Help with bridge to "Round Midnight"

[Soul Stream]

Can anybody tell me the correct changes to the bridge of 'Round Midnight? Thanks in advance for any help...

[AllenLowe]

seriously, ask Barry Harris - he always used to say that everybody played the whole tune incorrectly -

[medjuck]

Just as I read this I was listening to Dizzy Gillespie talking about his version of Round Midnight on Piano Jazz!

[Michael Weiss]

Cø7 F7

Bb7

Cø7 F7

Bb7

Ab-7 / Fø7 Bb7

Cø7 F7

Db7 B7

Ab-7 / Fø7 Bb7

[Soul Stream]

Cø7 F7

Bb7

Cø7 F7

Bb7

Ab-7 / Fø7 Bb7

Cø7 F7

Db7 B7

Ab-7 / Fø7 Bb7

THANKS MICHAEL!!! (I WAS HOPING YOU WOULD ANSWER!!!!)

[Teasing the Korean]

While there are plenty of outright WRONG changes to Round Midnight floating around, there are a couple of commonly accepted variations on the bridge. Monk's own versions are one, which was correctly posted above. Miles' changes are the other.

For the last 2 bars of the bridge, the Miles changes are:

Bbm7 - Eb7 - Abm7- Db7

F#m7-B7 - Fm7 - Bb7

As far as which is "correct," that is debatable; but of all the variations on this tune, the one I just posted is the one that is most accepted - and the one that you're most likely to encounter on the bandstand.

In playing situations where you're calling tunes on the fly, it is always worth discussing the end of the bridge for this reason.

[JSngry]

While there are plenty of outright WRONG changes to Round Midnight floating around, there are a couple of commonly accepted variations on the bridge. Monk's own versions are one, which was correctly posted above. Miles' changes are the other.

For the last 2 bars of the bridge, the Miles changes are:

Bbm7 - Eb7 - Abm7- Db7

F#m7-B7 - Fm7 - Bb7

As far as which is "correct," that is debatable; but of all the variations on this tune, the one I just posted is the one that is most accepted - and the one that you're most likely to encounter on the bandstand.

In playing situations where you're calling tunes on the fly, it is always worth discussing the end of the bridge for this reason.

When it comes to Monk tunes, I assume the composer's changes as the correct ones, period, no questions asked. This is still not a "universal" practice by any means, but it is becoming more of one.

Having said that, though, the Miles bridge is still more commonly played in these parts than is the Monk, unlike Miles' "cheating" bridge to "Well, You Needn't".

[Teasing the Korean]

When it comes to Monk tunes, I assume the composer's changes as the correct ones, period, no questions asked. This is still not a "universal" practice by any means, but it is becoming more of one.

Actually, when it comes to Monk tunes, it's the opposite, because HE changed his own tunes. "Criss Cross" is a great example, in that he hacked 2 bars out of it between the Blue Note and Columbia recordings.

Also, "correct" isn't always the underlying principle when you're on the bandstand with people you've never played with.

Still, I hear what you're saying. But since so much of jazz is reharmonized anyway, it's a moot point. Few people play the written changes to Rodgers' and Harts' "Dancing on the Ceiling," even though they are more challenging than the accepted variation generally used by jazz players.

Edited July 25, 2008 by Teasing the Korean

[medjuck]

While there are plenty of outright WRONG changes to Round Midnight floating around, there are a couple of commonly accepted variations on the bridge. Monk's own versions are one, which was correctly posted above. Miles' changes are the other.

For the last 2 bars of the bridge, the Miles changes are:

Bbm7 - Eb7 - Abm7- Db7

F#m7-B7 - Fm7 - Bb7

As far as which is "correct," that is debatable; but of all the variations on this tune, the one I just posted is the one that is most accepted - and the one that you're most likely to encounter on the bandstand.

In playing situations where you're calling tunes on the fly, it is always worth discussing the end of the bridge for this reason.

When it comes to Monk tunes, I assume the composer's changes as the correct ones, period, no questions asked. This is still not a "universal" practice by any means, but it is becoming more of one.

Having said that, though, the Miles bridge is still more commonly played in these parts than is the Monk, unlike Miles' "cheating" bridge to "Well, You Needn't".

Sort of like Miles' bridge (or lack thereof) to When Lights are Low.

