Modern Harmony

[eh6794]

I realize this is a complex question that probably can't be answered here, but maybe I can get a few clues. How do songwriters build modern harmony?

Here is an example of what I mean: Abmaj7(#11), Am7(b13), Gm7(B13), Gbmaj7(#5), Fm7(b13), E7(#11), Ebmaj7, Dm7(b13), Gbmaj7, Bbmaj7 etc

I realize it ties into the melody, but how does a song writer come up with those, unrelated chords? The best answer I can come up with is that there are relations between consecutive chords like the 3,7 from the first two chords.

What the heck do they teach you guys at Berklee?? lol

[Boston Joe]

In the book "Beyond Functional Harmony" (Can't remember the author's name) he talks about creating a top line, and then filling in chords underneath. I don't remember the details, but it does yield some interesting progressions. Anyway, if it's a subject you're interested in, it's a good book.

Edited to add: I think these might be respellings of quartile and quintal chords. The first chord AbM7#11 could be spelled C G D Ab Eb. The Am7b13 could be spelled G-C-F-A-E. Not a pure quartile, but close.

[eh6794]

Wayne J Naus?

[jordanklemons]

One thing I use to do many many years ago was to harmonize melody notes with a stagnant chord type.

In other words, I would pick a particular chord type and use only that chord type, and the particular extension I was working on, to harmonize all of the melody note.

So I might come up with a simple melody like E-F-A-D-G (just random... no idea what it will sound like) and a particular chord type and extension like Maj7#11 with the #11 being the melody) and harmonizing every melody note with the proper chord.

Then I might go back through and pick a min9 chord, letting the 9 always be the melody note.

It was a fun way to accidentally discover some really interesting chord movement that I wouldn't have stumbled upon otherwise. And it's also a great way to get to know the sound and voicings of different types of "modern" chords.

[Boston Joe]

Wayne J Naus?

That sounds right.

[cmajor9]

The best overall answer is "by hearing it."

There are different methods a composer can use to create chord progressions outside 'traditional' harmony, including the 'chord stream' or 'parallel' movement that Jordan K. mentions. You could also create a 'counterpoint' between the melody and bass line (or another line), and fill in the harmony. Lots of 'exceptions' to the standard rules work in particular situations, the key being that it sounds right in that situation.

[Groyniad]

i can just about imagine composing in this vein - but improvising?

maybe that's the easy bit - because, if you want unusual sounds, you can play 'randomly' - in the manner that jordan k composed that sample melody above?

i really have no clue at all

i can't help thinking you've left 'sounds right' behind as soon as you start harmonizing melodies in e.g. the way sketched above - maybe things can sound 'nice' or 'surprising' - but 'right'?

[Thumpalumpacus]

i can just about imagine composing in this vein - but improvising?

maybe that's the easy bit - because, if you want unusual sounds, you can play 'randomly' - in the manner that jordan k composed that sample melody above?

i really have no clue at all

i can't help thinking you've left 'sounds right' behind as soon as you start harmonizing melodies in e.g. the way sketched above - maybe things can sound 'nice' or 'surprising' - but 'right'?

I suppose "right" depends on the musical context, but resolutions can and do pop up in surprising places. That's why Buddha made passing notes.

[christianm77]

It's not an easy question you are right! I can only illustrate with some examples from my own writing.

I know that for myself I am obsessed with the bass line and often write the bass first. Here's a progression I wrote a while ago

Am11 | % | Abmaj7#11 | % | Am11 |
Abmaj7#11 | A/G | Bb/F | D/E | Eb6/9 | % | Cmaj7#11

At this time I was interested in polychords moving in contrary motion.

