What constitutes right and wrong notes AND chords

[Bill McCloskey]

"To me incorrect or altered notes are wrong and I can't understand the reasoning behind altering an established melody, or words, which are often wrong on many recordings"

Louis Armstrong's changing of the words to Black and Blue, changed an okay little ditty by Fats Waller into an overpowering song of black suppression, inspiring the novel "Invisible Man"

Billy Holiday's altered notes of classic standards made them brilliant. It is all part of the creative process. All grist for the mill, so to speak.

Take a listen to Glenn Gould's Mozart sonata recordings. You can't get much further away from Mozart's intentions than Gould's interpretation of those sonatas. Some find them horrible (mostly critics I've found) and some find them brilliant. I personally find them brilliant providing new insights into worn out war horses.

[Dave Mudgett]

To me incorrect or altered notes are wrong and I can't understand the reasoning behind altering an established melody, or words, which are often wrong on many recordings. To me it appears the artist is being either lazy and not diligent enough, OR is lacking a producer with taste.

To me, there's a big difference between "incorrect" and "altered". To me, "incorrect" = "doesn't sound good", while "altered" may sound good or bad. Of course, these determinations are subject to personal taste, de gustibus non disputandum.

To me, it is good if and only if it sounds good, and what other lens does one have to judge that except personal taste? Again to me, there's nothing absolutely sacrosanct about an original writer's conception - if I think that's a great conception, I probably won't mess with it, but not all writers are great, good, or even competent. Of course, that determination is also subject to personal taste.

The development of classical Western analytic thinking tended to be 'normative' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative - and philosophically postivist in the sense that there should be and is some absolute 'truth' that everything can be measured and compared to. Even in science, this has proved to be troublesome to development of new ideas - creation is largely inductive, not deductive. In art, I think that exclusively normative thinking can be positively (pun intended) stultifying to new development.

I personally think that a lot of this is determined by one's sense of investment in the status quo. Some people are heavily invested in things being a certain way. There are no doubt a lot of possible reasons - psychological (e.g., stays within my comfort zone, has good associations with it), economic (living depends on people liking what I can/like to do), philosophical (I've thought this through and it's obviously the 'correct' way to do it), or others. But other people may legitimately feel very differently about the status quo - they may be bored with it, have bad associations with it, don't have the discipline or talent to do it that way, or have decided that a different way is "better".

I just don't see what the big deal is - yes, different people view the same things through different lenses and ultimately see them differently. Is that a surprise? So even though I can rationalize it, I guess I will probably never completely understand the sense of affrontery that so often rears its head when an artist takes an old idea outside the box, so to speak. I completely agree that it matters how one does this, but I don't understand why some people think they have the inside track on 'good' vs. 'bad'. To me, the proof of that fallacy is that I, myself, have often hated something 'out' when I first heard it, but then as I began to understand it, completely changed my mind. I would hate for my mind to close to such growth.

I think this is a good and civil discussion - please don't interpret my comments as any type of judgment, good or bad.

[Franklin]

Great thread!

Not sure how on topic my post is? In the studio we arrange songs everyday. Usually there are chord substitutions and singers sometimes vary the melody to fit their specific style. The writers intent is the starting point, not the finish line.......Some amount of exploration with the phrasing, chord structure, rhythm construction and note choice is reasonable. When "artists" try to make the song fit their singing style as Patsy did in the "Faded Love" example, the result is creative genious.

Finding a way to interpret the song is more of a melodic and rhythmic hurdle than anything else. As I see it, changing things around is part of the creative journey.

There are also wrong notes and chord substitutions and bad musical taste.....This is where understanding the original construction is important. Understanding which musical options sound right requires following some music theory rules. Or a huge set of ears! If the melody of a famous song is no longer recognized, I believe the arranger went too far with the arrangement.

Paul

[John Davis]

Or a huge set of ears!

Thank the Lord I got the ears!!
(well one of them anyway)

[Paul Crawford]

I think there must be a difference between "correct" and appropriate.

I've got an example coming up in a session this week. When I was given the lead sheet, I noticed that the verse didn't end in a 12, 16, or even 8 bar phase. The song has the standard 16 bar phrasing, then just adds a 4 bar stinger on the end. When I was asked how I liked it, (probably as big a mistake to ask as it was to answer), I said, "Interesting, but not really a traditional country phrasing." Of course the reply was, "That's why we're adding a steel guitar."

