Double Bass Ron Carter's Line over F Blues Transcribed

[Intenzity]

BTW, Intenzity, it gets tricky precisely naming the chord or scale tones because of the possible re-harmonizations that are going on. It's a valuable exercise to *try* and name chord tones and scale degrees, but ultimately the whole line is a melody in itself— a counter-melody to what's happening in the blues form and to what the other players are playing.

Wow, well, there you go, the straight dope from the guy who originally wrote it out.

And I certainly did not mean to imply the changes needed "correcting" in any way, just that I didn't change them from what was on the page.

I went back and forth between labeling the notes relative to the key, or just relative to the chord, and I went with chord because my brain can remember "1,b9,9,5 on a dominant chord" easiest and maybe I will even be able to pull it back out and actually use it at some point.

So yea, this is an inexact process, and everyone internalizes how a line is constructed differently. For me, this way works, its simple, and the ideas are easy to remember and use.

 

[Don Kasper]

I can't speak for Mr. Hilliker, but I'm pretty sure John understands that changes are a point of reference/departure in jazz, especially on a blues, so I can't see what all the fuss is about. For me, when I do a transcription, my favorite bits are always the parts that don't match the changes - these tend to be the places where I learn something new.

Chris,

I think it's helpful, when transcribing, to identify the harmony that is actually occurring...esp. in a resource aimed at students.
I don't see much value in transcribing just the notes without also attempting to hear/see how those notes fit or don't fit the harmony. I believe you would agree with these statements.
Aebersold, (and the OP, to a lesser extent), published 13 choruses of "blues" basslines, containing inaccurate/incomplete chord symbols, in books that purport to explain and illustrate the concept of jazz basslines.
That's what all the "fuss" is about, IMHO.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Chris,

I think it's helpful, when transcribing, to identify the harmony that is actually occurring...esp. in a resource aimed at students.
I don't see much value in transcribing just the notes without also attempting to hear/see how those notes fit or don't fit the harmony. I believe you would agree with these statements.
Aebersold, (and the OP, to a lesser extent), published 13 choruses of "blues" basslines, containing inaccurate/incomplete chord symbols, in books that purport to explain and illustrate the concept of jazz basslines.
That's what all the "fuss" is about, IMHO.

Thanks for your time.

Actually while I see what you are saying, I actually think it's more useful to see the "original" changes to the tune and then notice what the players are doing in the moment. As John put it a couple of posts back:

I chose to just write the generic changes, and then revel in the brilliant little twists and turns that Ron and Kenny put in their comping....

This also brings up a point that often the bassist and pianist are not playing or thinking exactly the same changes, or using the same substitutions — but hopefully they are listening to each other and finding a musical path by using some agreed-upon changes as a jumping off point.

I remember years ago I got my eyes opened wide when trying to learn how to play on Wayne Shorter tunes, wondering why Wayne sounded so great playing over those changes that I so often stumbled on. After doing the transcriptions of "Speak No Evil" and "Fee Fie Fo Fum", and transcribing all of the solos (Wayne, Freddie Hubbard, and Herbie Hancock), it turned out the the person "making" the least amount of the written changes was Wayne. Of course, all three players sounded amazing, but being able to look at the changes that were written versus what Wayne was actually playing was (and is) extremely educational.

 

[Don Kasper]

Actually while see what you are saying, i actually think it's more useful to see the "original" changes to the tune and then notice what the players are doing in the moment.



Chris,

Actually, I think it's very confusing to a student seeing the original changes written, while seeing/hearing the basslines that occurred in conjunction with the actual changes that were played. I would guess that if somebody buys a book in an attempt to study basslines on an F blues, they probably are not equipped to hear, analyze, or appreciate the "in the moment" chord variations.
Also, In the now infamous, "13 choruses", the pianist plays Amin7, ( in bar 8), exactly "zero" times, to my ears. Please correct me if I have misheard the harmony.

