Jazz transcriptions for concert

[cuberdrift]

Hey all,

Just wanted to know any thoughts on a recital which includes transcriptions of solo Jazz recordings.

Why do you think this does not seem to be common? Do you think it is right to play them, or would it be pointless to perform an improvisation classically?

How would you assess a recital which includes written out jazz-style music from Kapustin or Gershwin alongside transcriptions of Fats Waller or Oscar Peterson?

To me, it seems like a novel idea, but the justification for such an act would be that not all music from the classical canon were themselves intended for concert (like the Well Tempered Clavier or Scarlatti Sonatas). Thus, it would not be going too far from giving Jazz arrangements such a treatment.

[j_tour]

I'm not sure if this is what you're asking, but loads of people perform transcriptions, particularly of earlier stride or even boogie-woogie pieces.

As an encore, Hamelin performed a very brisk rendition of the old novelty tune "Kitten on the Keys," for example.  Of course, maybe that's not jazz on the level of Tatum or Waller, but it is in the same ballpark.

I suppose someone could perform Bud Powell's "Un Poco Loco" note-for-note:  it's pretty well-suited for solo performance, although TBH when it comes to doing the solo over the latin ostinato LH, I know I would get pretty bored, even if just using some of his ideas as jumping-off points for a new solo.

Nothing saying you couldn't compose your own solo and play that over that particular tune, though:  if I had to guess, Bud likely had a pretty good idea of what he wanted to do in his solo ahead of time.

ETA, as to why it doesn't seem that common.  I'm not sure it is all that uncommon.  In addition to throwing the odd "Kitten on the Keys" and a Joplin or Bill Bolcom rag where it fits thematically with the rest of the program (or is just a surprise treat for the audience), it seems to me to be pretty darn common to do a "revival" type recital consisting of more-or-less "by the book" transcriptions.

Maybe the only reason it doesn't seem that common to you is that it's a pretty specialized little niche, and maybe the audience is limited.  As well, even though it's just transcriptions, it really does take quite a bit of effort to play some of that.  IMHO, it takes more effort to do it perfectly as in the record that to slop one's way through an ad-hoc performance, however convincingly one can do it.  Perhaps many musicians would rather use the time to work on "legit" music that might have a wider audience (i.e., more paying customers, more prestige, or whatever).

Just guesses.

[cuberdrift]

I'm not sure if this is what you're asking, but loads of people perform transcriptions, particularly of earlier stride or even boogie-woogie pieces.

As an encore, Hamelin performed a very brisk rendition of the old novelty tune "Kitten on the Keys," for example.  Of course, maybe that's not jazz on the level of Tatum or Waller, but it is in the same ballpark.

I suppose someone could perform Bud Powell's "Un Poco Loco" note-for-note:  it's pretty well-suited for solo performance, although TBH when it comes to doing the solo over the latin ostinato LH, I know I would get pretty bored, even if just using some of his ideas as jumping-off points for a new solo.

Nothing saying you couldn't compose your own solo and play that over that particular tune, though:  if I had to guess, Bud likely had a pretty good idea of what he wanted to do in his solo ahead of time.

ETA, as to why it doesn't seem that common.  I'm not sure it is all that uncommon.  In addition to throwing the odd "Kitten on the Keys" and a Joplin or Bill Bolcom rag where it fits thematically with the rest of the program (or is just a surprise treat for the audience), it seems to me to be pretty darn common to do a "revival" type recital consisting of more-or-less "by the book" transcriptions.

Maybe the only reason it doesn't seem that common to you is that it's a pretty specialized little niche, and maybe the audience is limited.  As well, even though it's just transcriptions, it really does take quite a bit of effort to play some of that.  IMHO, it takes more effort to do it perfectly as in the record that to slop one's way through an ad-hoc performance, however convincingly one can do it.  Perhaps many musicians would rather use the time to work on "legit" music that might have a wider audience (i.e., more paying customers, more prestige, or whatever).

Just guesses.

Thanks for your comment.