I can't wait to see the line dancers take this one on.

[Brian Henry]

I think that music is an art like painting, and the beauty is in the ear of the beholder. It is an art! No rules!!

As a school teacher I find it very easy to grade Math or Science. It is either right or wrong. But when evaluating art, such as Painting, Sculpture, Music, Literature, or Creative Writing, one has to establish a rubric of criteria.

[John Davis]

Baz, re changing the words Dylan`s Don`t think twice.

He wrote...Goodbye is too good a word babe
I'll just say, "Fare thee well"

Jerry Reed sung,,
Goodbye is too good a word babe
I'll just say, "Go to Hell!"

I thought it gave the song a lot more punch loved Jerry`s version

[Dave Burr]

Great thread!

Not sure how on topic my post is? In the studio we arrange songs everyday. Usually there are chord substitutions and singers sometimes vary the melody to fit their specific style. The writers intent is the starting point, not the finish line.......Some amount of exploration with the phrasing, chord structure, rhythm construction and note choice is reasonable. When "artists" try to make the song fit their singing style as Patsy did in the "Faded Love" example, the result is creative genious.

Finding a way to interpret the song is more of a melodic and rhythmic hurdle than anything else. As I see it, changing things around is part of the creative journey.

There are also wrong notes and chord substitutions and bad musical taste.....This is where understanding the original construction is important. Understanding which musical options sound right requires following some music theory rules. Or a huge set of ears! If the melody of a famous song is no longer recognized, I believe the arranger went too far with the arrangement.

Paul

Paul, your post made me think about another song where the "standard" arrangement strays well off the original vesion. I wonder how Ray Price's version of "Night Life" would've turned out if Buddy Emmons wasn't present at the time it was being arranged? The end result has become the "standard" arrangement for this song but it hardly resembles Willie's original version. The "exploration" you spoke of, in this particular instance, resulted in a masterpiece.

[Aled Rhys Jones]

I'm with Basil. There is a difference between re-interpretation and re-harmonization and grating wrongness, at least to my medium-sized ears.
Jazzers have rejigged and reharmonized for years. One of my current favorites is the standard Caravan in 7 by Avishai Cohen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyDe9sl1gNI
Your ears may vary.

[Ransom Beers]

A lot depends on the song,some songs just do not sound good with experimental addendums.There is a local band that puts minors in several songs they do that just takes away from the whole song.Some music/songs can be altered & enhances the piece some ,well it just don't werk!!!

[Danny James]

It seems to me that being able to read music is in itself in great danger of becoming a lost art.

As an example,--where do you fellows who want to learn a given song correctly, go to purchase the sheet music to it?

Back in the early 50's if we heard a song on the "radio" we liked and wanted to learn, we went to a local music store and much of the time we could find the sheet music on the rack of hundreds of songs. Have any of you tried doing that lately?

If I want to find sheet music to some of the old standby's I often go to a big antique store and sort through the music section there.

I have also known many people over the years who love the old what many call "Classic Country" music and abslolutely have no interest whatsoever in going to the trouble of learning to read music and playing by note. It seems I'm sorry to say that many if not most of the young people I run into these days who buy musical instruments seem to have that same attitude. I have read here on this Forum where many of the steel guitar players don't read music. If they don't read music how do they know if they are getting the chords right, or even what notes make up a given chord?

What does it take to change this trend?

[Dave Mudgett]

If they don't read music how do they know if they are getting the chords right, or even what notes make up a given chord?

Listen to it and use your ears? Chord charts or number charts? Reading sheet music is a useful skill, but not the only way to figure out melody or harmony.

What does it take to change this trend?

Figure out a way to make time run backwards? Or maybe mass Pavlovian or Skinnerian behavior modification?

Relative to traditional hillbilly country music - do you really think most of that music was made by musicians reading, note-for-note, from a sheet music score? I don't think that's how most of it happened - I wasn't there, but I've not heard that idea strongly advanced.

[Danny James]

Dave, you say "listen to it and use your ears"?

I think that may work for some people at least part of the time.

However I think that is part of the point Bazilh was making to start with. What sounds right to a person, and what is right, according to how the song was originally composed, are not necessarily the same.

