Howard Morgen arranging process

[targuit]

The posts are flying in so fast, I had not seen the other vids ahead of my last one. Excellent version, Matt! Very nice playing. Well done.

A good point about dis-covering the harmony around the melody note in terms of fingering. I have to step out for a while now, but I will definitely listen again to this and to Lawson's Over the Rainbow. One of my favorite songs. I usually like to play that one in Bb.

[matt.guitarteacher]

I actually can't separate melody and harmony. I learn the melody and the chords at the same time.

I don't really separate them much either, Lawson. I've kind of come to terms with it mostly being smoke and mirrors with the way you articulate chords, especially with the right hand. Most of my melodic playing is out of chords. I kind of see things melodically in terms of chords, though I'm trying to work on reading/playing melody by itself as well.

But while playing anything solo, I'm never thing "melody... now a chord stab". I suppose there are those who can, but for me it's more having a full or partial chord in mind, and then, planting the melody note or bass note first, and then filling in, if/when I can get the rest of the chord under hand (and you can see a few places in that vid where I didn't BTW). :-) It gives the effect of doing something more advanced, but I mainly think about it in the same way re. a single chord I'm aiming for.

The amazing thing about articulating chords with bass or melody displaced (in time, from the rest of the chord) is that affects your hearing of things. You begin to just "hear" the bass line, or the comping under and around the melody as something separate and are able to articulate it separately like that. But it all came out of simply articulating basic block chords in a different way. It makes the goal of playing freely like a pianist seem a lot more tangible on the guitar. There's a ton to be done with a basic chord framework. The more comfortable you get with articulating things in different ways, the more you can freely improvise in between as well.

[destinytot]

Re. arrangement, I have two objectives. Both involve playing with others.

One objective - as in the arrangement of Laura posted above - is to provide a backdrop for a soloist (a horn player).

The other objective is to play with a bass player in ways that involve nuanced expression.

Whether improvised, memorised/studied, both objectives involve harmonising lines - voices - for which I think chord melody voicing is perfect preparation. I also think the challenge - in performance - ultimately about what to leave out (and why).

[matt.guitarteacher]

Re. the OP's question:

First, choose a bass note to go with the melody and hold it until it no longer sounds 'right' or the chord seems to 'need' to change.

Then go back, look at the bass and melody to decide (i) the type of chord (eg major/minor/dominant) and (ii) the role of the melody and the chosen bass note within the resulting chord.

(In theory, harmonic choices such as extension, alteration and substitution become available at this point. There's a wonderful concept I'm learning about and introduced by kind favour of Reg, 'modal interchange'. However, you need to know your diatonic chords...)

I suggest using strong root motion in the bass.

Any diatonic chord can progress to any other diatonic chord, but for me the aim is to make the transition/change sound pretty.

Re. my personal contribution

It's only a first look, and a bit of a train wreck (but that's what rehearsals are for):

Dude, you are always involved in the grooviest projects. Always love seeing what you're up to. You are living it, brother. Congrats. :-)

[destinytot]

Now we are cooking here! Laura is a good example of a song where even if the melody is quite original and 'within the chords' in a sense meaning to my mind easier to play in terms of articulation, it still sounds very jazzy to me. And lends itself to the solo guitar treatment well.

I like your version, Mike, though I thought one element that I did not hear strongly would really tie the song threads together - a good bass line. I was reading in Downbeat last month or the month before an article in which the author made a little metaphor about the bass line. I don't remember the line verbatim, but the gist was that a good bass line anchors the other instruments and helps to bind the 'arrangement' for lack of a better word together structurally.
I also would like to hear a little more volume or prominence of your voice in the mix with perhaps a touch more warmth in the EQ. Just my observations on a first listen.

Thanks, Jay - I hope you're aware that without your and Stevebol's advice I doubt I'd have been able to get this project moving (because I wouldn't be able to enter notes without the USB MIDI cable for my old digital piano)! This was recorded on a mobile phone so that we could each listen - critically (ouch) - but I agree with all your points. I'll use a mic next time I record a rehearsal.

