Double Bass Harmonic Analysis of Beautiful Love?

[Ed Fuqua]

We could always go whatever the opposite of vanilla is with David Hazeltine's re-harmonized version:

View attachment 7061903

Let me preface by saying that Branford Marsalis is well known for his curmudgeon-ish ways and strong opinions, but he DOES have a lot of experiential knowledge to share; I can't find the video clip to post but he is, again, speaking about his days with Blakey. He relates a story in which he has brought in a reharmonization of a George Gerswhin composition and Blakey asks him why he has "reharmed" it. B responds that he likes the tune but wants to make it more "hip". To which Blakey responds that "Gershwin doesn't need your sorry ass to make it 'hip', you're just trying to make it more comfortable/familiar to what you CAN play to cover the fact that you can't come up with anything GOOD to play on the original tune..."

Now, obviously, that's not universally true; somebody like David Hazeltine has been playing and fooling around with tunes like these for decades and I'm sure that when he was sitting at the piano just rummaging through this tune he came up with some harmonies that cushioned (if you will) the melody and opened up some interesting areas to him. OR as the trio played this over many weeks and years of touring etc., certain things that popped up in the immediacy of performance became "what we played". And this is sort of the codified result.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

Sort of. The whole point of the The Vanilla Book (R.I.P. Ralph Patt) was to strip away complexity and show the bare bones of the harmony. Those aren't the "true" changes any more than David Hazeltine's version, but they are at least simple. The bigger point is that there is no such thing as the one true set of changes. Back to Don's point, only listening and transcribing will reveal the true changes for a specific performance. If If you are planning your own performance, you might want to start with the performance that inspired you most. Is it Bill Evans? It's probably Bill Evans! Unfortunately, most of us will not spend the time to do this for every standard we are going to play. We start with a published lead sheet or maybe one that was shared with us once. I usually rely on the current Hal Leonard Real Books, because they have fewer obvious errors and they work most of the time. They generally conform to what you might call modern mainstream jazz practice.

Just for excrement and amusement, check out pretty much any chart for SPRING IS HERE and the take a look at the Sher New Real transcription of Bill Evans' harmony under the melody....

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Again, I’m so intrigued to hear you say this about this particular passage. I’ve always taken it as gospel and it’s always been top of mind when analyzing progressions in the practice room.

When what I read in theory books conflicts with what I hear on records, the records always win. I learned a lot about playing organically over minor harmony from Kenny Barron, Hank Jones, and Wynton Kelly, among others. I'm sure folks will push back against this, but in general I don't hear a lot of diminished/Diminished whole tone/modes of MM among the older players; that seems to have become more in fashion once jazz education and jazz theory became a thing.

There is nothing wrong with all of these concepts, and lots of players sound great using them. But I consider them superimpositions rather than organic material. Players are free to superimpose whatever they want whenever they want, of course, but IME it's a lot more effective when the person doing this has a firm grasp of what it is that they're superimposing over. The alternative is like Ed's Blakey story above. As always, EEMWCB.

 

[fu22ba55]

Players are free to superimpose whatever they want whenever they want, of course, but IME it's a lot more effective when the person doing this has a firm grasp of what it is that they're superimposing over.

My personal journey of trying to learn how to solo well (or at all) over changes is like having to re-discover (or re-invent) each era of jazz for myself. Each time I figure out something I can actually rely on with certainty, it's like... "Great, now I sound like someone playing in 1927..."

I still have a lot of jazz history to work my way through before I need to worry about post-1958 sounds and contemporary sounds. My soloing is so pre-natal that I'd die happy if I could play like Lester Young or Louis Armstrong before I run out of time, much less Coltrane or Chris Potter. I don't need to worry about post-bop sounds yet if I still haven't tackled PRE-bop.

It's nice to know that stuff is out there at the front of the train, but I'm still busy back here in the caboose.

 

[Tom Lane]

My personal journey of trying to learn how to solo well (or at all) over changes is like having to re-discover (or re-invent) each era of jazz for myself. Each time I figure out something I can actually rely on with certainty, it's like... "Great, now I sound like someone playing in 1927..."

I still have a lot of jazz history to work my way through before I need to worry about post-1958 sounds and contemporary sounds. My soloing is so pre-natal that I'd die happy if I could play like Lester Young or Louis Armstrong before I run out of time, much less Coltrane or Chris Potter. I don't need to worry about post-bop sounds yet if I still haven't tackled PRE-bop.

It's nice to know that stuff is out there at the front of the train, but I'm still busy back here in the caboose.

