SK

Nice, Roger. Well, it almost hit me - I'll have to listen to it later more closely, but from one listening I can rule out All Of Me. Actual possibilities that crossed my mind: How High The Moon, Night & Day, All But Nothing At All, The Night Has 1,000 Eyes, and a few I can't think of the names at the moment. I'll get back to you.

HAHA. Nobody ever said you can't do the same tune again. We need some guide rules around here. It was a bit of a trick I guess, but I thought with the recurring chord patterns and since I'd just played it in the same key, that would give it away... I just played it more on the edge. You named a song that part of it sounded like. You were in the right ballpark. Awaiting tonal vindication.. :grin:

I'd like to hear what it does. Sounds like it's "Soundman in a Box". Could be fun for managing levels at rock concerts.

Roger - lol. Confession: it's Stella again, without the starlight, or the starlight without Stella, as loosely played as I could on that take. It's in and out of time signatures and nearly free at times. I did quote "As Time Goes By." Carlo, one chorus I shifted to an almost backward feel on the chords, which ended up sounding something like "what is this thing called love." Dave, I know what you're saying - it has the concept/feel of the more out stuff Keith did back with Paul Motian, and maybe some things Chick did back in his "Circle" days in places too. But I think it's more angular, less melodic - just overall dirtier. Listening back, I hear some Ornette in there, who also influenced Keith. Both versions of Stella were coming from that same bag. Whatever it is, it's more extreme (or crazier) than what I usually get the chance to play. Linwood, I'm guessing... would that just be some sort of level limiter that's preset/applied before recording, instead of afterwards (like the limiter on DP?) If I set the limiter on a DP track and then record on it, wouldn't it do the same thing?

Thanks, Carlo. Just one more Name That Tune from the imaginary trio, but a friendly warning: this is dangerously close to shredding - I could get banned. I 'mostly' stuck to the form, well almost anyway... http://stashbox.org/697186/Now%20Name%20This%20Tune.mp3

Dave, sounds like you've got your recording thing down! I agree with Kevin the vocals could be just a tad lower, but it sounded great. As for my little ditty, thanks for the positive comments. "Stella" it is. I stayed away from chords so it wouldn't be quite as obvious. I certainly could have played it better (or worse), but it is somewhat the way I play on gigs with rhythm sections. The quotes were Straight, No Chaser and Woody N' You. There's no putting anything past you guys.

Here's another 'Name That Tune'. This should be a very easy one. Part of a solo already in progress. Nothing special, but I tried to play some faux drums on it. I know they sound cheesy, but I felt like messing around with it. http://stashbox.org/694245/Name%20That%20Tune%20Two.mp3

Not even a suggestion, just an afterthought. You did a nice job on it.

Pretty, Mo'. Nice, sort of slow latin feel. One minor thing I'd have done differently is set up the key changes to F and C more with chords leading to them, so they "arrive" instead of suddenly appearing as a surprise key change. But you can rationalize that either way - I liked it (except maybe for the end quote )

You succeeded. I didn't think you were comparing them - I made the outrageous comparison.

The kid's an amazing talent - assimilating Chickisms into his lines already. He couldn't have been working on that for more than what - 5 or so years total? It also a good reminder of what fun he's actually having, which we should always have. Stevie Wonder is a great pop songwriter/singer, but his playing on Giant Steps would have been good for a 13 yr. old.

Hmm, a CD with a hundred tracks... 30 second sections of songs I can't bring myself to play all the way through. I think you're onto something.

That sounds a little better - it's very nice. Nice nebulous key center with the Bbmaj.7#11 chord at the top, and I love that simple Gm, C sus effect going to the Fmaj7 (after the Gb half diminished, 7#11 or whatever you want to call it to the B.) You freshened the tune up, which was no small feat for a tune that was already nice. Thanks for the grins on the silly "Part Of Me". It was only deserving of one grin icon at best.

Oh, and here's my belated audio response to your "All Of Me." Tongue in cheek - it's all I could bring myself to do with it. http://stashbox.org/674775/all%20of%20me.wav

Very pretty, Carlo. It draws out the quality of the song in different ways but still in an organic way. Nice. I could hear the bass fine - it added nicely to the music, but a little fuller bass sound would be even better. What you describe is the way I think of playing in general, if we throw out all the approach terms like reharm/arranging/writing. It's about the music we make, nothing else. In that broad sense, I agree.