To clarify, I'm aware there seems to be nothing particularly uncommon with playing compositions from the "jazz tradition" (i.e. Joplin, Confrey, Gershwin, etc.). What I really mean is whether it is "silly" to play something initially "improvised" by say a jazz player, Oscar Peterson for instance, note for note ("by the book transcriptions" as you say) in a classical-type recital setting, with no improvisation over the original transcription (playing it exactly as one would with a classical composer).

I guess you pretty much confirmed on it being a "niche", and I would say I attribute it to these transcriptions being from a separate "tradition" pf music (i.e. not being in the same "canon").

So perhaps a yet more accurate example of my idea than Hamelin playing Kitten on the Keys is like Yuja Wang playing a transcription of Tatum's solo on Tea for Two.

As you may know Art Tatum in particular seems to have some degree of familiarity amongst classical audiences (apart from actual composers like Gershwin or Kapustin whose music can be more appropriately described as being jazz-influenced works rather than simply transcriptions of improvisations).

The way I see it is, besides Tatum solos being impressive by themselves, they seem to have a thought-out "structure" behind them. Several Tatum recordings sound alike even if they were made years apart. Tatum clearly knew how to come up with cohesive pre-planned arrangements. This makes them sound a bit like real compositions (well, arrangements or "parahprases", if one wants a more accurate term).

Apart from that Tatum solos, though not notated, are designed for solo performance - it would require more effort for an entire trio or ensemble to re-create a performance by Thelonius Monk for instance.

These two factors are examples of what makes a transcription of an improvisation seemingly applicable for a classical style recital. It's just that some jazz people may think, "why not just improvise the song" or something like that - while classical people might think "that's impressive, but it's not really a composition he's playing" or stuff like that.

I still think it is not that common to play this stuff. Well, some exceptions like Yuja Wang might do it occasionally, but I can't imagine any more famous instances of it being done. If it is done, it is usually done in a more "jazz" setting. It's not uncommon to see some major concert pianist playing Rhapsody in Blue after a programme of the typical composers, but I haven't yet seen one do for example Oscar Peterson's "Mirage" alongside Kapustin etudes (lol).

Of course there's no issue, as I said, in playing an actual work by Gershwin and co. I am talking about performing note for note transcriptions.

I guess one could make the argument that people are already doing it, with say the Cziffra arrangements (which if I am not mistaken, like Tatum's, were not written out by the author but transcribed by someone else, right?). Though maybe it is a bit more common since it is in the "classical" idiom of improvisation.

Thanks for your insights! Am interested in more if there are.

[j_tour]

What I really mean is whether it is "silly" to play something initially "improvised" by say a jazz player, Oscar Peterson for instance, note for note ("by the book transcriptions" as you say) in a classical-type recital setting, with no improvisation over the original transcription (playing it exactly as one would with a classical composer).

Well, I personally don't think it would be silly, especially if it's part of a coherent program for a recital.  Your example of "Rhapsody in Blue" is on point:  Herbie's done it recently (well, with his take on the elements in the score that leave some room for filling-in from the piano soloist) on his Fazioli on an orchestra stage.  IIRC he didn't mix it with straight classical pieces, but a few of his own jazz compositions with a small group rounded out the bill.

Really,more like an hommage or tribute, is how people would regard it.

Not sure about mixing transcriptions together with the more "respectable" Gershwin compositions — maybe something more like Rzewski's North American Ballads?  Or something else, like a handful of Joplin rags, or a few of the jazzier Debussy préludes ("Minstrels" and some others).

I'd think the hardest part would be putting together a coherent program.  And, of course, playing the music good, but that goes without saying.

[ted]

As far as stride transcriptions go, John Farrell, it seems to me, was better than anyone else; he must have had an amazing ear. They are available for purchase from his website, along with hundreds of transcriptions in Midi form. The single, large volume of Morton's complete recorded solos, transcribed by Dapogny is also very good and contains much in-depth analysis of what was played. It is all very difficult music though, as hard as Chopin studies with the added problems of phrase and rhythm.

[cuberdrift]

Thanks to both your insights.

Really,more like an hommage or tribute, is how people would regard it.

Yes this would be the goal I aim for. After all, if we play repertoire from the classical canon not initially intended for recitals, then why not do the same method for jazz arrangements.