[AllenLowe]

at least Miles didn't try to put his name on Round Midnight -

[Soul Stream]

Thanks for all the help...it's funny, I've run into some pretty weird changes on the bridge...um, yeah...and if you ever want to make your head spin, listen to Jimmy McGriff's version on his first Sue LP. And Jimmy Smith doesn't do much better on the bridge on the Jimmy Smith Trio + LD record. Anyway, thanks again Michael and Korean and everyone else.

[AllenLowe]

somewhere there's probably a Martial Solal version - densely re-harmonized -

[JSngry]

When it comes to Monk tunes, I assume the composer's changes as the correct ones, period, no questions asked. This is still not a "universal" practice by any means, but it is becoming more of one.

Actually, when it comes to Monk tunes, it's the opposite, because HE changed his own tunes. "Criss Cross" is a great example, in that he hacked 2 bars out of it between the Blue Note and Columbia recordings.

Composer's prerogative. And of course, any player has the liberty to do with a tune what they will. But if you ask me who's changes/forms/whatever are "correct, Monk's or anybody else's, for me, it's Monk.

...since so much of jazz is reharmonized anyway, it's a moot point. Few people play the written changes to Rodgers' and Harts' "Dancing on the Ceiling," even though they are more challenging than the accepted variation generally used by jazz players.

I kinda differ with you on that one vis-a-vis Monk. Monk didn't write show tunes, he wrote highly specific compositions. And if he changed the specifics of a few of them over the years, they still remained specific and they still remained compositions, not show tunes or pop songs.

One of my biggest musical irritants over the years has been players who play Monk tunes like they are just "songs". I mean, yeah, you can do that, but it's really pretty cheap, I think. It shows a fundamental failure to grasp what Monk was doing.

Now, if somebody wants to proceed from there like that, hey, that's their prerogative as well, and lord knows even the wrongest roads can lead to some cool places. But I'm of the school that believes that no matter where you go, there you are, and if you're "wrong" from jump, then no matter where you end up, you still got that bit of wrong with you. Maybe that matters, maybe not. Maybe ignorance is bliss. But if you ain't ignorant, just wrong, ain't a whole lot of bliss there, at least not for me.

Edited July 26, 2008 by JSngry

[7/4]

One of my biggest musical irritants over the years has been players who play Monk tunes like they are just "songs". I mean, yeah, you can do that, but it's really pretty cheap, I think.

I agree, but elaborate please...

.

[JSngry]

You know, just "playing changes" instead of dealing with the internal rhythms of the melodies, the continuities of the melodic/harmonic inter-relations of the whole form, all that shit. You can do it with any piece of music, really, but Monk sorta made that the object of his music, I think, that positing of a highly specific whole within which there are infinite possibilities based off of the ever-changing same.

[Teasing the Korean]

When it comes to Monk tunes, I assume the composer's changes as the correct ones, period, no questions asked. This is still not a "universal" practice by any means, but it is becoming more of one.

Actually, when it comes to Monk tunes, it's the opposite, because HE changed his own tunes. "Criss Cross" is a great example, in that he hacked 2 bars out of it between the Blue Note and Columbia recordings.

Composer's prerogative. And of course, any player has the liberty to do with a tune what they will. But if you ask me who's changes/forms/whatever are "correct, Monk's or anybody else's, for me, it's Monk.

...since so much of jazz is reharmonized anyway, it's a moot point. Few people play the written changes to Rodgers' and Harts' "Dancing on the Ceiling," even though they are more challenging than the accepted variation generally used by jazz players.

I kinda differ with you on that one vis-a-vis Monk. Monk didn't write show tunes, he wrote highly specific compositions. And if he changed the specifics of a few of them over the years, they still remained specific and they still remained compositions, not show tunes or pop songs.

One of my biggest musical irritants over the years has been players who play Monk tunes like they are just "songs". I mean, yeah, you can do that, but it's really pretty cheap, I think. It shows a fundamental failure to grasp what Monk was doing.

Now, if somebody wants to proceed from there like that, hey, that's their prerogative as well, and lord knows even the wrongest roads can lead to some cool places. But I'm of the school that believes that no matter where you go, there you are, and if you're "wrong" from jump, then no matter where you end up, you still got that bit of wrong with you. Maybe that matters, maybe not. Maybe ignorance is bliss. But if you ain't ignorant, just wrong, ain't a whole lot of bliss there, at least not for me.

I largely agree with everything you've posted here.

I simply feel, though, that with tunes played in a jazz setting, the concept of "correct changes" is somewhat fluid - especially with "Round Midnight."

