.

In fact, I think yet another aspect of James' genius was his integration of all three elements better than anyone previously--all in service to the song and its groove. No one else was doing it on bass with melody, harmony AND rhythm--at least in popular music--to that extent 45 years ago.

In addition to those cornerstone elements of ensemble bass playing, there are countless other lessons SITSOM shows us or reinforces for us. Most listeners agree that James did his best work paired with Benny Benjamin on drums. SITSOM made me realize the wisdom of Benny and the Motown producers in having Benny often play simple, metronomic parts and stay out of James' way. (Duck Dunn and Al Jackson, Jr. with more complex bass parts ?) As a master of fills, Benny still found places to put his signature in the song whenever James left him space. Their works reminds us again that there are many ways a bassist and drummer can work together to create a groove. (As James Brown once said "...a groove is simply agreeing on where the '1' is.")

Listen to how effortlessly Jamerson's repetitive pattern floats over the top of Benny's straight 4s on "I Can't Help Myself (Sugar Pie, Honey Bun)". And who uses syncopation better than James' did when he chose to? Or played with more memorable and effective simplicity than on "My Girl"? Or used octaves more innovatively than James on "Shake Me, Wake Me (When It's Over)" or (even though it's not in SITSOM) "Stop! In the Name of Love".

I would certainly study and analyze SITSOM every way I could, but I'd also remember that it's not a primer for playing a particular genre. It's the closest thing we have to a reference work on the style of a breakthrough performer within that genre, a player whose innovations obviously influenced many of us within and outside that genre for nearly 50 years.

Sometimes I think I get the most from SITSOM when I just sit quietly and listen to it under headphones.

Bluesy Soul