Thanks for your time.

 

[marcberez]

first of all, any mistakes in there are mine from when I copied the notes down. But in m22, that is a triplet, not an extra beat, the triplet beam is a little obscured by the interval label.

You guys are hilarious...it's the ol' "How many musicians does it take to screw in a light bulb" joke every day up here.

You did a fine job on the transcription. It will be very useful to many TB ers. Anyway, in the end it's all about the ears and not the eyes. I think sometimes we get too carried away with the academic analizations.

 

[John Goldsby]

The Amin in Bar 8 comes from the melody note of Billie's Bounce . . . the note E on beat 1 in bar 8. But this particular playalong track had two melodies: Now's The Time and Billie's Bounce. Jamey was playing Now's The Time when they played the first two choruses, and that's what Ron and Kenny were comping over.

It would be hard to explain to students that we should always play a C# on beat one in bar 8 of an F blues...what do we call it? A C#dim7? — talk about confusing them Ron was just playing chromatically beginning in bar 5 to a target sound, the D7 in bar 8. Ron has a way of playing so-called "avoid" notes and resolving them in a way that seems like they were destined to be played that way. The transcription is full of "avoid" notes and questionable choices that just sound fantastic in the context of the performance.

I think the lesson for students here is that a chromatic line, like the one Ron plays in chorus 1 bars 5 - 8, is extremely powerful and can control and dominate the whole harmonic and melodic contour of an improvised ensemble performance, even on an F blues.

Jamey was playing a melody with different changes than Ron used...Kenny Barron is playing F6 down to D7...Ron is playing C# up to D. It's just a blues, and everyone is playing together and often using different changes.

 

[nickbass]

It's just a blues, and everyone is playing together and often using different changes.

This just about sums it up for me, and is the reason why I made the initial response to the OP - I thought he might like to know that bass notes that don't fit the chord often come from specific harmonic (and as John Goldsby points out, melodic) choices. The OP seemed to be in danger of passing on the belief that it's OK to play a C# on an Am whenever, rather than the knowledge that it can be good to substitute A7/Eb7/C#dim for Am7 or Am7b5 on a journey through to D7, in some circumstances. Great discussion, though - I think there are a lot of players around who take Real Book/Aebersold changes as some sort of gospel, and who don't hear or understand the harmonic paths being improvised in the Real Music, and I think it's great to be talking about it!

 

[Michael Case]

Actually while see what you are saying, i actually think it's more useful to see the "original" changes to the tune and then notice what the players are doing in the moment.

Chris,

Actually, I think it's very confusing to a student seeing the original changes written, while seeing/hearing the basslines that occurred in conjunction with the actual changes that were played. I would guess that if somebody buys a book in an attempt to study basslines on an F blues, they probably are not equipped to hear, analyze, or appreciate the "in the moment" chord variations.
Also, In the now infamous, "13 choruses", the pianist plays Amin7, ( in bar 8), exactly "zero" times, to my ears. Please correct me if I have misheard the harmony.

Thanks for your time.

I think the one point being missed is THAT'S WHAT TEACHERS ARE FOR! Books alone aren't going to help. You wouldn't tell a newbie to just buy Simandl book1 and have at it would you? The book IN ADDITION to the guidance of a teacher is important. In this case if you had a student bring this transcription to you would you just rant about the disparity between the written changes and what is played? Or would you explain that the written changes are just a jumping off point?

Honestly you're on a one track rant hear, that really misses the point.

 

[Eric Hochberg]

Chris,

I think it's helpful, when transcribing, to identify the harmony that is actually occurring...esp. in a resource aimed at students.

I agree and think it would be very useful to include a basic blues harmony, as done here, plus the myriad alterations from KB below it, and then analyze RC's line from that more detailed harmonic analysis.

