[Dixielandjazz] Re: Billy Joel "Just The Way You Are" coversion to Swing/Dixieland

[LARRY'S Signs and Large Format Printing]

snip: I Agree except that I don't know what "perfect" is.

In every human endeavor we are taught by religion that there is only one
thing that's perfect.  Without getting metaphysical every human has his own
definition.

To an obsessive compulsive there can never, to the point of being locked up,
anything right.  To the Pollyanna everything is perfect.  Hopefully we fall
somewhere in between.

Again how high is high and how low is low?  It's again subjective and any
definition will come up short because there are a lot of people that will
and do say ok what about this.  There will be approximately as many "what
about" or "I know this guy" as there are people.

Perfect is what pleases me but I think Mozart, musically, would become
pretty close in almost everyone's list.

Musically it's what works and can it be improved upon?  I'm sure that Dolly
Parton thought that "don't cry out loud" the way she did it was perfect and
couldn't be improved on.  Then enter from the wings Whitney Houston.  Only
the bravest singer on Idol will try it because the only way that you can go
is down.  Does that mean the performance is perfect but to most peoples ears
and their money follows what they like this is close.  I would have thought
that Nat King Cole's rendition of Unforgettable was "perfect" then Natalie
came along and "Improved" it.  Will someone come along that does better?  I
don't know but maybe.  In music there is always someone ore something better
waiting in the wings.

snip:>I Agree. I go further and believe that there are many Pop tunes
written over
> the last century that don't fit well. Especially those "obscure" ones that
> the "Artsy" folks love. But I also believe that there are many more
current
> songs out there that can be adapted quite well to the Jazz idiom.

Absolutely but I just don't think that adapting this particular song will
make it do anything but sound corny and speaking of that, I don't know
actually but the Miller solos may have been played by someone and
transcribed.  I think that the reason a lot of guys don't play the written
solo that's in the mood is the range used.  It goes from the top of the horn
to the bottom and those Bb two octave skips at any kind of tempo requires
two things: a good player and a perfectly functioning horn along with some
other considerations.

I totally agree except for maybe the first person who did it it's definitely
not jazz.  Jazz when copied has a way of becoming trite or corny. I would
say that almost always I don't like written solos and as the public that
ever heard a Miller record dies off the more right you become.

snip:We could play "Just The Way You Are" just like Joel does, however,
> tonight we played it as Dixieland Jazz. It sounded just fine to my ears.

That's what I'm saying it's subjective.  I think it doesn't work and you do.
That has nothing to do with how many jobs we play a week  If it pleases you
and more important to a working musician, does it please your listeners?
That's what's most important.

All Jazz is fleeting and unless it's captured on paper or by recording it
only registers in the listener's mind.

Larry Walton
St. Louis
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve barbone" <barbonestreet at earthlink.net>
To: "LARRY'S Signs and Large Format Printing" <sign.guy at charter.net>; "DJML"
<dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 11:16 PM
Subject: Billy Joel "Just The Way You Are" coversion to Swing/Dixieland