[eduardosanz]

Wow... lots to learn finally with this thread. Thank you all!

[lawson-stone]

I don't really separate them much either, Lawson. I've kind of come to terms with it mostly being smoke and mirrors with the way you articulate chords, especially with the right hand. Most of my melodic playing is out of chords. I kind of see things melodically in terms of chords, though I'm trying to work on reading/playing melody by itself as well.

But while playing anything solo, I'm never thing "melody... now a chord stab". I suppose there are those who can, but for me it's more having a full or partial chord in mind, and then, planting the melody note or bass note first, and then filling in, if/when I can get the rest of the chord under hand (and you can see a few places in that vid where I didn't BTW). :-) It gives the effect of doing something more advanced, but I mainly think about it in the same way re. a single chord I'm aiming for.

The amazing thing about articulating chords with bass or melody displaced (in time, from the rest of the chord) is that affects your hearing of things. You begin to just "hear" the bass line, or the comping under and around the melody as something separate and are able to articulate it separately like that. But it all came out of simply articulating basic block chords in a different way. It makes the goal of playing freely like a pianist seem a lot more tangible on the guitar. There's a ton to be done with a basic chord framework. The more comfortable you get with articulating things in different ways, the more you can freely improvise in between as well.

You've said this very well and it covers the matter for me. I think I do somewhat hear melody and chords separately in my mind, as I think of it. Partly it's because when I do this kind of playing I want the tune to stand out nice and clear, since most people listening to me play are unfamiliar with jazz standards. I think also that I'm always looking for the off-voicing, the quirky substitution, etc. so I think of the tune as the somewhat fixed part, and I take a good many liberties with the chords.

But still, you're right that mostly we hear them in a very close relation. On the smoke-and-mirrors, I love the Joe Pass would talk about doing this. He noted that you can play just a piece of a chord and most listeners will assume you've play the whole thing. You can suggest or evoke a walking bass and they'll think you played it through the entire piece. This is kind of like those old routines where the guy would spin plates on top of poles, and was always moving from plate to plate to keep them all spinning...

[destinytot]

Dude, you are always involved in the grooviest projects. Always love seeing what you're up to. You are living it, brother. Congrats. :-)

Thanks, brother. "Each heart vibrates to that iron string." Ralph Waldo Emerson

[matt.guitarteacher]

You've said this very well and it covers the matter for me. I think I do somewhat hear melody and chords separately in my mind, as I think of it. Partly it's because when I do this kind of playing I want the tune to stand out nice and clear, since most people listening to me play are unfamiliar with jazz standards. I think also that I'm always looking for the off-voicing, the quirky substitution, etc. so I think of the tune as the somewhat fixed part, and I take a good many liberties with the chords.

But still, you're right that mostly we hear them in a very close relation. On the smoke-and-mirrors, I love the Joe Pass would talk about doing this. He noted that you can play just a piece of a chord and most listeners will assume you've play the whole thing. You can suggest or evoke a walking bass and they'll think you played it through the entire piece. This is kind of like those old routines where the guy would spin plates on top of poles, and was always moving from plate to plate to keep them all spinning...

Yeah, it's funny. If I play a basic jazz cliche: min-minMaj7-min7-min6, my mind always seems to remember having heard the root walking down to the maj7 even if I don't play it. Usually it's a min7, without the root in the middle voice, and I just add the progression as an afterthought. And that's with me playing it.

[grahambop]

Which chords are you talking about? Could you please elaborate on that?

I am really looking forward to see / hera your example.

Thanks a lot. Very helpful.

I tend to just use the ones that are in 'pure' 4ths if that makes sense. So for example, 3rd fret, middle 4 strings, C F Bb Eb. That can be a C min or it can be a rootless Ab maj. I'll do a few examples.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Eduardo, the stacked 4th chords are cool, instead of stacking diatonic thirds, stack diatonic fourths...

so, in C major...

CFBE

DGCF

EADG

FBEA

GCFB

ADGC

BEAD

You'll find these all sit in very "easy to grip" shapes on the string sets 5-2 and 4-1.


