This Freddie Freeloader transcription...

[neueliteratur]

Hello folks,

today I watched a bunch of people jamming to Freddie Freeloader.

Copies of its fake book sheet was distributed so I took one too.

On that paper,

the "third line" of the theme looks like the first one in the picture.



But when they were playing today, everybody was playing like the second one in the picture.

So I came home and listened to the original version (Miles Davis) and it sounds like the original version also sounds like the second option in that picture.

I think there must be a good reason why it is written that way in the fake book.

Does anybody know?

Thanks.

[botkiller]

There's a lot of stipulation to original music transcripts of Davis' work. Because of the nature of jazz, it's sometimes rare to find sheet music that accurately represents the music. In the case of the recordings of "Kind of Blue" that most of us know, it was found that the CD remasters which were distributed in the 90's and early 00's were actually recorded at a slight pitch downshifting, which gave a misrepresentation of the music. A lot of players tried to play along with the albums, and found that what they'd found on sheet music differed from the recording. You can read about this in the liner notes of many of the recent re-releases of "Kind of blue".

So, what I'm saying here is that you could be seeing something like that, or moreover, just the fact that the printing of sheet music from a large amount of jazz is simply transcribed by someone who's listening carefully, and may not always be right.

[psenior]

Fakebooks often have mistakes in them. A lot of jazz music must be played with a swing feel, which is often not notated exactly. It would be kind of a pain to constantly read a bunch of dotted eights and notes crossing barlines.

[jancivil]

yeah, they're Fakebooks for a reason.

[neueliteratur]

A lot of jazz music must be played with a swing feel,

*sigh*

Now that's a problem that I have.

Because when I ask people "how do I play in swing?"

They tend to say "uh... you know, it's kind of hard to explain, um... it's something like this, and they start beating time and go *shoo be do de badi da tada be bop di ta doo doo* (usually with a smile that gives me a feeling of alienation), basically something i cannot turn into a scientific rule...

What do you say when you have to explain how to play swing?

[Ogg Vorbis]

A lot of jazz music must be played with a swing feel,

*sigh*

Now that's a problem that I have.

Because when I ask people "how do I play in swing?"

They tend to say "uh... you know, it's kind of hard to explain, um... it's something like this, and they start beating time and go *shoo be do de badi da tada be bop di ta doo doo* (usually with a smile that gives me a feeling of alienation), basically something i cannot turn into a scientific rule...

What do you say when you have to explain how to play swing?

My old jazz instructor used to say that you've got eighth notes (quavers) in a row in a chart so you pretend that they are actually 8th note triplets. The first of the pair takes up 2/3 of the triplet and the second of the pair takes up the last third.

But then he'd say, "the rest of swing is articulation" meaning that you don't play the pair equally. You sort of de-emphasize the second of the pair. In fact if you see a melody, some of the notes are "ghosted" to the point where they may not even speak hardly at all from the horn.

But if you stopped with just getting the triplet feel and the articulation down, you would still sound like you've got the proverbial corn cop stuck up there somewhere unless you just listened to a ton of jazz. There aren't many shortcuts in music I guess...

[Musicologo]

In scientific way I'd say that swinging is cutting here and putting there and vice versa. Is like randomizing a bit the tempo. Supose you have 4 8th notes, each one with 1 second. Instead of playing 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 you'd probably play something like 1.20 0.80 1.15 0.85. But could also be 1.35 0.60 1.20 0.85. Why not? No rules at all, just the idea that a kind of rubato took over the place and the rhythm should be more "dotted" than "square".

[psenior]

There is a whole era of swing music for you to listen to. Check out some Count Basie or other big band artists and just try to get a feel for it.

If you set a metronome to click on the 2 and the 4, and you are able to play along with it to the point where the clicks are actually starting to have a danceable groove to them instead of a robotic feel, you are probably swinging.

[neueliteratur]

Thanks everybody.

If you set a metronome to click on the 2 and the 4, and you are able to play along with it to the point where the clicks are actually starting to have a danceable groove to them instead of a robotic feel, you are probably swinging.

I love rules of thumb of that sort. Thanks.

[jancivil]

if you tried to sequence a Charlie Parker solo, it would be terrifically problematic.

it's very subtle, to try and codify it or formulate this kind of rhythm would be tantamount to a life's work.
a scientific approach just kind of misses the boat here. It's down to feel, it's experiential.

[psenior]

I think a good horn player could sequence a Charlie Parker solo using that horn MIDI controller. In fact, there is a YouTube video of a robot playing "Giant Steps" on a saxophone.

Barry Harris explains perfectly how Charlie Parker conceptualized his solos and gives you rhymthic formulas for playing bebop.

Being too technically minded can be a problem. Music is both art and craft. When playing, ideally, you really shouldn't be thinking about anything you are actually doing on your instrument.

[heffus]

Good points psenior and jancivil. Swing is pretty much about feel and can't be broken down into numbers. You can't go wrong with checking out some Count Basie, dude could play just one note and it would swing. The earlier stuff with Lester Young is eternal.

[jancivil]

I think a good horn player could sequence a Charlie Parker solo using that horn MIDI controller. In fact, there is a YouTube video of a robot playing "Giant Steps" on a saxophone.

Barry Harris explains perfectly how Charlie Parker conceptualized his solos and gives you rhymthic formulas for playing bebop.

Being too technically minded can be a problem. Music is both art and craft. When playing, ideally, you really shouldn't be thinking about anything you are actually doing on your instrument.

well, that's playing. I meant sequencing as trying to quantify it in numbers.

That solo is going to have more than one element to 'swing quantize' I do believe. IE I don't think you can pick a single phrase and overquantize from that and apply it to new material entered as, say, straight eighths. And I'm speaking from practice not theory. You have to have played it to even have a grip on it. It's not going to be something someone gets in a week or even a year.