One other thing, while I haven't listened to the track, I'm sure KB is leaving plenty of space in his comping, which opens up the possibilities for RC to go outside the "correct" theoretical threshold, as a "wrong" note wouldn't clash against the chord if it isn't sounding at a particular moment. Of course, a little (or lot of) clashing can be a good thing!

 

[John Goldsby]

THAT'S WHAT TEACHERS ARE FOR!

That's very true.

Books alone aren't going to help.

Well, I've always loved books, because they usually give some kind of insight into a particular aspect of a topic. Books can help, but they don't substitute for intense listening and work with a teacher. Most books don't provide answers for everything, and the best books inspire questions that we might not have thought of before. (Why does Ron Carter play a C# on an F7 chord?)

Eric wrote:

I agree and think it would be very useful to include a basic blues harmony, as done here, plus the myriad alterations from KB below it, and then analyze RC's line from that more detailed harmonic analysis.

That would be an even more in-depth look at the whole performance.

 

[Phil Smith]

The C# on the F7 is for that "dreamy" effect.

 

[Don Higdon]

Gee whiz, a student might be confused.
A pedagogical forebear in my field was given boxing lessons as an adolescent from a lightweight champion in England. One day, the boxer said "I can teach ya, but I can't learn ya, kid. You'll have to do that by yourself."

 

[Don Higdon]

When these theory arguments ensue, what I see is everybody analyzing vertically, when in fact we hear horizontally.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

When these theory arguments ensue, what I see is everybody analyzing vertically, when in fact we hear horizontally.

This is a great point. Each player hears their own part linearly, and each generally makes sense as its own line of counterpoint. The notion that in the moment all improvised parts are supposed to align perfectly in the vertical sense is not practical in the sense of total analytical detail. Piano players play alterations on dominant chords based on what they're trying to convey in their line of counterpoint and within the overall texture; bass players do the same with regard to how they approach pivotal release points in the large scale frame of the progression. If the soloist decides to take a different approach (i.e. - play from a different type of alteration or tonality) over certain changes, it doesn't mean that either he or one of the other musicians was "wrong", it just means that there will be some tension that will eventually resolve when the lines of counterpoint release into a shared harmonic resolution.

The only way to make everything align vertically at all times is to play so conservatively in all parts as to eliminate most of the creative aspect and freedom involved in improvisation. While this is a skill that we should all strive to master, we should strive to master it with the goal of transcending it in mind; a plateau on the climb - and one near the base of the mountain at that - rather than a final destination.

 

[Don Kasper]

I agree and think it would be very useful to include a basic blues harmony, as done here, plus the myriad alterations from KB below it, and then analyze RC's line from that more detailed harmonic analysis.

One other thing, while I haven't listened to the track, I'm sure KB is leaving plenty of space in his comping, which opens up the possibilities for RC to go outside the "correct" theoretical threshold, as a "wrong" note wouldn't clash against the chord if it isn't sounding at a particular moment. Of course, a little (or lot of) clashing can be a good thing!

Eric Hochberg,

Yes, having the actual/aural chord changes written above the bassline is what I'm advocating for. It's just common sense.
Re: KB's comping - It sounds like he was encouraged to stay somewhat "inside", that is, very "7,9,13" on the I and IV chords, as this was recorded as a "play-along" track, I believe.
Thanks for your time and interest.

 

[Don Kasper]

In this case if you had a student bring this transcription to you would you just rant about the disparity between the written changes and what is played? Or would you explain that the written changes are just a jumping off point?

Honestly you're on a one track rant hear, that really misses the point.

Michael Case,

I would do just what I did earlier - point out that the Amin7 is not heard on any of the 13 choruses (and then cross it out). Then, I would write "A7#9+5", next to each crossed-out Amin7.
Then, we'd look at the melody to "Billies Bounce", where the melody does call for an Amin7-D7b9, in that measure.
That's what I'd do.
Telling someone that the chords are just a "jumping off point", is not very effective teaching.
Thanks for your time and interest.

 

[Intenzity]

Honestly you're on a one track rant hear, that really misses the point.

