Chordal Playing aka Chord Melody Question

[edh]

When playing chordal melodies, how important is it to make the changes? If the melody is correct and there is voice leading, rhythm do you really need to make the changes of a song.

I ask because if you're playing solo wouldn't that allow you the freedom to play what you want? As long as it sounds good.

Thanks for all responses.
edh

P.S. I hope I have explained this well.

[AlsoRan]

edh,

Here is an answer from a "book-guy."

When comping, according to everything I have read, both in instructional material and here on the forum, you can use techniques such as suspension and anticipation to carry over certain notes from one chord to another. In the case of these two techniques, the chord tone carried over resolves when the new chord is played.

I refer to wiki when I forget this musical idea. Nonchord tone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So If I understand your question correctly, and I myself am not out in left field, then the answer is yes that you can carry over chord tones beyond the measure they are assigned to, or whatever place in the harmony they have, and those tones will resolve a little late or early in the next measure.

Like I said, this is coming from a book guy who tried it a couple of years ago, never really mastered it, and forgot it. Maybe someone will correct me.

(Of course, you could always fall back on the old adage that their are no binding rules in Jazz as long as it sound good...)

[targuit]

My shot at answering the original question. It depends a bit on how the player sticks to the integrity of the song and to some extent on how 'functional' is the harmony. If you follow a lead sheet from a fake book, you have a melody line against a suggested harmony. Certainly, you can make substitutions to the harmony implied by the changes, but a radical change to the harmony leads to a different harmonic relationship of the melody notes in the measure to that harmony. Depending on the subtlety of the substitution, the song may still be recognizable or may feel different.

And of course, as Martin Taylor often points out, just playing the melody against the chordal harmony might sound ok, but implying the harmony in terms of thinking of the inner voices as independent lines against the bass and melody notes may lead to a more interesting sound. Yet those inner voice harmony lines may still more or less faithfully imply that fake book chord change.

I'm sure that is perfectly clear.... Jay

[TH]

The answer to that one is a matter of personal musical identity. There are chord solos at the George Van Eps end of the spectrum where all chords are voiced. The harmony of a piece can also be played in different ways besides a chord on the indicated beat. Jim Hall would often play a melody, allow space and then add harmony as a chordal accent late in the measure, or even over the bar line. The use of diads and just one well placed chord tone can say more with less.
Harmony can also played through the melodic line itself (Bach to solo Lee Konitz are great examples of this) and that frees up the creative process to play as heavy or light as you'd like.
Often you'd treat your harmonic obligations differently in different parts of your playing, head has different considerations than within a solo...
Explore all your options and let your ear be the final judge.

David

[destinytot]

The answer to that one is a matter of personal musical identity.

I think it's a matter of prioritising and highlighting those movements one considers important.

[edh]

Here's an example of what I mean. Let's say that the melody note is a G, 8th fret. The chord that is over that G is a Cmaj7, could you play an C#min7b5 or Bb13, B7#5, Gmin7, Dmin11, Gmin6, Db7b5. I ask because if you are playing by yourself there are no other instruments to relate what chords you should be playing.

I hope I'm clear.

[monk]

If we define "A Song" as a specific melody played with a specific harmony, the question becomes "At what point does it cease to be THAT Song?".

If one plays the head of "A Song" and then improvises melodies over the harmony, then a listener is likely to be able to follow the performance to its conclusion without losing track of what's happening. Likewise, if one wished to play the melody of "A Song" several times in succession while substituting or altering the harmony each time (something that Robert Conti does), again the listener would have no trouble following along.

If one, then, chooses to alter both melody and harmony simultaneously will it still be the same song?

[Larry Feldman]

Pick a song and show the example from that song. It also depends on where the note is going and where it came from, so giving us something in the context of a song would be helpful.

[Guitarzen]

Here's an example of what I mean. Let's say that the melody note is a G, 8th fret. The chord that is over that G is a Cmaj7, could you play an C#min7b5 or Bb13, B7#5, Gmin7, Dmin11, Gmin6, Db7b5. I ask because if you are playing by yourself there are no other instruments to relate what chords you should be playing.

I hope I'm clear.

Targuit, and Truthhertz did a good job of answering this question already. But I'll attempt to add another 2 cents.

Play whatever the heck you want, but at some point the tune won't be recognizable anymore. The harmony directly affects the character of the melody and how we hear it. You can apply the same question to the melody - "Can I change melody notes and rhythms?" of course you can, but at some point it won't sound like the original melody anymore, right? How far is too far? When you've changed the melody 25%? 50%? By changing the harmony you are changing the melody indirectly. I've heard renditions of standards where people completely changed the harmony 100%, and...it didn't sound good anymore. There is a reason why melodies are harmonized a certain way, usually it's the BEST harmonization the composer could figure out. Unless you are a better composer than they are, why would you want to change that drastically or even at all? Melodies and harmonies work together, you don't just choose the melody notes completely separate from the harmony, and vice versa, they are chosen to work together. I know at least when I'm composing, I am constantly tweaking the melody and the harmony to work better together. Eventually, I may find just the perfect balance. So why would you want to come along and screw that all up? LoL.

When jazz guys reharmonize stuff they usually just sub in something that functions the same, and therefore isn't a drastic change that upsets the balance, or they sub in something unexpected purely for those who are already familiar with the tune, so that it gives them a surprise. And lastly, they sub in some crazy shit to make other jazz musicians think they are somehow on a more advanced plane of jazz hipness. BS. I'm down with the nice surprises, but I'm not always so fond of the lame attempts to sound "advanced" by subbing in some atonal cluster.

[docbop]

Targuit, and Truthhertz did a good job of answering this question already. But I'll attempt to add another 2 cents.