Completely agree with you regarding the concept of approaching Monk compositions as though they are simply "songs" or "a set of changes."

What prompted me to post on this subject had much less to do with what was "correct" than it did with what to expect in a real-world, real-time playing situation in which someone calls "Round Midnight."

Cheers.

[7/4]

You know, just "playing changes" instead of dealing with the internal rhythms of the melodies, the continuities of the melodic/harmonic inter-relations of the whole form, all that shit. You can do it with any piece of music, really, but Monk sorta made that the object of his music, I think, that positing of a highly specific whole within which there are infinite possibilities based off of the ever-changing same.

I'm with ya.

[JSngry]

Well, the problem there, though, is that you run the risk of getting "over-analytical", which is also not the "purpose" of Monk's music. A person who views Steve Lacy as a superior interpreter of Monk over Sonny Rollins is not getting the point any better than one who looks at it the other way around, I think.

I haven't played much lately, but when I did, and I would be in a Monk-friendly setting (very rarely, according to what I was looking for), it always worked best when I was able to shut off all other vocabularies but the Monk one, and, conversely, open up everything else full blast. That only really happened just a handful of time, truthfully, but it only takes one time to hook you and make you feel like that's the way to get there, if you know what I mean...

[AllenLowe]

I refuse to play Monk tunes - too personal - years ago I appeared in a Monk tribute concert and I just played standards that I'd heard him do and which effected me greatly - Just You Just Me, You Are Too Beautiful, Tea for Two, It Don't Mean A Thing, More Than You Know -

made more sense to me - I have co-sponsored legislation to prevent people from performing Monk's compositions -

[Michael Weiss]

As far as which is "correct," that is debatable

I think it's safe to assume "correct" is meant as the composer's intention. That's kind of a no brainer.

Would you want someone else's reharmonization of your tune to be considered "correct?"

[Hadn't read Sngry's comments until now, which are always more astute and well put than I could ever express.]

On a professional level, you understand the need to learn tunes correct. To do your own research. Because you can't afford to be busted on the bandstand if you want to earn respect. On some amateur/college level things unfortunately are different.

Monk's music in particular demands precision: much of the time, even most of the time, chord changes do not do him justice, because certain voicings and "movements" aka resolutions, are integral parts of the composition. Any serious musician takes it upon his/herself to listen closely to every recording of the tune and compare. The elements of a tune that Monk ALWAYS played...well that should tell you something if you're paying attention.

I played several Monk tunes with Steve Lacy, and we discussed some things in the minutest detail!

Edited July 26, 2008 by Michael Weiss

[Soul Stream]

Somehow...the more I listen to 'Round Midnight by different artists, and in light of what has been discussed here, there more confused I am as to what changes actually ARE 'Round Midnight. Lots of listening and examining on my part to be done...thanks for all the insight. The REAL BOOK should be burned.

[Alexander Hawkins]

I played several Monk tunes with Steve Lacy, and we discussed some things in the minutest detail!

Wonderful! Ever record any? What sort of details are we talking about? Lacy's playing on these tunes absolutely fascinates me.

[Teasing the Korean]

I think it's safe to assume "correct" is meant as the composer's intention. That's kind of a no brainer.

Would you want someone else's reharmonization of your tune to be considered "correct?"

I hear what you're saying, and I think semantics may be dragging us down. In a jazz setting, you can make a distinction between "correct" changes and "accepted" changes. I was approaching this issue more from the practical side rather than an academic side. The accepted changes of many, many standards, as you know, are not the ones the composer wrote.

There is also a difference between thoughtful, deliberate reharmonization and downright WRONG changes. The first (bootleg) editions of the Real Book were plagued with errors, and because they were in the Real Book, they ended up being perpetuated.

"Round Midnight" is a special case, because in addition to the common existing variations, the first version of the Real Book contained some bizarre changes that I'd never heard on a record either before or since.

In live playing situations I've been involved in, I'd say it's about 50/50 in terms of how those last two bars of the bridge are played. I thought in the context of the discussion that that was worth mentioning.

And if one of my tunes is reharmonized and accepted that way, so be it.

Edited July 26, 2008 by Teasing the Korean

[JSngry]

"Round Midnight" is a special case, because in addition to the common existing variations, the first version of the Real Book contained some bizarre changes that I'd never heard on a record either before or since.

Didn't they list their source as a Wes Montgomery version that had a Claus Ogerman arrangement?

[JSngry]

The REAL BOOK should be burned.

Nah, that would take away the fun of fixing it!