When you get into the more complicated types of music where different chord structures other than the usual Country type of music & chord progressions are concerned. Such as some songs Bazilh was illustrating in Hawaiian music for example.----I have strong doubts that someone playing by ear will be nearly as accurate in playing these types of songs.

Granted a lot of times the listening audience may not know the difference, but to those who are familiar with how a particular song should be done, will likely notice the difference right away.

You might say what difference does it make? In my opinion at least, that would depend on what degree ones appreciation for music done correctly is.

[Dave Mudgett]

When you get into the more complicated types of music where different chord structures other than the usual Country type of music & chord progressions are concerned.

There are plenty of musicians out there with great ears who can listen to something and know how to play it. Modern jazz is quite complex, and while reading skills are very useful, many if not most jazz musicians are largely improvisational and have huge ears.

You might say what difference does it make? In my opinion at least, that would depend on what degree ones appreciation for music done correctly is.

I think that's what the point of this thread is - what is 'done correctly'? I guess that depends on one's point of view and the music being considered. If you're arguing that the degree of "appreciation for music done correctly" is directly proportional to how exactly it is copied from the original, I guess I disagree as a blanket statement.

[basilh]

Good point Dave,

Relative to traditional hillbilly country music - do you really think most of that music was made by musicians reading, note-for-note, from a sheet music score? I don't think that's how most of it happened - I wasn't there, but I've not heard that idea strongly advanced.
View user's profile

Whereas a LOT of the Hapa Haole Hawaiian music WAS written by musicians who could not only read, but in some instances were band leaders of large dance bands.

BUT, my point original was not about reading vis a vis learning the correct melody, it was more about how or where we draw the line betwixt what seems correct to some and what is actually correct as per intent of the writer.

Reading music or the ability/inability to write it isn't the criteria to judge by, OR the excuse not to try to be correct, I believe there is a strong case for some present day music being composed by non readers, as the above quote points out.
No-one can deny that "Misty" is a well composed song/tune, written or at least transcribed by anon, composed by Errol Garner who could NOT write or read a note of music. He did have a very musical mind and excellent ears. He also had the distinction of being the only pianist to have a self generated rhythm section, the 'Grunts'.

[Paul E. Brennan]

I don't think there can be any excuse for playing incorrect melody notes. I think this happens for the following reasons:

1. Inability to properly hear the melody notes when learning by ear. The performer will settle for what they think is "close enough". A good musician will always want to be sure they have the right melody no matter what the tempo.

2. Inability to execute the melody notes on the instrument perhaps because of some unfamiliar fingering or string pattern. In this case the performer may "fudge" the melody by using some more conveniently located notes.

3. Lack of diligence. The performer may have learned the melody from some incorrect source and not bothered to check the original (ur) source.


As for not playing the right chords or for playing unsuitable chords I think the above reasons also apply. However there are other, more complicated, factors at play. Quite often there is a choice of which chords will work over a given section of melody. The composer will usually select the chords based on established conventions for the music genre. If you are familiar with the conventions your ear will tell you which is the correct chord. However, there are occasions when the composer will deliberately choose a chord to create a certain, perhaps unusual, effect. For example, if you had never heard the big band arrangement of "A Train" would you immediately recognise that the second chord is a 2#11? If you played a 3dom7 it would also work but would create a different, calmer mood. Whereas the 2#11 chord is intended to create a jarring, dissonant effect evoking an image of a train bustling down the tracks full of busy people. (Maybe the dissonant piano intro would give you a clue! All part of developing a feel for all types of music I suppose). So there are times when you can't rely on your knowledge of previous music. You need to check out the composer's arrangement in order to get the correct chords to create the intended mood.

People may assume that because they're familiar with the chord conventions used in one music genre that these conventions will also apply in whatever genre they decide to try their hand at. How many times have you been annoyed by rock guitar slingers blasting their way through a country song? This is a matter of taste or lack thereof.

How does one acquire good taste. That's not an easy question to answer but here goes anyway. My own opinion is that it's a matter of respect for the music, the audience and your fellow performers. I'm not very familiar with Hawaiian music but if I was about to embark on such a gig I would listen to as much of the music as possible. Do the rhythm players tend to use min7 or vanilla min chords? Major 7th or straight major? I'm not sure. Just because I heard Joe Blow down in the local pop using lots of bebop chords while backing Basil does that mean he was right to have done so? (The expression on Basil's face would probably have told me long before my ears did....!). I think I know but I would need to check by doing a lot of listening. This would give me an idea of the conventions commonly used and give me an idea of what constitutes good taste in the genre. Are there ever A-Train type moments in Hawaiian music? I don't know. I would need do a lot of listening to find out.