Not sure about mixing transcriptions together with the more "respectable" Gershwin compositions — maybe something more like Rzewski's North American Ballads?  Or something else, like a handful of Joplin rags, or a few of the jazzier Debussy préludes ("Minstrels" and some others).

I've been contemplating actually on an actual recital themed on the "intertwining" of the influence on the European classical tradition of music from American jazz. Of course this is gonna be a classical-style recital, kind of like maybe a lecture recital. I am not a musicologist, but it is interesting in my opinion to highlight the blending of the two styles.

So your suggestions are kind of what I have in mind actually. When we play jazz-influenced classical pieces, it's better imo to include it alongside the actual "source" of the inspiration - i.e. jazz music. And of course, the classical influences on jazz would also be highlighted, for instance Tatum's unique take on "Elegie".

The way I see it is this gives a chance for the classical style study of jazz music. Imo a lot of classical players don't employ "swing" for instance on Gershwin which is a common part of classical canon. With the inclusion of more jazz transcriptions the idea is that jazz music can also be treated classically (I meant not that it will be played in a classical feel but that the jazz style of music would actually bw performed in a recital setting).

I'd think the hardest part would be putting together a coherent program.  And, of course, playing the music good, but that goes without saying.

I agree I'll need to research on a good list of jazz-influenced classical pieces. And they would need to be combined with jazz transcriptions which are good to put side by side with them.

As per ted's suggestion, Farrell and Morton will be my upcoming task of research.

[j_tour]

Well done:  I think we're talking the same idea here.

I'd be excited, just as a listener, to hear somebody's program put together carefully like how you're talking about.

And, yes, there's no shortage of accurate transcriptions out there — Riccardo Scivales' book Harlem Stride Piano (I think is the title) is a must have, as well as the Hal Leonard Morton and Waller books.  But you'll no doubt find whatever you need.  Some of it's kind of hard to transcribe for reasons of poor original source audio (as well as a lot of the music just plain being pretty difficult or at least fast, clean, with full voicings in LH), but there's plenty out there printed from reputable people with killer ears and loads of patience.

Since you're talking about Ferd Morton, one way to go I just thought of is to examine how a number of NOLA pianists (Dr. John, James Booker, for example) used to mix classic through-composed tunes with some more traditional folk music on piano.  I'll leave it to you to look up the records, but doing stuff like "Malagueña" and all that is just part of that whole "set list" for a typical club date on solo piano.

Another thing to keep in mind is that, IMO, a lot of the mystique around improvisation is a bit of a self-aggrandizing bit of mythology.  I mean, really, so much of in jazz is, probably technically, strictly-speaking improvised, but at least among the greats, they didn't leave a whole lot to chance or "inspiration."  After all, they had to make a living off making good performances, not just once, but multiple times a week, every week.  They knew what they were up to, intellectually, even if they didn't write out every solo ahead of time.

[cuberdrift]

Well done:  I think we're talking the same idea here.


I'd be excited, just as a listener, to hear somebody's program put together carefully like how you're talking about.

Glad to know I'm not the only one interested in the idea.

And, yes, there's no shortage of accurate transcriptions out there — Riccardo Scivales' book Harlem Stride Piano (I think is the title) is a must have, as well as the Hal Leonard Morton and Waller books.  But you'll no doubt find whatever you need.  Some of it's kind of hard to transcribe for reasons of poor original source audio (as well as a lot of the music just plain being pretty difficult or at least fast, clean, with full voicings in LH), but there's plenty out there printed from reputable people with killer ears and loads of patience.

Since you're talking about Ferd Morton, one way to go I just thought of is to examine how a number of NOLA pianists (Dr. John, James Booker, for example) used to mix classic through-composed tunes with some more traditional folk music on piano.  I'll leave it to you to look up the records, but doing stuff like "Malagueña" and all that is just part of that whole "set list" for a typical club date on solo piano.

Glad to hear that, will certainly add those to my list of searching.

