• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Double Bass Jimmy Garrison bootleg

#81
The problem here is that everyone plays the Berklee Real Book changes to All the Things You Are. Evidently Jerome Kern, Jimmy Garrison and I are the only ones that know that it was composed as an A-B-A form. People have been playing those ****** changes so long that they think that's how it goes.

I can't believe none of you guys got that. Go back to the source, man.
 
#83
TroyK said:
The problem here is that everyone plays the Berklee Real Book changes to All the Things You Are. Evidently Jerome Kern, Jimmy Garrison and I are the only ones that know that it was composed as an A-B-A form. People have been playing those ****** changes so long that they think that's how it goes.

I can't believe none of you guys got that. Go back to the source, man.
Click to expand...

So he messed up every chorus except that one ... AWESOME.

I'll admit the first time is listened to it, I thought Garrison was just playing an outside detour; sounded different, not bad at all. Having listened a few more times since following the comments of those on both side of this fence, all with better ears than me, I'm down with those in the "mistake" camp. Not that that should be of any importance to anyone, but for me it illustrates the value of keeping the groove together even if the notes are all fooked up when you get lost; you can still sound good. My aim is to get people to have this argument about me after my next gig ...
 
#84
I don't hear him as lost. I hear both him and and the vibes player pushing at the envelope, and in both cases, some things don't work as well others. This was an era of great experimentation in jazz. Some of it was great, some other stuff? Not so much
 
#85
JoeWPgh said:
I don't hear him as lost. I hear both him and and the vibes player pushing at the envelope, and in both cases, some things don't work as well others. This was an era of great experimentation in jazz. Some of it was great, some other stuff? Not so much
Click to expand...

You still think JG was outside even when the transcription reveals him to be playing the wrong section, root after root (perfectly)?
 
#87
To my ear, he's simply ignoring the changes at that point and playing off the vibes 'melody'. I say that because he doesn't sound consistantly in the wrong place. He's weaving in and out of what the changes would demand. I'm not saying it works all that well. Some does better than other. It's sort of outside for it's own sake, which was not uncommon back then. But I could be wrong. He might have been stoned out of his gourd.
 
#88
contrabart said:
Amen to that. (Thanks for correcting the intention/intent, this is not my first language.)

About Keezer, my favorite piano player, I'm not so sure about him playing stuff "wrong". Not sure if you mean it like that either. If his "mistakes" are intentional they're not wrong are they? I've never heard him play anything that wasn't related to what was going on around him. Even the crazy **** he plays on Ray Brown's "Live at Starbucks", in Ray's clearly defined concept, isn't out of place. But I don't get to see him play very often here in Holland, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

By wrong I mean, purposely play something that isn't what everyone else in the band would expect. Maybe not with Ray, but in many settings I've been in with him...his trio, Locke-Keezer, Sanborn, he will make a left turn sometimes on purpose and its super hip.
 
#90
TroyK said:
The problem here is that everyone plays the Berklee Real Book changes to All the Things You Are. Evidently Jerome Kern, Jimmy Garrison and I are the only ones that know that it was composed as an A-B-A form. People have been playing those ****** changes so long that they think that's how it goes.

I can't believe none of you guys got that. Go back to the source, man.
Click to expand...

Aha!! Touché!
 
#91
TroyK said:
The problem here is that everyone plays the Berklee Real Book changes to All the Things You Are. Evidently Jerome Kern, Jimmy Garrison and I are the only ones that know that it was composed as an A-B-A form. People have been playing those ****** changes so long that they think that's how it goes.

I can't believe none of you guys got that. Go back to the source, man.
Click to expand...

TroyK- The form being played on the track and being discussed here is the 36 bar form, the "1939 Polygram Int'l. Publishing" version - I'm not aware of the "Berklee ....." version, or any other version, that is structurally different.
 
#94
Jason Sypher said:
So seriously and civilly. What do you all think if this, particularly those that were in the "JG is taking it out" camp. That's as inside as a bass line from the Hot Sevens... And I think it's cool that we have these discussions and these differences in hearing...
Click to expand...

