[Dixielandjazz] Chet Baker and Lack of Melody???

[Bob Romans]

Hi Steve and Charles, (welcome back), Suhor...good points you make, but 
simple me, I like to hear melody and harmony, heart and soul, not Arban's or 
Klosé no matter how amazing the technique!!
Obviously, this is a Moot point among musicians...
BTW Steve...do you have that address "right around the corner?" I'm getting 
pressure from the gang in CB7..:~)

Warmest regards,
Bob Romans,
1617 Lakeshore Drive,
Lodi, Calif., 95242
PH 209-747-1148
www.cellblockseven2002.net

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Barbone" <barbonestreet at earthlink.net>
To: "Bob Romans" <cellblk7 at comcast.net>; <dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Dixielandjazz] Chet Baker and Lack of Melody???


> Hi Bob:
>
> Heck, they grow what I'm smoking right around the corner from you in Lodi.
>
> Last time I listened, Louis, as great as he was, was not the, last word in
> jazz. Surely he and KO set the bar, but they did it by modifying existing
> "rules" and my guess is that they never considered themselves as "artists"
> who musical ideas must be followed in knee jerk fashion.
>
> Listen also to his solo (Ambassador Satch) on Muskrat Ramble. His string 
> of
> Operatic quotes has nothing to do with the melody of Muskrat Ramble, but 
> it
> surely follows the chordal structure. :-) VBG.
>
> Yes you should be able to follow the melody in soli if you choose, but you
> have a choice not to also . . . which he proves on that record.
>
> Or, dig out the Smithsonian Classic Jazz records of several decades ago
> (since I figure you don't have a lot of Charlie Parker records) and listen
> to the two takes of Bird's "Embracaeble You". I think you will hear two
> beautifully constructed "new" melodies that follow the chordal structure. 
> I
> also think you will be able to recognize and hum the original melody of
> Embracaeble You while listening to Parker's new compositions.
>
> Best of all, the two takes, which are quite different, were "composed" by
> Parker about 10 minutes apart and are beautiful additions to the original
> melody of the tune.
>
> IMO, there is a lot of confusion about improvisation. Melodic Improv is 
> the
> construction of a new melody around the chords of a tune. Bechet did it
> early in his career. Hear his solo versions on Tiger Rag. Armstrong did it
> on many occasions.
>
> Also, IMO, most OKOM soloists today improvise on the chords, not the 
> melody,
> while some improvise melodically. And some do both.
>
> Perhaps it depends on the audience? I try and improvise melodically 
> creating
> a new one 8, 12, or 16 bars long, but with a older Dixieland audience I
> always restate the original melody here and there so they can hear what's
> going on without too much intellectual activity.
>
> Please folks, if this does not apply to YOU, don't run me over the coals 
> for
> speaking plainly. IMO it does speak to a large segment of the Dixieland
> audience today. Those 30 million people or so in the USA who like the 
> music,
> but do not attend festivals.
>
> Cheers,
> Steve Barbone
>
> on 12/2/06 12:50 PM, Bob Romans at cellblk7 at comcast.net wrote:
>
>> Hi Steve...please send me some of the good stuff you're smoking...seeds 
>> and
>> all! :~)
>> Imagination can be a wonderful thing...at times!
>> Louis Armstrong said once that you should be able to follow the melody in
>> your improvised solo...quoting Oliver I think...
>> I always thought they set (especially Louis) the bar for all of the jazz
>> musicians that followed...
>> My thought was instead of taking a beautiful tune like "My Funny 
>> Valentine",
>> and camouflaging it with dozens of extemporaneous notes, just say, "Here
>> folks, is a jazz exercise I'm having fun with, playing as many notes as I
>> can, on the interesting chord changes to a well-known tune".
>> Don't ruin "My Funny Valentine".
>> Bob Romans
>>
>>> As for me, I hear the melodies in all of Baker's playing.
>
>