I've had the same thought. One thing I notice though, is that 1) it all evolved from the way Satchmo solo'ed. He told a story, mixed in different elements to keep it interesting and new about creating tension and release and drama to please the listener. Simple, I agree, lot's of chord tones and roots, and boring - IMO - if I listen for too long because it becomes too predictable, but still an excellent lesson in how to craft a solo. And 2) all the players I admire that I can think of have done the same thing: listening a ton to one performer and trying to decipher their melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic language. I think that's the dues necessary to make progress.

 

[Neon Scribe]

Just for excrement and amusement, check out pretty much any chart for SPRING IS HERE and the take a look at the Sher New Real transcription of Bill Evans' harmony under the melody....

Sorry for hijacking this thread a bit, but there is so much material here! First off, "as played by Bill Evans" is a little vague. It's "as played by Bill Evans on the 1960 album Portrait in Jazz". Evans plays rootless voicings, of course, so the roots in this chart are (mostly) the notes that Scott LaFaro played in the head. With some unexplained exceptions, like in bar 4 where he plays Ab but the chords in the chart are Cm7-Fm7. On the 1966 Town Hall recording, Bill Evans plays similar voicings on the piano, but Chuck Israels plays an entirely different bass line! So, completely different names for the chords, I guess. The published Richard Rodgers sheet music goes back and forth between Ab dim and Ab major in the first four bars, which, you know, sorta works in that old-fashioned way. Rodgers famously disliked jazz interpretations of his tunes. I wonder if he ever heard or commented on Bill Evans' recording. I'm sure he cashed all the royalty checks, though.

 

[Don Kasper]

With some unexplained exceptions, like in bar 4 where he plays Ab but the chords in the chart are Cm7-Fm7.

Nope...@0:08 , m.4 is an "Abmaj7..." not Cm7 - F7.
See/hear my sketch of SIH below from Portrait in Jazz.
Thx.

 

[Neon Scribe]

Nope...@0:08 , m.4 is an "Abmaj7..." not Cm7 - F7.
See/hear my sketch of SIH below from Portrait in Jazz.
Thx.

View attachment 7064186

I was looking at the Sher New Real chart. Your chart is closer to the "truth" of that Portrait in Jazz recording. Which, honestly, should give some credit to Scott LaFaro for the arrangement. You could make a totally different chart for the 1966 Town Hall recording with Chuck Israels!

 

[Neon Scribe]

 

[Don Kasper]

I was looking at the Sher New Real chart. Your chart is closer to the "truth" of that Portrait in Jazz recording.

Thx,Neon!

should give some credit to Scott LaFaro for the arrangement. You could make a totally different chart for the 1966 Town Hall recording with Chuck Israels!

I listened earlier to the 1966 TH version...I think the arrangement is all Bill's, with a few little root movement choices added by Chuck I. (esp. m.4 and m.20!)
This is just my opinion, FYI.
Thanks for your interest and civility, Neon. I appreciate both.
Don

 

[Neon Scribe]

Thx,Neon!

I listened earlier to the 1966 TH version...I think the arrangement is all Bill's, with a few little root movement choices added by Chuck I. (esp. m.4 and m.20!)
This is just my opinion, FYI.
Thanks for your interest and civility, Neon. I appreciate both.
Don

(Digging even deeper into the rabbit hole now...) The first two measures, where LaFaro plays low E then up a major seventh to Eb, Israels starts with G then goes down to F. I love both of these performances, but I have some trouble accepting that either one should be the basis for the "definitive" lead sheet for this song!

 

[Don Kasper]

The first two measures, where LaFaro plays low E then up a major seventh to Eb, Israels starts with G then goes down to F.

Hmmmm...where (provide a timecode?) in the recording below are you referring to? I always hear "E...Eb" in the bass for the first 2 measures (of each A section) during the melody and blowing.
I love the smell of a rabbit hole in the morning or afternoon!
Thanks, Neon.

 

[Neon Scribe]

Hmmmm...where (provide a timecode?) in the recording below are you referring to? I always hear "E...Eb" in the bass for the first 2 measures (of each A section) during the melody and blowing.
I love the smell of a rabbit hole in the morning or afternoon!
Thanks, Neon.

Darn it, you're right. I got fooled by the melody!

 

[Groove Doctor]

Interesting… m6 and M6

 

[fu22ba55]

Interesting… m6 and M6

Yes, I thought of this (Barry) scale when I saw Chris Fitzgerald's worksheet.