> LARRY at sign.guy at charter.net wrote: (some polite snips)
>
>
> > Of course anything is possible in music but sometimes you just shouldn't
> > muck with perfect.  It's a matter of taste.  Of course any tune with a
> > harmonic progression can be "adapted" to anything and a jazz line can be
> > played with it and of course anything with a melody can have a
> > countermelody, that I think, is a given.
>
> Agree except that I don't know what "perfect" is.
>
> > Sometimes things are improved, for example we Start Alice blue gown in
three
> > and kick it into 4 as a Dixie up beat tune and the last several bars as
a
> > waltz.  It works.  I think most people would agree that Beethoven's 5th
just
> > wouldn't work as a cha cha or waltz or even a Jazz tune but of course
> > anything is possible, they turned it into a disco but I don't recall
that it
> > had any improv in it thus it wasn't jazz.  Another example is "Tea for
Two"
> > changed into a Cha Cha.  That works well and I think a lot of people
prefer
> > it that way but that doesn't make it jazz until you change it with
chordal
> > modification and improvisations on the basic rhythm/chord structure.
>
> Maybe so, but so what? We sometimes play Tea For Two as a Cha Cha and also
> Improvise upon it. Is it then "Latin Jazz", "Dixieland Jazz", "Jazz", A
"Cha
> Cha", or "Pop Music?" Labels are so very confusing. :-) VBG. Where is it
> written that one must modify the chords, or improvise on the basic
> rhythm/chord structure in order to make a tune into "Jazz"? Tea For Two
Cha
> Cha as we do it qualifies as Jazz as far as I'm concerned. Using the Same
> Chords, Different Rhythm, + Improvisation. And we're not trying to improve
> anything by playing a song as jazz. We are merely communicating "Cosa
> Nostra" (our thing) to the audience.
>
> > I guess I didn't make myself clear.  I was referring to the basic tune,
> > rhythm style and chord structure not that it couldn't have
improvisations on
> > the melody line.
>
> > Don't confuse improvisation and Jazz with the basic structure of a tune.
> > They are not the same.  Changing the style of a tune isn't Jazz or
> > improvisation any more than changing the key is.  It's of course
permissible
> > to do those things but I never heard anyone say "Wow did you hear the
way he
> > rushed his solo" or "That guy blew me away by his key changes."
>
> I don't confuses them and never said or implied that changing the style of
a
> tune made it Jazz. By the same token, I have heard, many times, jazz
> musicians state what you say you have never heard, with both key
> modulations, and changes of key that are written into a tune by the
> composer. For example the bridges in Cherokee, or Have You Met Miss Jones
> in effect, employ key changes. Going up a step, or a half step, or down a
> step, or a half step is . . . changing the key. There are lots of key
> changes written or implied into tunes that blow listeners away (mostly
other
> musicians or listeners with EARS) when played by competent Jazz Musicians.
>
> > All music can be improvised on but IMO there are limits.  I think that
Billy
> > Joel's interpretation is pretty good.  A  bossa rock has nothing to do
with
> > improvising.  You can still keep the chord structure and the basic
rhythm
> > style.  I'm not aware that playing Jazz has anything to do with meter or
key
> > and there  is no obligation to change the background rhythm patterns
> > (example rock to swing).  While you may change those things and many
people
> > have done just that, it really begs the point at times and doing it does
not
> > constitute jazz in any definition I have ever heard.
>
> Yes, all music can be improvised. In fact most of the music over the past
> 2000 years was improvised. Not much was written out until about 200 years
> ago. I think Billy Joel is pretty good too. But I'm not sure I understand
> you. Peggy Lee changed the rhythm of "Lover". I would call her version
> "Jazz". We could play "Just The Way You Are" just like Joel does, however,
> tonight we played it as Dixieland Jazz. It sounded just fine to my ears.
And
> I consider myself a JAZZ MUSICIAN, better yet, one who today makes a
living
> as a "working" jazz musician.
>
> > it's my feeling that this particular song is not a good choice
> > for trad Dixie styling or swing.  There may be many of his tunes that
might
> > work out well but a tune that has been done in a more or less strict
duple
> > time is kind of quaint as swing and just doesn't fit quite right.
>
> I respect, but disagree with your feeling. The song in question worked
very
> well for our band as a Dixieland Jazz Tune. As did many pop tunes of the
> 1920s and 30s for bands during that time period.
>
> > Sometimes a solo becomes so ingrained in the public's mind that to
change it
> > just doesn't make it.  IMO an example of an ingrained solo is the sax
solo
> > in "In the Mood" as well as some other Miller things.  I have heard many
> > guys including the current Miller band improv through that solo and
again
> > IMO it takes something away even though they were well done.  That's
coming
> > from a guy that really doesn't like written solos very much.
>
> Disagree again. The public (most of it, that is) has, IMO, no idea what
the
> Sax Solo in "In The Mood" sounds like. Personally I hear it as corny. Not
> only that, but since it was written out, it may not really be jazz
according
> to your own prior reasoning. Another example; I love the Picou High
Society
> clarinet obbligato solo, but I no longer play it as an exact copy. Not
only
> that, but neither did many reed men who are far more competent than I.
> Bechet's versions differ. Ditto for Albert Nicholas, Omer Simeon and a
whole
> bunch of others. They all added to the original, some, like Bechet,
changed
> it quite a bit.
>
> > I just think that there a lot of tunes (many modern rock) that just
don't
> > fit very well as Swing or Dixie and really don't lend themselves to
anything
> > but what they are.
>
> Agree. I go further and believe that there are many Pop tunes written over
> the last century that don't fit well. Especially those "obscure" ones that
> the "Artsy" folks love. But I also believe that there are many more
current
> songs out there that can be adapted quite well to the Jazz idiom. And it
is
> these "familiar" songs that the audience responds to. Perhaps that is why
I
> am one of a very few "working" Dixieland Jazz Musicians who actually makes
a
> living performing it?
>
> Cheers,
> Steve Barbone
>
> Cheers,
> Steve Barbone