"...so that's why I wrote this whole verse on one note, just to make sure those guys hear the melody..."
Zing!
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 John Goldsby on Red Mitchell
- Thread starter Paul Warburton
- Start date
-
- Tags
- red
"...so that's why I wrote this whole verse on one note, just to make sure those guys hear the melody..."
Zing!
The Modest Jazz Trio with Red on piano, Jim Hall and our old buddy, the very funny, Red Kelly on bass.
Splitting hairs is not something that bald guys have much use for, for obvious reasons.
John Goldsby
Supporting Member
- Mar 4, 2003
- 1,172
- 2,160
- Disclosures
- Bassist @ WDR Big Band Cologne, Discover Double Bass, Conservatorium Maastricht, NL
Wow—thanks for all of the great videos. I've got to take awhile and revisit these.
Hi Stringtapper: I didn't find your original comment about Gb/F# disturbing—as you point out, it's just part of the discussion.
Hi Stringtapper: I didn't find your original comment about Gb/F# disturbing—as you point out, it's just part of the discussion.
On the issue of the enharmonics, I think Ab to F# to G makes perfect sense because of the way such things are often handled in the classical literature: Notes that want to resolve down are often spelled as lowered notes, while notes that resolve up are almost always spelled as raised notes. How's that for hair (scalp?) splitting?
On the issue of the enharmonics, I think Ab to F# to G makes perfect sense because of the way such things are often handled in the classical literature: Notes that want to resolve down are often spelled as lowered notes, while notes that resolve up are almost always spelled as raised notes. How's that for hair (scalp?) splitting?
Exactly one of the points I made as an argument for using F#. In terms of sight reading I think it's a stronger point than the other I gave about showing the F#'s function in the D7 chord. I'm generally of the mind that showing function should trump the sharp/up, flat/down rule, but in this case the two coincide.
For me, seeing accidentals that do follow the up/down convention whenever possible makes reading easier because you're essentially getting information not only about the note with the accidental but also about the note that follows it, before you've even seen it.
Thanks John. Teaching music theory is one of my gigs so I tend to geek out about details like this.
Me too. I don't mind the gig, but at times I find myself reminding the students that there's a huge difference between theory and actual practice. I usually remember about halfway through the rant that I'm really reminding myself.
Meant to drop this earlier. Great peromamces, pictures and interviews with Red.
The Chet Baker clip with Red on piano is in there as well.
My Mitchell geekiness will now stop.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
The Chet Baker clip with Red on piano is in there as well.
My Mitchell geekiness will now stop.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
John Goldsby
Supporting Member
- Mar 4, 2003
- 1,172
- 2,160
- Disclosures
- Bassist @ WDR Big Band Cologne, Discover Double Bass, Conservatorium Maastricht, NL
Of all the inaccurate bs I have ever read on TB, this has got to be at the top.
+1047 1/2. Paul's RM geekiness is like a runaway freight train busting through the worlds biggest dam. There just ain't no stopping it once it gets going.
Yeah, I know. If I were gay, I woulda given him * **** *** years ago! Talk about respect!
Possible Jazz History Ph.D. thesis?
"You Can Blow Now, If You Want To..." : Homoeroticism in Early 21st Century Warburtonian TB Posts"
Thanks?
John Goldsby
Supporting Member
- Mar 4, 2003
- 1,172
- 2,160
- Disclosures
- Bassist @ WDR Big Band Cologne, Discover Double Bass, Conservatorium Maastricht, NL
I thought we weren't supposed to discuss politics, religion, race, sex, or German vs. French bow here on TB 
Er . . . how 'bout that Gb/F#
Er . . . how 'bout that Gb/F#
John Goldsby
Supporting Member
- Mar 4, 2003
- 1,172
- 2,160
- Disclosures
- Bassist @ WDR Big Band Cologne, Discover Double Bass, Conservatorium Maastricht, NL
Hey Chris & Stringtapper: I'm not being churlish here . . . (Invalid Link Removed), but would it make any difference to the general rules of enharmonic spelling if I wrote this:
(Remember, the key signature is one flat).
Of course, when reading a line we bassists aren't playing the chords like a piano player would . . . but I look at chord symbols under a line, and they add to the logic of the way I understand the line, and the way the line is written, IMO.
I think when I wrote the line out originally, I was just assuming the Ab7 as the implied sound going to Gmin7 . . . so writing the notes Ab and Gb made sense to me.
Rather than this:
Again, I'm not being feisty, just trying to file this info away in the "best practices" folder in my brain.
(Remember, the key signature is one flat).
Of course, when reading a line we bassists aren't playing the chords like a piano player would . . . but I look at chord symbols under a line, and they add to the logic of the way I understand the line, and the way the line is written, IMO.
I think when I wrote the line out originally, I was just assuming the Ab7 as the implied sound going to Gmin7 . . . so writing the notes Ab and Gb made sense to me.
Rather than this:
Again, I'm not being feisty, just trying to file this info away in the "best practices" folder in my brain.
My favorite use of the word "churlish" in history can be found at 2:40 here:
It also serves as a wonderful example of the effect of turning enharmonic spellings (in this case, with people names instead of note names) into a competitive contest of wills.
But to answer the question, technically the spellings in the first example would be correct and the second incorrect. In spite of this, I would be fine with either but would find the first example easier to read if there was a courtesy accidental in front of the G natural in the second measure. In the general sense, while my brain processes the second one easier because I am trained to think of melody as primarily a line of counterpoint, I think both are fine. A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet, and so on.
It also serves as a wonderful example of the effect of turning enharmonic spellings (in this case, with people names instead of note names) into a competitive contest of wills.
But to answer the question, technically the spellings in the first example would be correct and the second incorrect. In spite of this, I would be fine with either but would find the first example easier to read if there was a courtesy accidental in front of the G natural in the second measure. In the general sense, while my brain processes the second one easier because I am trained to think of melody as primarily a line of counterpoint, I think both are fine. A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet, and so on.