You win "Understatement of the Thread" award for that comment.

Seriously, we get it. The message has been heard - YOU WOULD DO THE TRANSCRIPTION DIFFERENT.

We get it. Point made. Re-made and re-re-re-made.

Drop it already.

 

[John Goldsby]

Iona: Not that this is "right," but Jamey's philosophy is that the chord symbol should be the bare minimum of information for the brain to process. That's why he prefers to write C-, and assume the pianist and everyone else will naturally add other chord tones (7, 9, 11), instead of writing Cmin7(add9) or something "complicated looking."

Jamey will write C∆ instead of CMaj7 or even C∆7, because the chord symbol C∆ is the least amount of information for the eye and brain to process. We know that when we see C∆, we also might add a 9 or 6 . . . but we don't have to have all of that written down: C∆(add9,add6). He'll write A7b9 knowing that players will put in other alterations as well. This style of writing encourages the ear to choose the notes that sound best.

This style of writing chord changes is in contrast to (for example) a lot of charts i read in a big band where the voicings are very specifically notated: A7#9b13, etc.

Your point that the chords in bar 8 of every chorus could be notated as A7 instead of A- is well taken.

This discussion also brings up the point that playalong recordings are never the perfect accompaniment — but they can be good practice tools. Ron and Kenny will never adjust to a player who is using this recording, but the player can get used to (somewhat) playing with a strong rhythm section.

 

[John Goldsby]

So I guess in chorus 1, bar 8, beats 1 & 2, you would write A7#9b13/C# ? What would you write for each of the following 12 choruses?

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Not that this is "right," but Jamey's philosophy is that the chord symbol should be the bare minimum of information for the brain to process. That's why he prefers to write C-, and assume the pianist and everyone else will naturally add other chord tones (7, 9, 11), instead of writing Cmin7(add9) or something "complicated looking."

Jamey will write C∆ instead of CMaj7 or even C∆7, because the chord symbol C∆ is the least amount of information for the eye and brain to process. We know that when we see C∆, we also might add a 9 or 6 . . . but we don't have to have all of that written down: C∆(add9,add6). He'll write A7b9 knowing that players will put in other alterations as well. This style of writing encourages the ear to choose the notes that sound best.

This style of writing chord changes is in contrast to (for example) a lot of charts i read in a big band where the voicings are very specifically notated: A7#9b13, etc.

This is an issue that I make a point to address in jazz theory, piano, and improv classes as early as I can. In a small group format, the best players I know all view the changes to the tune as "season to taste" in terms of specific chord extensions and colors, and the chordal players tend to alter dominant chords differently (or not) every time they come across them depending on what they are hearing in the flow of the moment. For this reason, I really prefer for the changes to be written as simply as possible to help everyone more easily "season to taste" without having to mentally throw the " add 1/4c garlic/pineapple" suggestion out of the recipe for a particular bar if it isn't absolutely essential to the tune.

Years ago, I became fascinated with the idea of finding out "what are the correct or original changes to the tunes we play?" In regard to "original" changes, that most often led me back to the musicals they came from, where frankly the changes weren't as interesting or sophisticated as what we are used to hearing from the jazz greats, who usually tweaked the changes to suit their own tastes and make them better vehicles for improvisation. But as for the question of "what are the *correct* changes", that tunred out to be educational, with the answer being "it depends on who you ask".

I may have attached this handout before, but this is from an assignment I make all improv students go through at the very beginning of their study of how to play together on changes (see attached). It shows the changes from the first half of two tunes as they appear in six different sources all stacked on top of each other. To me, it shows why players who take changes quite literally often have problems playing with others, especially when the tunes are memorized from different reference points in each person's head. It also shows, in the end, why the best players are the ones who use their ears to hear what everyone else is doing and season their harmonic recipes to fit. It also shows why I like the concept of "less information is often better when it comes to changes" as described by John above.