By the way, graham's post above is excellent, and it's exactly the same way I go about playing chords and melody.

Hey, Mr B. How do you shed/think about these, and how do you approach using them as subs, at least in the beginning? You always seem to have pretty hip things going with fourths.

[mr. beaumont]

Hey, Mr B. How do you shed/think about these, and how do you approach using them as subs, at least in the beginning? You always seem to have pretty hip things going with fourths.

Thanks! I absolutely love these shapes.

Like graham mentioned, the ones that are "pure 4ths," if that makes any sense, are the most useful.

They have a clean, modern sound to my ears...and slipping one of these up or down a half step is so easy...the Herbie Hancock move that's a bit of a finger-buster on piano!

So, as subs...I guess I don't even think of them as subs, sometimes, I just see them as a part of a chord...so like, this shape: x x 6 6 7 7...to me, it's not an Ab quartal chord--it's a shape that can be part of a E major sound...or Bmajor...or Ab...or...A...or...


It comes from really thinking of everything as major, minor, or dominant...or I guess, half-diminished too...that wasn't one of the categories joe pass talked about, but that sound is so strong to me, I think of it seperately...but I'm getting off topic, I suppose...

[lawson-stone]

Thanks! I absolutely love these shapes.

Like graham mentioned, the ones that are "pure 4ths," if that makes any sense, are the most useful.

They have a clean, modern sound to my ears...and slipping one of these up or down a half step is so easy...the Herbie Hancock move that's a bit of a finger-buster on piano!

So, as subs...I guess I don't even think of them as subs, sometimes, I just see them as a part of a chord...so like, this shape: x x 6 6 7 7...to me, it's not an Ab quartal chord--it's a shape that can be part of a E major sound...or Bmajor...or Ab...or...A...or...


It comes from really thinking of everything as major, minor, or dominant...or I guess, half-diminished too...that wasn't one of the categories joe pass talked about, but that sound is so strong to me, I think of it seperately...but I'm getting off topic, I suppose...

This thread has given me words for something I do a lot. That xx6677 you noted up there that I call a 6/9 voicing is one of the most versatile chord shapes on the entire instrument. Any note in that voicing can be nicely harmonized with that shape. I also love that x5556x which I sometimes use with x55565. A universal major/minor chord. At the 10th fret it can serve for a Gm or EbMaj.

Now that I realize this hasn't just been a careless habit on my part but that this is an actual approach to harmony, I think I need to study up on it!

[destinytot]

Here's my take on Alfie. I tried to make an exercise of doing it with more full chords kind of like what I was talking about.

Love this. For solo guitar, nylon takes some beating. Heart strings.

[grahambop]

OK for Eduardo, here's a solo version I did of 'All Of You' for the practical standards thread. The first chorus is basically a chord melody.

Here's a chart of all the chord voicings I used in the first chorus. You can see that most of the time, I only used one chord per bar. On 3 bars I didn't play a chord at all, just the melody note (I have shown these as 'no chord', with the melody note only).

Most of the chords are fairly standard jazz grips, I think. Some are rootless, some only have 2 notes, so it's quite 'light touch'! I think this shows that you can get away with quite a 'spare' approach. The last chord (Eb) required the tonic on top, so I used an Eb6 voicing as mentioned before. All the Fm chords incorporate that 'fourths' voicing, which is so easy to grab and sounds cool.

Anyway, hope this is of some use!

[matt.guitarteacher]

OK for Eduardo, here's a solo version I did of 'All Of You' for the practical standards thread. The first chorus is basically a chord melody.

Nice. Very cool. Audio is classic Graham. I like the way you've indicated the rhythm with the chord grids in the pdf's.

Are these mostly the Joe Pass shapes you're talking about ?

[grahambop]

Nice. Very cool. Audio is classic Graham. I like the way you've indicated the rhythm with the chord grids in the pdf's.

Are these mostly the Joe Pass shapes you're talking about ?

Thanks Matt. Yes I think most of these must be derived from the Joe Pass shapes because that was the only jazz chord book I had for about 20 years!

