Jimmy Garrison bootleg

[damonsmith]

Originally Posted by iona bass

i'm really not looking for an argument or a lecture - i'm really just a serious musician trying to listen to a piece of music as closely and objectively as possible.

Fair enough, but you seem only to be able to hear the pitches and not the music. Filling out your profile and posting some of your music might make a case for your "seriousness". So far it sounds like you have certain skills but lack many others - like you have taken a few ear training and college jazz classes but know very little about actually creating improvised music of any kind.

[MaxJohnson]

Zing!

[iona bass]

damon- (and anyone else, please!?)... again, i'm interested in discussing the music, esp. the note choices of the bassist vs. the harmony of the song. it would be helpful to the discussion if we could reference the "track" times/formal structures/harmony, etc.

thanks. i look forward to your comments.

[damonsmith]

What is helpful is to remember that the track was made post-Cecil Taylor not mention post Schoenberg. Abstracting the harmony as well as PURPOSEFULLY abandoning the form are par for the course.
It is like you are trying say Frank Bacon "got lost" while painting the top of the pope's head here:
http://www.askyfilledwithshootingsta...ad-vi_1949.jpg
Note that I used a figurative (or partially) painting rather than a purely abstract one to illustrate the point, what is causing your hang ups and confusion is song - when you need to listen to the music.

Originally Posted by iona bass

damon- (and anyone else, please!?)... again, i'm interested in discussing the music, esp. the note choices of the bassist vs. the harmony of the song. it would be helpful to the discussion if we could reference the "track" times/formal structures/harmony, etc.

thanks. i look forward to your comments.

[philip sirois]

What were saying to you is that Mr Garrison is, as Mr Fuqua might say, hearing and responding to the aural environment that's happening at the moment. What we all aspire to. That's improvising. So what happens at what time in relation to the tune's harmonic structure isn't so interesting or compelling to many of us.

The bottom line is we're listening for music to be made, not how well the players fulfill our predetermined idea of what they should be doing. And I for one, as someone else mentioned, agree that a guy like Jimmy Garrison isn't lost in a tune as familiar as all the things. Going where the music is going, or taking the music somewhere beyond our expectations is, as Damon pointed out, is at times more important than the tune. And is what makes it art, not math.

And you are right, I will not likely be convinced otherwise.

And per your example, am I missing something or is the last four bars of the the A section moving toward and arriving at the G major, the same as the first four bars of the bridge?

[philip sirois]

To further Damon's point, was Picasso confused when he put both eyes on the same side of the nose? Or was he moving beyond the literal, opening up the possibilities and thereby changing the way we might look at things?

[damonsmith]

Jimmy just didn't have access to the Aersold play alongs we have today. Instead, he spent years playing with McCoy Tyner who "messed up" his ears with all that suspended harmony!

[philip sirois]

Things really do sound meaner when you put them on the internet. I didn't mean to have a smart ass tone, though reading back it sure sounds like it!

[damonsmith]

Originally Posted by iona bass

During the chorus which begins @ 3:42, ( by the 3:50 mark), his note choices become non-supportive of the harmony. ( He sounds "lost " in the form, to me). At the 5:29 mark, ( the Bridge), he gets back on track.

Just listenin', Just sayin'...
Thanks.

I listened closely here, there is some minor abstraction here - far less than Jimmy's old employer in the middle of "My Favorite Things".
I don't think this guy hired Jimmy to "support the harmony" in "All the Things You Are".
He hired him to take it somewhere AND back.

When confronted with a chord you have two basic choices:
1. Re-enforced a quality already there
2. Alter the harmony with a new tone or two

Western harmony has three basic properties in relation to a root tone:
Consonance - 3rds and 6ths pushing things major or minor
Stability - 5 is stable, 4ths and tritone de-stablize things
Dissonance - major 7 and b2/9 are "hard" dissonances, 2 & b7 "soft".
That accounts for all 12 notes.

Once you understand what all the 12 tones will do in a situation like this, you are free to use them to those effects, as Jimmy is doing here.

[damonsmith]

Seriously, though: Filling out your profile will really help this discussion: I can't tell if you are:
A. A Crouch/Marsalls fascist
B. A High School kid with a good ear (in which case we'll be nicer!)
C. An Abersold Addict.

[damonsmith]

When Ed, Mr. PC and I are all on the same page about something..

