Talk:Maiden Voyage (composition)

Image text

This image appears to be lead sheet, but with the notes of the bass-line noted below instead of the chord roots above the staff (also given the "Supplemental bassline:" indication). If this is so I'd be glad to add that info to the file description. What does the text "Dis" mean? Should it instead be D♭, D♯, or Dsus? Hyacinth (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• See here and jump to "Another style of notation, rarely used in English," etc. (Didn't know it myself until about last week...) So apparently it means D♯ and should be edited accordingly. Well, unless one thinks "rarely used in English" is enough! 151.66.227.155 (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

  You're right, but this probably belongs on the file's talk page instead of here. Jafeluv (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Chords

The chords for the B section are listed as Bbmi7/Eb and C#mi9 here. It's debatable whether C#mi9 or Dbmi9 would be more correct in the context (in a lead sheet, a Db note would make more sense after Bb to avoid an awkward augmented second; then again, Db minor would have eight flats so C# minor is probably more convenient). However, in The Real Book, the chords are actually given quite differently: Bbmi7/Eb and Abmi7/Db. I wonder which alternative is correct. Jafeluv (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:Truth. Hyacinth (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Can't see how that's relevant here. Both options are verifiable, aren't they? Jafeluv (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. What do you mean by "correct"? Hyacinth (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Umm, what I'm trying to say is... Currently there's a table of chords followed by text about how the chord progression is presented in different sources. The way the section is organized gives the reader the impression that the table represents the "definitive" version, which is then interpreted differently in different sources. I don't think we should be giving one source prominence over others like that, especially given that it directly contradicts another cited source. What do you think? Jafeluv (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Something has to come first.

Which source "directly contradicts" which other source? Hyacinth (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Something definitely needs to come first, but I don't think it needs to be a table and it certainly shouldn't be presented like it isn't only one of many different interpretations. The contradiction is that one source has C#mi9 for bars 25–28, whereas another has Abmi7/Db for the same bars. C#mi9 is not the same as Abmi7/Db unless you ignore thirds and sevenths, right? Jafeluv (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding that Bebop: The Music and Its Players by Thomas Owens seems to use C#mi13 for that particular chord: [1]. Jafeluv (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Did Herbie play the "correct" chords?

I would humbly suggest that everyone put down their various "Real" fake books and get out the original Blue Note recording and do some serious listening. JaneOlds (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... Jafeluv (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Real Books are not real!

In my opinion, the so-called "Real Books" should not be cited as references or as any kind authority since it has been my experience that they are rife with errors. The "Real Book" is a lazy way to learn to play jazz because the truly definitive source is always the original recording.

Any discussion of "Maiden Voyage" should not be based on what is printed in various unauthorized, illegal publications no matter how widely they are used and accepted as definitive. All one needs to do is compare different versions of these books to see the many errors and discrepancies that result from sloppy transcriptions, editing, and lack of musical knowledge.

A careful transcription and analysis of the original recording is the only way to get to the truth of the matter.

That said, let me mention some of the problems with this "Maiden Voyage" article. First up, the two musical examples that are given describing the opening chord do not agree, and indeed, both examples are incorrect.

The chord in bar 21 is correctly a D♭ minor ninth chord with the 13th added. Calling it a C♯ chord because it's "easier" than a D♭ chord is pure laziness, my advice here is one word - "practice." Furthermore, calling the root C♯ then results in the transposition for the trumpet and tenor being a D♯ minor 7th.

The chords in the A sections are correct as listed, minor 7th chords over a bass note (the root) a fifth below. These can be thought of as dominant 9th chords with a suspended 4th or as dominant 11th chords. These chords have an "open" sound due to their structure containing no tritones, minor 2nds or major 7ths, in other words, a neutral sound, with minimal harmonic tension. (Note the common tones of C and G shared by the Am7/D and the Cm7/F.)

The B♭m9 chord in bar 17 increases the harmonic tension with the addition of the minor 9th.

The D♭m9 (13) chord in bar 21 creates additional tension by adding the 13th, the B♭ (played by the tenor sax) since it's a major 7th away from the 7th (C♭) of the chord.

Try this voicing and see how it sounds: D♭-A♭-C♭-E♭-F♭-B♭. In other words, Root, 5th, minor 7th, major 9th, minor 3rd, major 13th.

I hope this rudimentary analysis can provide some insight into Herbie's sublime harmonic concept.

This article can be fixed but we need to work together to accomplish this. JaneOlds (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed analysis, JaneOlds. However, I hope you understand that as an encyclopedia we can't publish original analysis. We're supposed to represent a fair summary of what has been published in reliable sources. Of course, we should not be displaying blatant inaccuracies and some editorial judgment is needed to decide how to best represent different views, but all analysis needs to be sourced to a reliable external source.

I agree that generic sheet music publications should not be considered as reliable as analysis by recognized experts (although you're wrong about the unauthorized/illegal part). In any case, I believe it deserves mention here that the chords are sometimes written differently. Jafeluv (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION: My analysis was never intended for publication, otherwise I would have published it. I put it here on the talk page to give people something to think about. JaneOlds (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not for thinking about things. Hyacinth (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Jafeluv (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this Maiden Voyage entry for quite a while now and am amazed at what I've seen.

This article is so atrocious that I felt the need to delete the one sentence that made any sense in the section titled structure so as not to confuse the typical Wikipedia user.

The many additions and comments on the talk page by Hyacinth are hilarious, not only because of their total and unabashed allegiance to the so-called "real" books, but because they clearly exhibit a shallow and unenlightened grasp of music theory.

For a more complete understanding of the ignorance contained in this article one only needs to review several of the previous versions where Hyacinth's contributions (now deleted) were laughable to say the least.

No amount of footnotes and citations from inaccurate sources will ever make this article reflect what Herbie Hancock actually recorded.

Hyacinth seems to think he/she owns this article and I wish that Jafeluv or someone with some sense would intervene in the name of accuracy, or is the Wikipedia to be thought of as the Real Book of encyclopedias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.254.68.126 (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

How many times is a Real Book cited in the article? Hyacinth (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)