I did get the Steve Khan chord concepts book a lot later, that's probably where some of the 'fourths' shapes came from, I know he had a section on those in the book.

[lawson-stone]

I just posted another very basic "sketch" of a solo guitar performance. This one is "Moon River." It's based mainly on the standard lead-sheet chords. It was done pretty much on a whim, when the song just popped into my mind about a week or two ago as I was "noodling" with the guitar before going to bed. I punched out a bit of it by ear, found a lead-sheet, and basically slapped chords under the melody.

My problem with well known popular tunes like this is I can't seem to break out of the basic song and make it more improvisational. Substitutions, fills, ornamentation... they all seem to flee when I play something drop-dead familiar.

You can all beat this, and I invite you to do just that! Seriously, you all are outstanding players. Show me how this can be done now that I've got a basic treatment of it in place.

Any advice or counsel is of course welcome.

[Jabberwocky]

Good stuff, guys. Keep them coming.

[matt.guitarteacher]

I just posted another very basic "sketch" of a solo guitar performance. This one is "Moon River."

Best one yet I'd say, Lawson. Great tone and great tune. I like the moving inner voices as well. Thanks for posting.

[targuit]

This atmosphere is where the growth and learning happens, not to mention some beautiful music. Just some reflections.

I was thinking about a comment of Lawson's about seeking to reharmonize standards to try to make a performance a bit more unique. And we use the term "arrangement" in that sense. Because when you think about it with a song like Moon River which I love (like so many of Mancini's tunes), the melody is what it is and the art seems to be to play it with appropriate harmony in a mellifluous manner. So to my mind it takes a real effort to impose a new harmonic vision over a song that we have listened to and loved for decades.

There is a guy named Peter Mazza who seems to have found a style that does just that. I credit him for his ingenuity and he is a fine player, but in the end when I hear or play Moon River, that classic melody and chord progression is really what I like to hear. I guess I'm old fashioned in that regard. Not dissing anyone who finds an alternate approach. It is just I like what Mancini created in the first place.

On the other hand I do like what guys like Kurt Rosenwinkel and Jonathan Kreisburg do with standards in that vein, but doing that usually in a group setting where you can riff off the melody is different than trying to do that as a solo performance. Joe Pass had that capability to a degree certainly where he put his imprint on songs with his bebop excursions in those solo note runs he would incorporate into some of solo improvisations. But I still like the refined but more sedate approach he took on his acoustic CDs like Unforgettable near the end of his life just as much or better.

There is a neat article about Johnny Mercer who wrote the lyrics to Moon River. Here's a link.

The story behind the song: Moon River - Telegraph

[lawson-stone]

This atmosphere is where the growth and learning happens, not to mention some beautiful music. Just some reflections.

I was thinking about a comment of Lawson's about seeking to reharmonize standards to try to make a performance a bit more unique. And we use the term "arrangement" in that sense. Because when you think about it with a song like Moon River which I love (like so many of Mancini's tunes), the melody is what it is and the art seems to be to play it with appropriate harmony in a mellifluous manner. So to my mind it takes a real effort to impose a new harmonic vision over a song that we have listened to and loved for decades.

There is a guy named Peter Mazza who seems to have found a style that does just that. I credit him for his ingenuity and he is a fine player, but in the end when I hear or play Moon River, that classic melody and chord progression is really what I like to hear. I guess I'm old fashioned in that regard. Not dissing anyone who finds an alternate approach. It is just I like what Mancini created in the first place.

On the other hand I do like what guys like Kurt Rosenwinkel and Jonathan Kreisburg do with standards in that vein, but doing that usually in a group setting where you can riff off the melody is different than trying to do that as a solo performance. Joe Pass had that capability to a degree certainly where he put his imprint on songs with his bebop excursions in those solo note runs he would incorporate into some of solo improvisations. But I still like the refined but more sedate approach he took on his acoustic CDs like Unforgettable near the end of his life just as much or better.

There is a neat article about Johnny Mercer who wrote the lyrics to Moon River. Here's a link.