Another time, I took a basic loop of a four chord progression:

Cmaj7 | Abmaj7 | Emaj7 | Dbmaj7

And developed it by adding a bassline like this, which creates a sense of building excitement (or that's the idea) once we've heard the basic pattern a few times:

Cmaj7 | Cm7 | Dbm7 | Dbmaj7 |
Cmaj7 | Cm7 | Dbm7 | Dbmaj7 |
C/E | F7sus4 | E/F# | Db/Ab |
Am | Ab/Bb | E/B | Dbmaj7 |

Hopefully you can appreciate that my harmony here is basically the original harmony with a bass note. I've tried to simplify the notation to make it readable on the gig, but at no point do I play anything different - the bass is creating all the movement.

You can hear the tune here:

This will obviously vary from composer to composer. I'm not a big fan of modern harmony per se - whatever that is. I just want to write something logical. I also dislike the sound of too much parallelism in harmony. It's OK in short bursts, but while I practice things like intervallic clusters through the mode, I would say I have little interest in writing anything like that.

Make sure you check out some 20th century composers and books on harmony, not just jazzers. A lot of the modern harmony used in jazz has passed into jazz from modern classical (although not all) quartal chords and clusters are a case in point.

I suspect improvisors find my progressions a pain in the bum.

[jordanklemons]

"Right" can definitely become subjective when we get into modern jazz. What some people thinks sounds killin', others may find distasteful.

The exercise I mentioned is just that, an exercise. It's not the end all to be all. And I would rarely (maybe never) ACTUALLY write a tune where the entire thing is harmonized with only one chord type. That would get a little too monotonous. Though I have found a couple cool progressions that I use as warm ups and practice cycles using one chord type from this type of experimenting.

But again, it's an exercise... an experiment. The point is ultimately to "get to know the sound and voicings of different types of "modern" chords" all over the fretboard and how they relate to melody. It's not the current way that I play with these sounds, but it has worked well for me in the past. Once you have done this with 5 or 6 or 7 chord types, your ear will just have a better idea of what they sound like and how they behave. And then it becomes easier to harmonize a melody using modern harmony based on what you want it to sound like as opposed to following the rules of an exercise. It's just about isolating sounds out so the ears and fingers and eyes have a chance to absorb what's happening. Once that's accomplished, you can literally do anything you want.

Think of it like a painter ONLY using shades of blue for a few paintings (was it Picasso that went through his blue phase?), then only using red. Then only using black and white. The point is to get to know them each so that they the painter can use them more freely and in a more personal way when they decide to just paint.

[christianm77]

I've also found the past to be a rich source of inspiration.

-Go back to the 14th century and check out what Machaut was doing with the modes, dissonance and chromatics.
-Classical harmony and counterpoint is a constant source of inspiration - it teaches formal balance, technique, attention to detail and an understanding of a formal grammar of harmony and how it supports a composition.
-Even early jazz has a lot of progressions that kind of went out of fashion (I-bVI7#11-I anyone?) but sound kind of fresh and inspiring to modern ears accustomed to ii-V-I's.
-The standards are an endless source of inspiration. IMO it is unlikely most of us will ever compose anything as good as a jazz standard any more than we might compose something better than a Bach fugue! Again like Mozart - balance, restraint, language, clarity ...
- Jobim is a huge influence on me for similar reasons.
- I've already mentioned 20th century music .... But I will again. Only today I heard an amazing choral piece by Kodaly....

[jordanklemons]

Cool video/song Christian. Very Monkish. I like the simplicity of the melody, almost child-like... in that Monk kind of way... with the quirky and unexpected chords underneath it moving.

Only thing I have a differing opinion on is what you said about how most of us will never compose anything as good as a jazz standard any more than we might write something better than Bach. Whether or not it's a true or valid statement, I just think any limitations or boundaries we place around ourselves, our imagination, our possibilities, and our work preemptively serves no positive end goal. Again, if there is truth to it.