[gerry grable]

Originally Posted by MR PC

Really great performance, I'd never heard of the vibes player. by number harmony.

Warren's been around for a long time. I don't know why I remember so clearly, but the first time I saw him (and spoke with him briefly) was at the Blue Note in Chicago in the early 60s. He was playing with George Shearing and the block chords they were playing I guess could be considered "number harmony" when you compare them to the chords in this clip

[damonsmith]

Looks like he has an interesting career:
http://warrenchiasson.com/
Played with Bill Dixon and Dolphy AND Chet Baker and Tal Falow. It says he played duo with Jimmy often.
No one has mentioned how great Beaver sounds. I have played a ton with Alvin Fielder and is always going on about how great Beaver was.

[iona bass]

philip sirois- thanks for your response(s). first of all, i don't hear any "snarcasm" in your posts at all. i just hear someone having a conversation with another person. thanks for addressing that issue. i appreciate that.

the thing i keep coming back to, after each listening, is why, for the first 3 or 4 minutes the bassist is playing/supporting the harmony, and then abandons(?) that approach while the vibes still stays clearly within the structure and harmony of the song?
for about 2 1/2 choruses he goes somewhere else , then returns to his original "supportive" approach for the remainder of the track. i guess i DO expect a certain "agreement " about the "language" that is being "spoken" between the musicians. i'll own that!

it's important for me to say here that any bassist has the right to play any music however he/she wants! in my experience, (and this is totally subjective), and in the musics i listen to, the bass functions as a "link" between the harmony and the rhythm - supporting the "piano", with melodic melodies ( basslines) that work with the "voicings" and at the same time, supplying a "pulse" that relates to the the drums, ( or replaces the drums in a duo). i don't see that as a limiting, or non-creative role, it is, for me, a challenging, lifelong study ( 39 years, so far). i understand that this approach is simply ONE way of playing - it is NOT the only way.

i've been fortunate to work with some pianists (mostly) who have great "ears" and encourage/instigate(!) harmonic adventure even when playing a "standard". i don't play piano very well, but my ability to construct voicings/chords at the piano, and play through tunes, ( or make stuff up), has been the most beneficial non-bass study in terms of being to function in the styles of music i'm drawn to. it opens up many more note possibilities "in the moment". practicing for me isn't always about playing the bass. ( i should be practicing now...).

also - the last 4 bars of the first "A", (before the bridge), does cadence ii-V-I in Gmajor, but the harmonic rhythm in the bridge is slower. good point. i guess i hear him in the few bars before then, still not in the harmony ( "to my ears", as always).

finally, i heard that Al Cohn once was on the bandstand when "Giant Steps" was called - he said "OK, but i've got my own changes!"

thanks for your time.

[damonsmith]

Clearly what is vexing you here is the inside/outside approach. It is a thing. People do it, people in that time and that crowd certainly did it.

Yes, he plays the form, yes he leaves the form. It is a thing that people do. You may not like it.

In our time I don't care for it - we don't need a tune to freely improvise and if I ever end up playing a tune I prefer to play it as "correctly" as possible.

Still, check out a Paul Bley album or two or a late Coltrane record maybe?

[damonsmith]

That is also "a thing": someone holds down the form while others play outside of it.
It far less abstract an idea than Charles Ives.

Originally Posted by iona bass

the thing i keep coming back to, after each listening, is why, for the first 3 or 4 minutes the bassist is playing/supporting the harmony, and then abandons(?) that approach while the vibes still stays clearly within the structure and harmony of the song?
for about 2 1/2 choruses he goes somewhere else , then returns to his original "supportive" approach for the remainder of the track. i guess i DO expect a certain "agreement " about the "language" that is being "spoken" between the musicians. i'll own that!

[Phil Rowan]

All noise aside, I listened to this JG clip and enjoyed it thoroughly. Thanks for posting!

[damonsmith]

Agreed. What a sound.

[contrabart]

Originally Posted by damonsmith

A. A Crouch/Marsalls fascist

That's a rather insulting comment, isn't it?

Furthermore, I can't believe no one here has heard what really happens. Jimmy Garrison misses (skips) the second A part of the chorus where it goes wrong. At the end of the next chorus Warren Chiasson "forces" him back into the form. Just focus on the bass line and it's easy to hear.

[iona bass]

contrabart - yes! thanks for your response. this is what i heard on my very first listening, and prompted my original post.
thanks for LISTENING!