[Dixielandjazz] I'm back on DJML; Katrina update; the Chet Baker thing

[Charles Suhor]

Hello, DJMLers--

I just rejoined DJML after a long hiatus when I was doing some hard 
writing--finished editing my late son’s writing for publication and did 
a prospectus for a “Ninth Ward Memories” collection. Neither has been 
picked up yet but I have a plan for what can be a long sequence of 
submissions.

I was also helping my brother and sister, both in their mid-70s, deal 
with the Katrina damage to their house (6008 Spain Street, near Robert 
E. Lee). As I write, they’ve decided to put it up for sale. I’m 
guessing there were tons of DJML postings about Katrina, the awful 
damage, appalling lack of response, and the whereabouts of musicians, 
so I won’t get into that. I’ve been back three times and am deeply 
saddened by the virtual disappearance of the majority of the populated 
areas even as the Quarter and other areas closest to the river are back 
for habitation and tourists. I urge everyone to go there, spend money, 
and take a bus tour to see that the city is still years from 
“recovering” in terms of neighborhood populations.

Picking up on the “lack of melody” strand, I have the greatest 
affection for Charlie Parker’s powerful new melody on the lovely 
“Embraceable You.” It bears the old title but is a more passionate 
rendering. Listen, and levitate.

I think the general debate about whether a performance must give the 
“original” melody its due isn’t a useful argument. A melody played with 
a little or a lot of embellishment can be brilliantly moving, or trite 
and mechanical. A no-sign-of-the-original-melody improvisation can be 
anything from wretchedly self-indulgent to wonderful. Jazz 
improvisation (pre-avant garde) is often in the business of creating 
new melodies based on  the chords and melody of a tune, and it’s the 
quality of the creation not fidelity to the original melody that works, 
or doesn’t work.

P.S.—have you heard the particular version of “Funny Valentine” on the 
Columbia CD “Miles Davis—The Complete 1964 Concert”? What a paradox! He 
abuses the melody by deconstructing its romanticism and in the process 
gives a performance that has its own perverse beauty and (to me) great 
validity.

Charlie Suhor





On Dec 2, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Steve Barbone wrote:

> "Bob Romans" <cellblk7 at comcast.net>
>
>> Here's a internet conversation I had because I commented on the 
>> wonderful
>> Chet Baker...I purposely didn't put the name of the trumpet player who
>> answered my post, but I thought it was very interesting and 
>> bulls-eyed my
>> thoughts...
>> Bob Romans
>
>>> While we're on the subject of Chet, here's a nice video clip of him
>>> playing his signature tune, My Funny Valentine.
>>>
>>> http://www.chetbakertribute.com/wmv/Tokyo5-WM-Hi.wmv
>>>
>>> Many more clips at that site.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Richard
>
>> Here are MY (Roman's) comments...after listening to the clip of "My 
>> Funny
>> Valentine"...one of the greatest tunes, words and all...
>
>>> Hi Listmates...
>>> Chet has been around for a long time...but...why don't they just say,
>>> "here's a Video clip of Chet playing a bunch of notes to the chord 
>>> changes
>>> of My Funny Valentine? That is one of my fav tunes, but there was NO
>>> MELODY that was recognizable...
>>> What on earth happened melody?
>>> Showing my ignorance of modern jazz in Lodi...
>
> And here is another's opinion in agreement with Bob as he quotes it:
>
>>> I agree with you 100% - Bakers playing is pleasant, and easy to 
>>> listen to,
>>> but it bears little resemblance to the tune, "My Funny Valentine". 
>>> There
>>> is a lot of so called, "jazz" that is like that. I like quiet, 
>>> intimate
>>> club-style jazz, and listen to a fair amount of it, but the tunes are
>>> seldom recognizable......It has good rhythm, and good accompaniment, 
>>> but
>>> the melody is missing, or at least, changed to the point that it is
>>> unrecognizable, and usually not different from the song played 
>>> before, or
>>> the one they intend to play immediately afterward.
>
> My two cents is that the above opinions are all well and good, HOWEVER,
> please consider the importance in jazz of "real" melodic 
> improvisation. That
> is to say, playing a new melody over the chord changes of an existing 
> tune
> and not just embellishing on the original melody.
>
> Case in point is the famous and very beautiful recording by Coleman 
> Hawkins
> on "Body and Soul" circa 1939. It is a new melody that follows the 
> chord
> structure of the tune. There is NO statement of the Body & Soul melody 
> by
> Bean during his rendition. Does it suck? Heavens no. It is beautifully
> constructed melodic improvisation. And it was revered by virtually all 
> of
> the jazz fans for about a decade, still being prominently placed on US
> jukeboxes throughout the 40s and into the 50s.
>
> Plus, we wouldn't have all those variations of "Bill Bailey", like 
> Bourbon
> Street Parade, Tiger Rag (chorus), Washington & Lee Swing, etc., etc., 
> etc.
> All different melodies over Bill Bailey chords. Albeit they are 
> relatively
> straightforward melodies and easy to hear.
>
> The only difference between Baker's Funny Valentine and the various 
> melodies
> of Bill Bailey  (or Charlie Parker's Ko Ko vs Cherokee on which it is 
> based)
> is the "ears" of the listener. Some can hear a more complex melody and 
> some
> cannot.
>
> As for me, I hear the melodies in all of Baker's playing.
>
> Cheers,
> Steve Barbone
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dixielandjazz mailing list
> Dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com
> http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz
>