[Roual Ranes]

Paul,
If you will check out the song "Have You Every Been Lonely", you will find at least five different arrangements with no reference to how it was written so do we take the first recording as the gospel? I not find a chord chart for the first recording.

[Dave Mudgett]

Whereas a LOT of the Hapa Haole Hawaiian music WAS written by musicians who could not only read, but in some instances were band leaders of large dance bands.

BUT, my point original was not about reading vis a vis learning the correct melody, it was more about how or where we draw the line betwixt what seems correct to some and what is actually correct as per intent of the writer. ...

Agreed - I was responding to Danny James' discussion on reading. My points throughout are much the same as yours:

1. What is 'correct' depends on a player's or arranger's interpretation of the musical context.

2. Reading, although useful, is not necessarily required to be able to accurately determine melody and harmony.

I think certain things are obligato, while others are not. Of course, not everybody will agree on those choices. I guess that doesn't bother me - I don't expect everybody to agree, that's what makes the world go around.

What I do disagree with is that the only reasons anybody deviates from an 'original' melody (what is 'original' is sometimes open to debate) are

1. Inability to hear it.
2. Inability to play it.
3. Lack of diligence.

Some diligent musicians who can hear and play it correctly decide to do it differently. One can agree or disagree with their decision, no problem.

[Paul E. Brennan]

If nobody is really sure of the original composer's arrangement then common sense and (hopefully) good taste need to be brought to bear. That's what I trying to say in my lengthy missive of a post above.

[Paul E. Brennan]

Dave, you are of course correct in saying that sometimes good musicians deliberately play notes different to the original melody. I wasn't dealing with this situation in my post. I was really talking about people who for some reason are not actually able to state a melody correctly.

This begs the question, when is it ok to change melody notes. Eh well, it depends I suppose........... If you were playing in your local honky-tonk where the crowd wanted to hear good old fashioned, unadulterated country songs and you decide to alter the melodies of Charlie Pride songs. What does this show? In my opinion it shows a certain lack of respect for your audience. Either you haven't bothered to learn the songs properly or you're making fun of their quaint taste in music. On the other hand if you're playing in a jazz club and you decide to jam on the same Charlie Pride numbers the audience would be expecting you to alter the melodies (and harmonies). They'd probably get quite annoyed if you didn't mess with the tunes.

You can also bend the melody in your fills and turn arounds. It's always nice to hear the melody reflected in fills but there is scope for the musician to add a little spice here. This is provided they keep within the bounds of the music genre's accepted conventions.

[Nicholai Steindler]

I'm sure some of you know this, but there are several current movements in music that grade the musicians on how far away they get from the original composition while retaining enough key elements as to keep the song recognizable. The jamband scene and the dj/electronic music scene are built upon this idea. Both have amazing musicians producing good music. Hell Jerry Douglas plays with half the jamband circle of musicians, can't be all bad right?


I love both styles of music, along with pretty much everything else out there. I just love music! Everything is valid, it's the perfect art form, plus we all have a "decoder" built in. I wish visual art was so intrinsic.

[Paul E. Brennan]

Yes Nicholai it is great fun and you do hear some amazing musicians. It's just not something you'd probably do at the Annual We Love Country Music Hoedown. At the very least you might not get paid.

It's all a matter of style, taste and context.

[Bill Hatcher]

It is music. You interpret it like you want to, within whatever limitations are imposed. If no limitations...play it like you want to.

I don't need the music police.

[Bill McCloskey]

To illustrate: try listening to Lennie Tristano' version of Tea for Two.

Now here is a very accomplished musician, highly influential in the jazz world, who certainly knows the melody for Tea For Two, but I defy you to pick it out in his recording.

[Andy Volk]

This has been an interesting read. Personally, to me the only criteria is "Does it sound good?" Paul Desmond improvised melodies that were often better than those of the standard tunes he was using as a scaffold. As George Benson said, if you play a wrong note, you're only one half step from the right note. Life's too short to worry about other people's wrong notes.