arthurhenry Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 I've often seen this composition referred to as if it's some kind of all encompassing masterclass for bass, but when I've heard it, I can't tell why. Could someone cleverer than me explain? Quote
skej21 Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 [quote name='arthurhenry' timestamp='1346611012' post='1791209'] I've often seen this composition referred to as if it's some kind of all encompassing masterclass for bass, but when I've heard it, I can't tell why. Could someone cleverer than me explain? [/quote] It's not a master class for bass, it's a compositional/performance master class. Virtuosic solos, complex chord changes and ground-breaking in many aspects (stamina, implied harmony, melodic phrasing, rhythmic phrasing etc etc etc). Try and learn it (as a bassist and as a soloist).., then take into account the fact that Coltrane gave the musicians the music on the same day it was recorded, so the final recording was only a couple of takes of work yet pushing nearly every boundary of musicianship. Maybe then you'll start to appreciate it a bit more. It's truly an astounding and ground-breaking piece! Quote
XB26354 Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 It's not at all. When it was released in 1960 it was groundbreaking harmonically because of the use of key centres shifting by a major third. On the original recording you can hear the piano player, Tommy Flanagan, struggle to solo after Coltrane has done his stint. You'll find as you go deeper it's not anywhere near as complex as it first seems. Coltrane spends most of his solo on the original recording playing triads or pentatonic scales too. For any beginning improviser it appears to be a nightmare because a) there are so many chords, mostly two to a bar, although there are II-V-I sequences they're not inside any obvious sequence until you delve deeper into the tune and c) it's very quick. I don't particularly like the song itself, played at any tempo, and have yet to talk to a jazzer that does. Matt Garrison does/did have a nice split screen video on YouTube improvising over it in 7/8 time Quote
Bilbo Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 The walking bass part is easy enough, its soloing that offers the headaches. It is increadibly difficult to do anything meaningful with those changes at that tempo and a lot of people hold the view that Coltrane's later modal/free work came about as a result of the realisation that the complex changes of a tune like Giant Steps etc is a creative 'dead end'. Whenever I hear it played by anyone, I just get angry at the ethos of 'ooooh, look at me playing Giant Steps' and the general lack of emotionally satisfying content. Playing it is 7 etc is just juggling/a circus act and doesn't impress me on bit. Personally, I can't play it. I have tried and find it impossible to do anything that doesn't sound like a series of exercises. If I ever find a way round these changes that works for me, I will post it here. Don't wait up Quote
Beer of the Bass Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) I find the original recording to be an interesting work as an indicator of what Coltrane was up to at the time, although A Love Supreme does a lot more for me aesthetically. However, I do agree with Bilbo that Giant Steps is mostly played as a tiresome excercise in cleverness nowadays. I've been at at least one jazz jam where the tune has been called by one of the regulars expressly to humiliate less experienced musicians. This is the sort of thing that puts people off getting involved in the Jazz scene! Edited January 13, 2013 by Beer of the Bass Quote
Gust0o Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 [quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1346613424' post='1791254'] The walking bass part is easy enough, its soloing that offers the headaches. It is increadibly difficult to do anything meaningful with those changes at that tempo and a lot of people hold the view that Coltrane's later modal/free work came about as a result of the realisation that the complex changes of a tune like Giant Steps etc is a creative 'dead end'. Whenever I hear it played by anyone, I just get angry at the ethos of 'ooooh, look at me playing Giant Steps' and the general lack of emotionally satisfying content. Playing it is 7 etc is just juggling/a circus act and doesn't impress me on bit. [/quote] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZDjWLwqAPY[/media] Quote
neepheid Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 Giant Steps is my second favourite Boo Radleys album. Quote
dave_bass5 Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 I never really liked Steps, although i had a soft spot for Girls Aloud Quote
thumperbob 2002 Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) Though Clare from Steps is definitely a Giant nowadays. Edited January 14, 2013 by thumperbob 2002 Quote
RhysP Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 I know one thing, they're bloody difficult to get a pram down. Quote
lowdown Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 'Do you know Giant Steps ?' 'What the Coltrane tune ?' 'No the Police song' 'Giant steps are what you take' Garry Quote
urb Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 Giant Steps is a good one to work on - but it's Satellite that'll keep you busy PS This is a saxophone chart (ie all the chords are a tone higher than for bass...) Quote
bassace Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 Rhonda Smith played Giant Steps when she auditioned for Prince. Perhaps I should get out more. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.