Oh yeah. Vice versa: Round Midnight in a major key (although the tune doesn't deserve parody.)

Pretty cool, lucas - a more ethereal What's New. Almost a subtle caricature - the character of the tune is still there, but you brought out a darker side of the original mood which compliments the piece. Passing chords/subs come up naturally when we play a song - then we play into it. Expanded playing over that mood would sound nice.

Nathan, your explanation of Stars makes sense. Yeah lucas, when it comes to rewriting a tune, then it's a new tune. That's the way I look at Charlie Parker's and Coltrane's songs. On the other hand............. :evil: That version of All Of Me might support the point I was making. (And you call me 'mad'.) :grin: It would certainly be appropriate at a party I might throw.

Yeah, it would give a freshness to the tune. And anything that helps get you away from "All Of Me" is helpful. There's a gazillion turnarounds - could be their own thread.

Nathan, nice open feel on Stars Fell. Thanks for posting those. Anything that rejuvenates our playing is great. As to comments/suggestions, there are no rules of thumb on an approach. I'm not into criticizing music anyway - my tastes generally go towards musical surprises and harmonically rich stuff. And a simple tune can also be 'harmonically rich' enough with few chords. "Green Dolphin" - I liked the descending chords at the end of the first A and the nebulous, displaced tonal center effect of the second A. It sounded like it went to Fmaj7 for a second which was a surprise. I hadn't either. General thoughts to anyone: Recently I find myself a little conflicted on the concept of reharms, if it means a total revamping of a tune. Sure, nothing wrong with expressing a song in a new way when it's musical, and in jazz solos we explore a tune in a myriad of ways. And I'm all for stretching on a song, but when the song is someone else's, the head should be somewhat faithful to the original. Perhaps if I'd changed the term "reharm" to simply "arrangement" it may be more acceptable to take liberties - although I've done some arrangements, they've never been my focus. This thread has been mostly experimental for me and certainly has its rewards. I got to dabble in the total reharm approach on some songs. But I prefer to write new songs, or just explore a tune openly through improvisation and substitutions. As I said earlier, the original thread idea was for chord substitutions, but by my choice of the word "reharm", it led toward a deeper reharm path.

Welcome Nathan, nice playing and glad you're enjoying the thread. And thanks Carlo. I never do Rainbow, in fact, that may be about the only time I've played it. Just tried something different, although the first 3 chords came from Mary Lou Williams' version - I obtained a copy from my piano tuner who used to tune her home piano. "Waltz for Debby" was just a rewritten melody of that tune, but I quoted Nice Work in the solo. Interesting how this thread has developed: the actual definition of a reharm is taking a song and completely reharming it, which wasn't my original intention with the thread. I was initially just thinking of us sharing chord substitutions, which might aid players in finding new things to play on standard tunes. Sometimes a single chord can open up a whole new approach. So until this thread, I'd rarely thought of reharming an entire tune, since substitutions let you endlessly apply yourself to a song without planning it as a reharm.

I meant it as an observation, that ballads are just not as prevalent in society today - since aggressive music has become popular. Of course, it can't take anything away from the musical depth of a well played ballad at all, as you know.

Thanks for the comments Dave, Sue and Linwood. I know ballads are not on the radar today. Normally people gage playing by chops on up tempos, but ballads can be a tougher litmus test. I'm glad the sound difference was noticeable, Dave. This higher recording level thing is new for both of us, and I look forward to hearing your results. Beeboss, your approach always fascinates. I remember when you posted that, I heard it as a loose, peripheral version of the song. But the calm confidence in it was deceptive - it's rare to hear free playing approached in a consistently methodical, understated way. Free playing is so broad, whatever we strive for and reach, is what it is. Absolutely, if it had been available, and thank you for guiding me to it. 20 years ago my 'analog audio workstation' was a boom box with built-in mics.

Perfectly said. And i know kanker was joking in fun. kanker's cool. I was just trying to keep the usual bad rap for drummers (and guitarists) on this forum from developing in this thread. Probably an unnecessary reaction on my part. Here's my first DP test again. I won't leave it up since it's not my song or a reharm, but I did try to play something on it. I used some of a Jarrett style, since it lends itself to that approach. see edit:

Yeah, you get spoiled, which is still better than never being spoiled.