Another thing to keep in mind is that, IMO, a lot of the mystique around improvisation is a bit of a self-aggrandizing bit of mythology.  I mean, really, so much of in jazz is, probably technically, strictly-speaking improvised, but at least among the greats, they didn't leave a whole lot to chance or "inspiration."  After all, they had to make a living off making good performances, not just once, but multiple times a week, every week.  They knew what they were up to, intellectually, even if they didn't write out every solo ahead of time.

Interesting to hear this. I became somewhat aware of this one. Are you by chance a jazz player? It's correct that various soloists do come up with "arrangements" which even makes it more "justifiable" to play them "classically". They weren't always written down and published, but some of them are pretty good in terms of structure and cohesiveness imo.

Though I think the "self-aggrandizing mythology" is...perhaps not really a myth. Of what I know they ARE better when left to chance/inspiration, but for instance for the early recordings which as far as I know had time restrictions, they needed to come up with coherent arrangements which they could dish out in a structured format. But when left to freer circumstances they're usually reputed to play better, as in the stories of "after-hours" playing revealing much more elaborate versions than in the recorded ones. Though I agree on the idea you're expressing.

[j_tour]

Interesting to hear this. I became somewhat aware of this one. Are you by chance a jazz player? It's correct that various soloists do come up with "arrangements" which even makes it more "justifiable" to play them "classically". They weren't always written down and published, but some of them are pretty good in terms of structure and cohesiveness imo.

Though I think the "self-aggrandizing mythology" is...perhaps not really a myth. Of what I know they ARE better when left to chance/inspiration, but for instance for the early recordings which as far as I know had time restrictions, they needed to come up with coherent arrangements which they could dish out in a structured format. But when left to freer circumstances they're usually reputed to play better, as in the stories of "after-hours" playing revealing much more elaborate versions than in the recorded ones. Though I agree on the idea you're expressing.

Yeah, I have performed plenty of jazz — usually just write down some originals on napkins or follow by ear, especially if you're playing with people who don't know a lot of standards or you don't want to just play jazz/blues or rhythm changes all night — but I'm not a very original player.  So, technically, yeah, but I'm no master of every aspect of post-bop playing.  I haven't played a job on stage in years, and don't very often practice jazz at home, except as technical exercises or to keep a respectable book of standards fresh in my head.

You're right about the head arrangements — I think most people put a lot of thought into how they want to play it, whether which horns play which intervals, or as simple as "you, guitar player, take the bridge, and I'll cover the A sections, then you take first solo."  Or, somebody like Bill Evans pretty clearly had some precise voicings and voice-leading ideas in his "bag."

About just how much of every solo is really "free" improvisation, that's just a timeless debate. 

I'd be so bold as to say that for every great solo you hear, the improviser had some kind of rough idea of the shape he or she wants to outline over how many choruses.  Subject to change at the last minute, depending on what (especially) the drummer is doing.

Probably not a definitive answer for every single artist, just a handful of different approaches.

[kepijapa]

Joanna MacGregor Does it here:

From the comments it looks people are not so impressed.

Point is (Monks) that Thelonious played it a lot better.

I am  trying to play it myself too, struggling, but it is a lot of fun, notes are simple, but its bloody difficult to hit the right ones. Anyway, most Monk solos are beautifully and well-structured little masterpieces. I think that even he himself didnt think it very necessary for other people to improvise on it any further.

[j_tour]

 

I am  trying to play it myself too, struggling, but it is a lot of fun, notes are simple, but its bloody difficult to hit the right ones. Anyway, most Monk solos are beautifully and well-structured little masterpieces. I think that even he himself didnt think it very necessary for other people to improvise on it any further.

Good call on Monk's solos.  Most people probably wouldn't think so, but he's like the poster child for sticking to the melody.

Probably because his tunes themselves are practically solos in themselves. 

ETA Yeah, I remember a teacher a long time ago was all about Monk's ballad "Ask Me Now," and it was like, "Hell, you don't need to do some flash double-time solo....tune speaks for itself."  Lots of those Monk tunes, like "Crepuscule."  Or "Trinkle Tinkle" (I think that's the right spelling) — even when he's doing stride LH four to the bar on those Black Lion live recordings, he's never off the tune.  He never even substitutes harmonies, AFAICR.  "Ruby My Dear," right?  Always just the melody, plus maybe a few little walking bits in tenths (and not just the tenths that are part of the head).

