Well... for one thing, Pat Metheny, has certain vocabulary that he has come up with on his own that is very difficult to imitate, but that is unique to him. For example, the idea he plays at or has gotten into at 2:43 here is an example of this. I would call this a Metheny lick. He plays it not only in this solo, but in a lot of other solos on various other recordings. His blazing solo on Third Wind is another solo that immediately comes to mind where he uses this lick. What’s interesting here to me is the way he gets into it by playing it with some syncopation as opposed to just playing it straight on the heaviest parts of the pulse. It’s basically a seventh chord without the fifth, played linearly: 3rd-7th-3rd-root, 3rd-7th-3rd-root, etc. Being that he plays it so fast, it makes it difficult to imitate, but it is a sound that I haven’t heard any other players play (well, before Metheny), and it’s a kind of a thing that lays rather nicely for the left hand on guitar. This is just one example of the licks he plays, but it seems to me that this is definitely a trait common in jazz greats. Not only do they have an impeccable sense of time, sometimes with a feel that may be slightly behind or ahead, and a tone that is readily identifiable, but the jazz greats also have certain vocabulary unique to them that’s generally technically challenging, fun to listen to, and that still somehow expands the realm of what the jazz language is. Charlie Parker had this trait, John Coltrane had this trait, Mike Stern, Michael Brecker, Thelonius Monk… it’s an important part of who they are as players and of being recognizable. Another interesting thing about this particular Metheny solo is the lick or idea that he begins the solo with. It starts out with two descending half steps followed by a descending minor third-the b3, 2, b2, 7 of the half-diminished ii chord and the 5, 3, root or 5, 3, #9, b9 of the dominant chord. This is probably the most repeated idea he uses in this solo. It happens at :28, (:33), :49, 1:00, 1:31, (1:42), (1:53), (3:24), (3:37) and it could be argued that it happens in a few other places in this recording. The first half of it, two descending half-steps followed by a descending minor third, is definitely a mannerism of his. My guess is that it’s a habit he picked up around the time he was playing with Ornette Coleman or just before. I guess this could be called a “lick,” but I haven’t heard it verbatim enough in other recordings of solos of his that I would call it one of his licks. Here it’s more like an idea” or a theme that he’s using on this particular song. It’s hard to tell whether this is something that he worked out when practicing, if it’s something he heard in the moment and keeps coming back to on this recording, or if it’s like a twisted up lick of his that he keeps coming back to in this recording because he’s not hearing anything else. After listening to this recording for over 20 years, I’m leaning towards it was his way of navigating this particular standard at that point in time, almost like he came up with that lick just for playing this song-maybe through practicing. Another lick of note, and there are others in this solo, is the idea he plays beginning at 1:47. This is the 5, 3, 2, 1 of a major chord, and he articulates it generally by slurring the 3rd to the 2nd. This is certainly one that I’ve integrated to my playing and that has helped me get by on lots of tunes when I wasn’t hearing anything. It falls really nicely on the guitar and it articulates the harmony well enough. It’s kind of like a backwards Coltrane thing during his Giant Steps changes period. Whereas Coltrane was going 1-2-3-5, 1-2-3-5, 1-2-3-5, this goes 5-3-2-1, 5-3-2-1, 5-3-2-1, etc. What’s funny is here, it doesn’t really fall within the changes. He’s just sliding the idea up the neck until the harmony resolves. Was he really hearing that?! I don’t know.

@@agreatape Thanks for those insights!

Jeannie Sargent Yeah, isn’t that great? I think he gets away with it because he’s playing in a trio and there’s no harmony instrument.

@@agreatape it would stand to reason the bass player is playing an F at that point so not a lot to worry about there. Makes me wonder if Dave heard that and adapted immediately in his bass line - that would certainly be the mark of a top notch accompanist.

sim miles era conhecido por isso mesmo mas mesmo assim o admiraram so mesmo no jazz isso acontece

Know your facts Solar wasn't a RIP off. www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/259556/

also a joke - amazing work, thanks for a cool video!

Yeah, I basically wrote it all all out in Finale by MakeMusic and printed the transcription to a PDF. Then I used GIMP 2, a free Windows-based raster image editor, to make slides of each note from the PDF. Then, I synchronized the slides to the audio recording using Vegas Movie Studio which is now owned by Sony. I had first tried another video editing suite, but it proved too cumbersome because it didn't display an image of the audio wave forms. Thanks for your interest!

So if there are, say, 300 musical events, you exported 300 individual image files from GIMP, one image file per animation frame? And then imported all those to a video track in Vegas?

Yes. It's quite tedious and time consuming.

Adobe software's portable document format.

Lmao!

it's not, just a small font :)

In bebop, it is customary to never notate key signatures. Because the piece modulates so frequently, relying on key signatures for your accidentals will result in many incorrect notes and misreads Instead of thinking of the entire piece as in C minor - which it isn't - the actual keys are: C minor for 2 bars, ii-V-I into F major for 4 bars, ii-V-I into Eb major for 3 bars, ii-V-I into Db major for 3 bars, then a ii-V turnaround in C minor to lead back to the top. Now do you see why we don't notate key signatures? Having to notate the key changes every couple measures is a waste of time. Learn to sightread read accidentals. The are chord symbols anyways, so those tell you all you need to know about the modulations of the piece.

I see, thank you.

I see them more as tonal centers, than the whole key change, so the whole piece is still in c-moll, but you're right, maybe it's a matter of habbit.

the ones who couldn't sing along? c'mon, now, everyone singalong' doot a doot a doot duh didadidida tootootoototoot diddly dangadangadang...