Maria Schneider is one of my favorite writers. I got to see her give an incredible interview when I was working on my masters about her music and her composition process. I learned a lot just from listening to her talk. But my biggest takeaway.... She mentioned after she wrote one of her pieces (I think it was Hang Gliding... so f'n beautiful) that she fell into this mindset that she would never be able to write something as good as that piece again. It really seemed to get to her and put her in a depressed mindset that she had to work through. Fortunately, she eventually found a place of peace and faith that she could relax and trust in that there would always be something greater to come out of her musically. That no matter how good what she had written in the past was, it would never prevent her from writing something even more beautiful in the future.

I think in the arts, it can be a really dangerous and depressing state of mind to get stuck in the competitive arena. Whether it be competitive to a peer of ours, to Bach, or even to something we've already created. Or maybe it's our level of improvisation being compared to Wes or Sco. We should always look to the future and stay in the positive mindset.

She didn't tell this exact story at the interview I went to, but this is a great video worth watching if you're interested in jazz and composition. If you fast forward to 17:40, she tells a great story which must have been what helped her with her own realization.

[christianm77]

Cool video/song Christian. Very Monkish. I like the simplicity of the melody, almost child-like... in that Monk kind of way... with the quirky and unexpected chords underneath it moving.

Thanks! I never thought of the Monk connection :-)

Only thing I have a differing opinion on is what you said about how most of us will never compose anything as good as a jazz standard any more than we might write something better than Bach. Whether or not it's a true or valid statement, I just think any limitations or boundaries we place around ourselves, our imagination, our possibilities, and our work preemptively serves no positive end goal. Again, if there is truth to it.

TBH that was said in a mischievous or slightly trolling kind of way (because I knew it would get a reaction.)

You are right. Comparisons are unhelpful... But I am like most musos, awed by sheer craft... The reason I chose those two examples, is that Bach's craft is obvious to anyone with a passing understanding of music, but I think the simpler composers sometimes go unacknowledged - in particular composers of songs.

There seems to a steady drive towards impressive complexity in much (not all) contemporary jazz. When I hear something, simple and song like in contemporary jazz - Aaron Parks, for example, I kind of jump on it. At last! Something I can whistle!

Does that make me a philistine? I don't think so - complexity is not (of course) a bad thing, but simplicity is also very valuable and extremely difficult.

This is why classical pianists are (apparently) terrified of Mozart.

I suppose I'm grumpily making the point that the vocal standards (i.e. the songs) are really good compositions something that might seem obvious to you and me, but I know a lot of people who write their own stuff who say they get bored playing them. Oooo those young'uns. I'm such an old git :-)

Furthermore standards are almost uniquely well suited to jazz improvisation - I don't know so many original jazz compositions that can be reharmonised or adapted in so many ways as a vocal standard. Why? Well because first and foremost they are melodies. The harmonies are up for revision. The changes we play now were not the originals, etc.

Someone playing a Parks tune, for instance, has to work carefully to avoid it sounding like a cover version.

For me Monk and Ellington always ride high in the pantheon of jazz composers for this reason..... Sonny Rollins too. Very sophisticated composer of jazz themes, highly underrated IMO. Ornette too, although I listen to his music less.

That intrigues me as a direction for music much more than writing something totally arranged and prepared and ready to go - I always feel that's like classical music and I'm in jazz to invite collaboration. It's not cos I'm lazy, honest.

I like the lead sheet as a form for that reason, but I wonder if you could go further - how little of a composition can you write and still have it be a composition? Just a wisp of melody with no harmony? Do you even need durations?

I should probably get onto writing stuff like that.... Could be almost like folk songs.

[pants]

For myself, I feel like a level of getting out of my head is necessary to write stuff that is more organic. To this day some of my favorite progressions I've written came just from playing with shapes and movement within them. Trying to hear what comes next instead of dissect the theory of what could.
I think another thing that is great about jazz as opposed to more rigid forms like classical is that we aren't tied into the idea of a "completed" composition. It can continue to evolve and grow over time as we hear it differently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[christianm77]

For myself, I feel like a level of getting out of my head is necessary to write stuff that is more organic. To this day some of my favorite progressions I've written came just from playing with shapes and movement within them. Trying to hear what comes next instead of dissect the theory of what could.
I think another thing that is great about jazz as opposed to more rigid forms like classical is that we aren't tied into the idea of a "completed" composition. It can continue to evolve and grow over time as we hear it differently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes that's absolutely essential IMO... You can start with an intellectual idea - that's OK. I might start with a pattern like the one above. But the act of composition is to move it away from the rational...