I started out enamored with the AACM in Chicago when I was a teenager, so my frame of reference includes those sounds, along with the straight ahead. I can be very accepting of "wrong" notes which to my senses can make the music come alive in ways that it just doesn't with a more conservative approach. Hence my error in judging Garrison's error.
 
#95
Eric Hochberg said:
I started out enamored with the AACM in Chicago when I was a teenager, so my frame of reference includes those sounds, along with the straight ahead. I can be very accepting of "wrong" notes which to my senses can make the music come alive in ways that it just doesn't with a more conservative approach. Hence my error in judging Garrison's error.
Click to expand...

I am still going to say that intuitive material could include earlier material from the song at hand, I think the more likely story is that he heard that line and played it - the other side means he wasn't hearing but just playing what he thought he should be playing without hearing how it matched up.

When jazz-based material comes up in free music, and you don't want to go with it, you have to "speak the language" a bit to shut it down (I am against any sort of "conversational" material in improvised music at this point).
I think it is every bit as likely that he is trying to dissolve the form subtly. Analyzing his line against the formal changes is one story, hearing it against the vibes solo is another.

I think there are several possibilities and losing the form is just one of them.
 
#96
thepontif said:
By wrong I mean, purposely play something that isn't what everyone else in the band would expect. Maybe not with Ray, but in many settings I've been in with him...his trio, Locke-Keezer, Sanborn, he will make a left turn sometimes on purpose and its super hip.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought you meant. And I know what you mean, although I feel that his "left turns" still have a lot to do with the (originally written) music. I try to do that too sometimes, with various degrees of success. You play what the music tells you to, if it tells you it's getting boring, or one of your fellow musicians on stage are just going through the motions, you stir things up.
 
#97
damonsmith said:
(I am against any sort of "conversational" material in improvised music at this point)
Click to expand...

I hope that with that you mean tonal or traditional material, because as I see it in "free" improv the only thing that can make it work (because of the lack of this material) is conversation.

You obviously being one of the free jazz guys on this forum, I have a question for you. And please don't think I want to do anything but ask an honest question.
Why is it that in a lot of free improvised music the musicians seem to think it's forbidden to let the "music" element (traditional melody, rhythm, sound of the instrument) play a part of their improvisation? If it is really free there should be no limits to what you want to play.
 
#98
I was intending to stay a bystander since several pages ago but being an Italian (ever see my cousin Vinny) raised in a University community (U of C) I can no longer resist the urge. I apologize ahead of time of this post sounds condescending.

Reading this thread I am struck by how many definitive statements are made. Words like 'good', 'bad', 'valid', 'invalid', 'only', 'right', 'wrong', 'sucks', etc, etc. I believe that talking or writing in this manner ultimately influences the way we think and perceive... that includes hearing. In my mind taking the time to analyze the track to prove whether he was right or wrong is fulfilling a human need to get everything to fit into one camp or the other. Right or wrong. While I understand that is part of the point of any written discussion forum I think it also serves to take music out of its essence which is as an auditory experience. It also can never be definitively proven because Jimmy can't weigh in. We are then left with our experience of the sounds and ultimately that's all we are ever left with even if Jimmy were here. As an example Eric heard it as he was doing some interesting 'outside' stuff until someone 'proved' otherwise. Basically denying his experience. I enjoyed the track myself and have not gone back to prove or disprove anything. I feel no need to.

Again sorry if this sounds condescending. These kind of discussions really bug me on a base level because I don't think they are being respectful of experiences other than our own.

I have played a fair amount of free stuff but nothing like Damon so I'm going to pop some corn and sit back.
 
#99
Marc Piane said:
I have played a fair amount of free stuff but nothing like Damon so I'm going to pop some corn and sit back.
Click to expand...

I've seen your cooking. You don't fool me. You're going to make some braised juicy meat with a popcorn reduction and some sort of vinigrette something or other. :eyebrow:
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back