Play whatever the heck you want, but at some point the tune won't be recognizable anymore. The harmony directly affects the character of the melody and how we hear it. You can apply the same question to the melody - "Can I change melody notes and rhythms?" of course you can, but at some point it won't sound like the original melody anymore, right? How far is too far? When you've changed the melody 25%? 50%? By changing the harmony you are changing the melody indirectly. I've heard renditions of standards where people completely changed the harmony 100%, and...it didn't sound good anymore. There is a reason why melodies are harmonized a certain way, usually it's the BEST harmonization the composer could figure out. Unless you are a better composer than they are, why would you want to change that drastically or even at all? Melodies and harmonies work together, you don't just choose the melody notes completely separate from the harmony, and vice versa, they are chosen to work together. I know at least when I'm composing, I am constantly tweaking the melody and the harmony to work better together. Eventually, I may find just the perfect balance. So why would you want to come along and screw that all up? LoL.

When jazz guys reharmonize stuff they usually just sub in something that functions the same, and therefore isn't a drastic change that upsets the balance, or they sub in something unexpected purely for those who are already familiar with the tune, so that it gives them a surprise. And lastly, they sub in some crazy shit to make other jazz musicians think they are somehow on a more advanced plane of jazz hipness. BS. I'm down with the nice surprises, but I'm not always so fond of the lame attempts to sound "advanced" by subbing in some atonal cluster.

+1

I saw Joe Pass who would reharmonize songs in concert get to where some of the audience had the "trout look" trying figure out where he is or if he started anther tune and they missed the intro. So I'd say watch you audence if they start looking like a school of sea bass time to reel it back in.

[setemupjoe]

Reharmonization of standards is a common tool in jazz. Perhaps the greatest exponent was Bill Evans. Evans was advanced harmonically beyond most of his peers and could find the most beautiful reharmonizations of well worn standards.
A great example is Here's That Rainy Day by Jimmy Van Heusen. The original changes start with Ima7, bIII7, bVIma7, bIIma7. The common alteration via the real book and attributed to Stan Getz (although I'm sure I've heard Joe Pass use these changes as well) is Imi, V7/3, bIII7/5, VI7, bVIma7, Vmi7, IVmi7, IVmi7/7.

This is a fundamental change in the harmony as we've changed tonic from major to minor.

The problem with reharmonizing standards is that it is an advanced concept and requires a subtle hand. Many musicians attempt this without the required harmonic language, understanding or maturity. By all means experiment with chord substitutions and reharmonizations. I would suggest you start with basic alterations at first and always ask yourself the question "Is this change enhancing the melody or detracting from it?" Your ear is the best guide.

Mark Cally

[Bikewer]

Just from a "what I like" standpoint.... I like playing around with the tune, but it shouldn't get "too far" out. I used to like Weather Report...They would stretch a tune just to the point that it was getting lost...Then "reel it back in" as noted above.
Pass does pretty much the same thing... Times he goes a bit astray but I'm not listening to jazz to hear a note-for-note rendition of a recording.

[edh]

Thanks for all the info guys.

[TheGrandWazoo]

No. It doesn't. (short answer)

Long answers above...


If you're playing with other people it may matter. But, if you're playing the song solo then you own it. Its yours. Do what you want. Break every rule. Follow every rule. It doesn't matter. Do you like your result? Are you pleased? Thats all that matters.

[jordanklemons]

Here's an example of what I mean. Let's say that the melody note is a G, 8th fret. The chord that is over that G is a Cmaj7, could you play an C#min7b5 or Bb13, B7#5, Gmin7, Dmin11, Gmin6, Db7b5.

Yes. You can do whatever you want. But keep in mind that we're all giving you answers and opinions based on who we are and where we are without any knowledge of where you are. If you're just starting out and are trying to learn tunes from the start with the goal of being able to gig with other people...I would say to try and learn more classic approaches to tunes for a while. This is actually a great way to learn about chord substitutions and harmony...to snag it from the tunes and composers you like. There's some hip stuff out there if you're willing to take the time to learn someone else's approach. If music is a language and you try to develop your own thing without being able to speak the traditional stuff first, that can cause problems later for you...if your goal is to play with others...unless you want to be the leader and write out the arrangements for the other players.

So short answer yes, of course...music is art man. Do what you want. But you have to be conscious about what you want, why you want it, and how you prioritize your goals. There's not necessarily a right or wrong answer. It's art. Just figure out what you love, decide what you want, and work towards it...and always keep an open mind about what other great musicians have to say...but still don't accept it as gospel. Consider it and decide for yourself.

My current teacher has me dropping ALL my assumptions about music, starting back at the beginning, and re-examining everything from the ground up. One thing that I realized really quickly that made my brain hurt for a while...I do NOT like the sound of a root note used against it's Maj7 chord. Playing a C note against a CMaj7 chord sounds so tense to my ear. It's just not harmonious...when I really listen it sounds like 'fa' wanting to resolve down to 'mi'. On the other hand...I found that the #9 sounds gorgeous used against the Maj7 chord. So basically for my entire life everyone has been telling me to play a C scale (ionian or lydian), but the foundation of that scale, "C" just doesn't sound good to me. And I found another note (D#) that's not in the scale that I totally dig. Listen to what other people say, but check everything out for yourself and always go with what you love and what moves you.

[goranlindelow]

Hi edh!
If you play several songs for an audience (Perhaps you are the audience) it nice to do it in different ways.
For instance I have 35 songs I practice right now with melody chord and walkingbass. Even in the improvised choruses.
It´s hard to make it interesting. Sometimes I practise just to play the melody with improvised variations on single string to open it up! (If you really are familiar with the song and the harmonies you will play around the harmonies and get them with you!
Have a nice weekend Edh!

[Hyppolyte Bergamotte]

It´s hard to make it interesting

so true...
HB