[Sam Sherry]

Fuzz --

Actually, I think you've really answered the OP's question very nicely.

Q. "How do folks come up with this terribly complex stuff?"
A. "It's not too complex if you shift your perspective just a little bit."

Your post illustrates that there's more than one answer to these questions, and also that both the simple and the complex answers are useful and can lead to musical beauty.

[eh6794]

I know this doesn't really address the OP, but sometimes chords aren't as unrelated as they seem.
The progression in the OP as an example:

AbMa7#11 = Fm69/Ab
Am7b13 = FMa9/A
Gm7b13 = EbMa9/G
GbMa7#5 = EbmMa7/Gb
Fm7b13 = DbMa7/F
E7#11 = Bb7alt
EbMa7 = IVMa7
Dm7b13 = BbMa9/D
GbMa7 = bVIMa7
BbMa7 = IMa7

This progression is largely Bb-ish, with chords borrowed from parallel minor. The trip to F is not that distant, either.

Thanks for the response. In the four or five days since I posted this, I read a book recommended above and took a much closer look at this song and others.

From Beyond Functional Harmony, I learned that the key to contemporary harmony is to do what is not expected. In pop and standards, we can anticipate the next moves. That makes sense, right?

Also, I notice that there are relations between between successive chords. The first chord in a phrase may not be related to the third chord, but they are both related to the second chord.

I'm starting to think there really aren't rules, just a few things you should keep in mind while writing.

[Boston Joe]

Also, I notice that there are relations between between successive chords. The first chord in a phrase may not be related to the third chord, but they are both related to the second chord.

The human brain is very, very good at pattern recognition. Even if two chords aren't related, your brain will find a way to connect them.

[pants]

The human brain is very, very good at pattern recognition. Even if two chords aren't related, your brain will find a way to connect them.

I know! I was looking at this crazy progression the other day and then I realized that all the chords were spelled with notes found on the piano! What a coincidence!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[A. Kingstone]

Modern? You mean like Art Tatum?

[A. Kingstone]

Modern? You mean like Art Tatum?

I apologize; I don't mean to hi-jack the thread.

I was being facetious in my belief of the untapped variety still available in the 400 year old major-minor system used by the composers and interpreters of the Great American Songbook.

In a workshop with Barry Harris in the mid 2000's I played a trick on him stating "Hey Barry I've just discovered free jazz". Barry gave me that hard glazed look and Howard Rees, the organizer said "class is over". I said "yeah, Art Tatum".

I knew enough of Barry that the mention of FREE JAZZ would be enough to be ejected but when I listen to Tatum, what could be freer?

Within the Major/Minor tenets and the 32 bar structure he goes everywhere.

As to modern, I like some Dave Holland but that's due to the rhythm.

Most here there and everywhere harmony leaves me cold.

Sorry for the interruption.

[christianm77]

Tatum does my head in. It's almost too much. Very avant-garde.

[A. Kingstone]

Tatum does my head in. It's almost too much. Very avant-garde.

Apparently Bird got a job washing dishes at a place where Art was working so he could listen.

[Groyniad]

i imagine bird going home with his head full of tatum and then working like crazy on his horn trying to find it all

i read of tatum recently that he just played constantly - and had a 'condition' of some sort

he heard more going on in a single beat - and could actually play a greater percentage of what he could hear - than anyone. surely.

bonkers playing

[A. Kingstone]

Damn. I hi-jacked the thread again.