The opposite end would be doing some dogshit corny standards like "Paper Moon" or whatever, but, Monk kind of made his own gravy.

EETA, No, "Paper Moon," I've been playing in my car a few Kenny Drew albums and he does some crap tunes (IMHO) like that one and "Taking A Chance on Love," but, you know, Monk did a lot of those kinds of tunes too.  I don't know what I was on about, but I'll tell you one thing:  the only way I'd play something like "Just A Gigolo" is just like Monk did it.  It's a real lesson to be able to get something going on those kinds of tunes.  One of many lessons from Monk is how he can arrange the heads to those tunes, with some nice substitutions, and by the time he's done with his performance, solos and all, you never want to go back to straight block chords to play those kinds of tunes.

Point is (Monks) that Thelonious played it a lot better.

Word.  That's probably one of the best examples of how to do it Monk style. 

That could be a concert piece in itself, and not too hard to transcribe. 

Of course it wouldn't quite be Monk without his unique style of using the crushes in RH, but I think a good piano player could cover it note for note.  I'm not sure if that would be a good idea, but it would be certainly be a good practice.

ETA Oh, and I'm not trying to be like Mr Jazz here or anything:  there's people here who went to UNT and studied with people like Dan Haerle.  So, I'm really not trying to steal anybody's thunder, I just kind of hack away at this stuff and not trying to be some kind of authority.  It's always just my opinion.

EETA Oh, I just heard the Joanna MacGregor version of the Monk tune.  I don't want to criticize her, and I'm 100% sure she's a better pianist than me, but maybe that's not quite the way for that tune.  It's a gutsy choice on her part, so lots of respect for even giving it a go.  It's an interesting point of reference for how to approach Monk in a recital/concert setting, and I'm glad to have heard it.  You know who does a lot of Monk tunes in concert with a fresh take?   Fred Hersch.  Yeah, he does it in a jazz context, but I'd check his stuff out for, especially for some of the deep cuts from some of Monk's earlier solo albums. 

No, I can't criticize Ms. MacGregor at all — in fact, I think it's a great effort and maybe it brings more people to Monk's compositions and arrangement on that tune.  In fact, I'll look forward to hearing more of her recordings.  I'm sure she'd be the first to say it's not quite the same as Monk's great take on record, so nothing but praise.  How many people would even try, you know?  Good on her.

[j_tour]

You know, all this talk about using Monk's head arrangements (whether for solo piano or with a quintet or even just a trio).

Yeah, I'm probably stating what you or others already know, but back in the day there were number a week or weeks long .... more or less workshop projects played live. 

So you'd have people playing Herbie Nichols, Elmo Hope, and others, each devoted to their own shows (they were all dead by then, it was just musicians who liked their compositions and wanted to have a two-week engagement in NYC). 

But those were jazz contexts.

But it goes back to the 1970s revival of Joplin's music, and legends like Jay McShann, Eubie Blake, and Ralph Sutton and some of the British specialists.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure what kind of crowd you'd get at a recital like that, but there's certainly precedent.  In the early eighties, and, I suppose, through much of the 1980s, even people with fat wads of bona fide hits were doing solo piano+vox club dates, like Mac Rebennack and everybody.

Just as my off-the-cuff advice, don't even bother with what, even as late as five or six years ago, are like that not-lamented-if-not-outright-deplorable "dueling piano" scene, or "piano bar" stuff. 

No, don't even go there:  you're a serious musician, not some grinder monkey playing for small change thrown into the hat.

BUT, how are you going to book a recital without a name draw, doing good music that most people don't even know exist?

It's been done before.

Sorry if I sound cynical or negative, but in my experience, jazz people want one thing and legit people want another.

I've never had an agent, but couldn't that be something to look into, once you put some stuff together?

I don't know your market, but you sound serious.

I'm just a plunker on the keys, who plays all sorts of sh*t, but if you want to put together a program, I'm thinking (i) agent or (ii) do some one-offs at a local college or university, and just put something together that way.

Am I wrong?