The story behind the song: Moon River - Telegraph

Jay makes good points here. I'd hate to think my problem with "Moon River" or any other song is that they are too pretty and too beloved! What I would love to do is find a way to play it that is a bit more "lush" and makes the melody stand out even more. There is a kind of "weirding up" of a tune that I dislike, on the other hand, sometimes a discordant or abrupt substitution can wake up a tune and restore its freshness.

This setting of the song I did is really just playing the lead-sheet melody "straight up" and playing whatever voicing of the lead-sheet chord fits at that point. There is a bit of voice leading that just jumped out and bit me when I was working up the song, but I didn't try to do much else. Even the ending, which uses the final "C" note as a pedal tone with AbMaj7-DbMaj7-CMaj7 was on the lead-sheet I used.

I've seen people take it up tempo, latin, etc. and I really don't think that's what I want. I would love to keep it as a ballad, but I like playing ballads with a pulse, not rubato. And I want to do more with the chords, and with some harmonizing the melody with one other string, 3rd's or something.

I just realized... I want to play this the way Earl Klugh might play it, or the way Chet Atkins would play it if he did it kind of like he did "Vincent" which is to my mind a perfect solo guitar performance of a popular tune.

In fact "Vincent" is on my list to work on soon, along with "When You Wish Upon A Star." The latter was done by Joe Pass and is on YouTube but not on any record or CD that I know of. It's a quirky little tune with some interesting departures.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Jay makes good points here. I'd hate to think my problem with "Moon River" or any other song is that they are too pretty and too beloved! What I would love to do is find a way to play it that is a bit more "lush" and makes the melody stand out even more. There is a kind of "weirding up" of a tune that I dislike, on the other hand, sometimes a discordant or abrupt substitution can wake up a tune and restore its freshness.

This setting of the song I did is really just playing the lead-sheet melody "straight up" and playing whatever voicing of the lead-sheet chord fits at that point. There is a bit of voice leading that just jumped out and bit me when I was working up the song, but I didn't try to do much else. Even the ending, which uses the final "C" note as a pedal tone with AbMaj7-DbMaj7-CMaj7 was on the lead-sheet I used.

I've seen people take it up tempo, latin, etc. and I really don't think that's what I want. I would love to keep it as a ballad, but I like playing ballads with a pulse, not rubato. And I want to do more with the chords, and with some harmonizing the melody with one other string, 3rd's or something.

I just realized... I want to play this the way Earl Klugh might play it, or the way Chet Atkins would play it if he did it kind of like he did "Vincent" which is to my mind a perfect solo guitar performance of a popular tune.

In fact "Vincent" is on my list to work on soon, along with "When You Wish Upon A Star." The latter was done by Joe Pass and is on YouTube but not on any record or CD that I know of. It's a quirky little tune with some interesting departures.

Good post. I also tend to just play from basic changes in the subs I know well, without enough work listening to different versions and approaches. Mr. Beaumont is honestly one of the best at really incorporating a lot of different players' styles into his playing. A lot of people have a good bit of vocabulary and style from one or two of their favorite players, and that's cool.

Jeff, however, seems to take bits from a very diverse, (and not small) group of players. As a result, his OWN style is unlike anyone else's I've heard, especially solo.

Probably a good idea for a CM thread: Take a tune, and find a version that you really LIKE, but which also incorporates elements you're not currently using as much, and apply to your own version.

I've definitely heard the results of this work in Jeff's playing , and it's apparently much more effective than talking about these things in abstraction.

[lawson-stone]

Yes I enjoy Mr. B's playing a lot. May I assume "Jeff" is "grahambop?"

If so, I regard his solo on "Blue Bossa" posted on YouTube as canonic. He sets the standard for how that's done. Just a fantastic solo, all musicality with the great technique simply delivering clean, exciting music.

[destinytot]

This may be obvious, but something I'm finding helpful (and therefore perhaps worth sharing) in terms of transition - from memorised 'arrangement' to harmonisation 'on the fly' - is using numbers to identify chord degree and chromatic solfège syllables for melody/pitch.

E.g. the note is MI and it's the 3rd - unless I use substitution and, like the old joke about 'creative accountancy', I want the number to mean something else!