"Take 5" from XL

[Hambone]

OK here's my rant.

This group has done something that, as a musician, I find hard to believe. They have taken the name of the Brubeck song and the signature opening lick from Paul Desmond and turned it into a looped, shallow, faded rendition of the DB original. And that's not the worst part - THEY PLAY THE ENTIRE THING IN 4!!?? Then they have the nerve to call it "smooth jazz" and foist it on the public.

This stinks in my book. It mocks the original, dumbs it down, and totally ignores the fact that the 5/4 beat was what made this tune go. It was a revelation in jazz at the time to have a jazz song in 5/4 - most said it couldn't be done. For XL to use the original name over this pile of crap is, IMO, intellectually dishonest and could probably be the basis of a suit. I wonder for instance, did they change the time signature to avoid paying royalties on the song? A TS change could conceivably alter the original enough to avoid a claim of plagiarism.

At any rate, it stinks and I wish newer artists had more respect for the greats than to do something like this.

 

[nonsqtr]

Maybe it qualifies as a "parody". That would be another way around the copyright laws.

 

[lbanks]

I've heard so many screw up versions of 'Take 5' over the pass 35 years that another doesn't suprise me.

 

[Blackbird]

I think it's a testament to bad musicianship. They're so bad, they have to play "Take 5" in common time!

 

[Josh Ryan]

Weak.

 

[ldiezman]

I just played take 5 on someones Jazz recital... we however did play it in 5... but played it faster than expected... didn't enjoy playing it that fast... but it happens...

 

[JimK]

OK here's my rant.
This group has done something that, as a musician, I find hard to believe. They have taken the name of the Brubeck song and the signature opening lick from Paul Desmond and turned it into a looped, shallow, faded rendition of the DB original. And that's not the worst part - THEY PLAY THE ENTIRE THING IN 4!!??

Hambo'-
Charlie Haden once quipped that "Take 5" was the only tune Don Ellis played in 4.
Ellis's Big band was known for doing odd metered things; Hell, he has an album called Live In 32/3/4 Time.

This stinks in my book. It mocks the original, dumbs it down, and totally ignores the fact that the 5/4 beat was what made this tune go.

What about going the other route...like making a 4/4 tune into something odd? Ellis(again) did "Freedom Jazz Dance" in 7/4. Maynard Ferguson did "Spinning Wheel" in 3/4.
I dunno, IMO, if it's done well & in an interesting way...I'm "OK" with re-inventing tunes, Standards, etc.

...didn't U2 do "The Theme To Mission Impossible" in 4?

 

[clef360]

xl?

 

[MKS]

Hambo'-
What about going the other route...like making a 4/4 tune into something odd? Ellis(again) did "Freedom Jazz Dance" in 7/4. Maynard Ferguson did "Spinning Wheel" in 3/4.
I dunno, IMO, if it's done well & in an interesting way...I'm "OK" with re-inventing tunes, Standards, etc.

Brian Bromberg did a version of Three Views of a Secret in 7/4.

 

[Hambone]

Hambo'-
Charlie Haden once quipped that "Take 5" was the only tune Don Ellis played in 4.
Ellis's Big band was known for doing odd metered things; Hell, he has an album called Live In 32/3/4 Time.

What about going the other route...like making a 4/4 tune into something odd? Ellis(again) did "Freedom Jazz Dance" in 7/4. Maynard Ferguson did "Spinning Wheel" in 3/4.
I dunno, IMO, if it's done well & in an interesting way...I'm "OK" with re-inventing tunes, Standards, etc.

...didn't U2 do "The Theme To Mission Impossible" in 4?

Re-inventing a tune, making it "your own" I can understand and justify. In fact, I would enjoy hearing common time arrangements moved into the less familiar ground of a different time sig. But they have to have some solid relation with the original for me.

In this one, only the first 3 bars of the sax line are used in an occasional "quote" of the original. The bassline is somewhat recognizable as "Take 5" but with it being played in 4 it has that "where have I heard that before" type sound. The rest of the arrangement has nothing else relating to the original. No theme or variation of it. Hell, they didn't even attempt the break or anything resembling one.

 

[JimK]

...must be pretty bad.
Now my interest is piqued.

 

[fretless5]

Hambo'-
Charlie Haden once quipped that "Take 5" was the only tune Don Ellis played in 4.
Ellis's Big band was known for doing odd metered things; Hell, he has an album called Live In 32/3/4 Time.

I love Don Ellis. Let's not forget "Beat Me Daddy, 7 to the Bar".

 

[SuperDuck]

Man, don't ever listen to "Cantaloop" by Us3, then. Your head will explode.

 

[silentstranger]

Okay, it probably sucks; I haven't heard it so I can't say for sure. What definitely sucks is their name...XL? MY band is called Extra Large, so of course we go by XL 90% of the time. I know there's another band with the same name, and now it seems there's a third...bah! We are very capable of butchering standards (and have likely done so), but if we were to butcher Take 5, we'd at least butcher it in 5!

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

They have taken the name of the Brubeck song ....

It was written by Paul Desmond - not Brubeck. He also wrote a Take 10!!

I remember though, that Desmond was a funny guy and was resigned to being remembered as "that guy leaning on Dave Brubecks' piano" - he said that he tried this in guitar-lead groups with less success!!

 

[JimK]

It was written by Paul Desmond - not Brubeck. He also wrote a Take 10!!

Right...& the next thing you'll say is how Beethoven had a Tenth Symphony.

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

Nah ...just :

 

[metron]

At any rate, it stinks and I wish newer artists had more respect for the greats than to do something like this.

I agree Ham...

 

[Hambone]

Man, don't ever listen to "Cantaloop" by Us3, then. Your head will explode.

WHAZZAT??

 

[JimK]

Nah ...just :

...my White Flag is raised, Bruce.