Resource for understanding basic harmonic accompaniment to melody

[rlrhett]

Unfortunately I have a pretty inflexible mind. If I understand it is fun and doable. If I don't, I can't play it.
My biggest stumbling block right now is that I don't understand why certain chord progressions are being picked in the first place by the original composer. I have done a fair amount of study already, and have a modest but growing understanding of the fretboard, a reasonably large vocabulary of chord voicings, and an acceptable understanding of substitutions. I've been playing guitar since my early teens, and I'm rapidly approaching my mid forties
But it seems that when it comes to chords, chord melody, and chord progressions you get one of two things:
1) these are "common" chord progressions. ii-V-I, I-vi-ii-V, etc.
2) these are ways in which you can substitute/alter/enhance a chord.
The problem is I don't understand why that ii-V-I is there in the first place. I have seen people dissect harmonic motion and say, "see, if you strip away the embellishments you have a ii-V-I followed by a I-IV a modulation to the minor of the same key, and then to a iii-ii-V-I." But why? What about the melody told the original composer what basic harmonic progression to choose? I get that some progressions are common, but they aren't being used randomly over melody lines, are they? There must be something that guides why a iv-ii-V-I makes sense over this melody, why switching to the relative minor just here, why one common progression and not some other common progression.
I feel like no matter how many voicing and substitutions I know I'll never know how to improvise chord melodies unless I understand what essential chord progressions the melody supports or implies. All I'm doing is memorizing melodies and whatever chord progressions are written in a chart. Adding substitutions and embellishments just feels like randomly adding spice to the pot, not really cooking. This is deeply dissatisfying for me.
I realize this is not something that can be answered in one quick post, but can anyone suggest a way in? Is there a book one can recommend? A musical term I'm missing that describes what I am talking about?
Thanks!

[matt.guitarteacher]

Unfortunately I have a pretty inflexible mind. If I understand it is fun and doable. If I don't, I can't play it.
My biggest stumbling block right now is that I don't understand why certain chord progressions are being picked in the first place by the original composer. I have done a fair amount of study already, and have a modest but growing understanding of the fretboard, a reasonably large vocabulary of chord voicings, and an acceptable understanding of substitutions. I've been playing guitar since my early teens, and I'm rapidly approaching my mid forties
But it seems that when it comes to chords, chord melody, and chord progressions you get one of two things:
1) these are "common" chord progressions. ii-V-I, I-vi-ii-V, etc.
2) these are ways in which you can substitute/alter/enhance a chord.
The problem is I don't understand why that ii-V-I is there in the first place. I have seen people dissect harmonic motion and say, "see, if you strip away the embellishments you have a ii-V-I followed by a I-IV a modulation to the minor of the same key, and then to a iii-ii-V-I." But why? What about the melody told the original composer what basic harmonic progression to choose? I get that some progressions are common, but they aren't being used randomly over melody lines, are they? There must be something that guides why a iv-ii-V-I makes sense over this melody, why switching to the relative minor just here, why one common progression and not some other common progression.
I feel like no matter how many voicing and substitutions I know I'll never know how to improvise chord melodies unless I understand what essential chord progressions the melody supports or implies. All I'm doing is memorizing melodies and whatever chord progressions are written in a chart. Adding substitutions and embellishments just feels like randomly adding spice to the pot, not really cooking. This is deeply dissatisfying for me.
I realize this is not something that can be answered in one quick post, but can anyone suggest a way in? Is there a book one can recommend? A musical term I'm missing that describes what I am talking about?
Thanks!

because it sounds good. that's the answer to all of the why's. it sounds like a pretentious ass answer, but it's not. it's the real one.

there are no "rules" about this stuff. theory just explains the overarching rule of "it sounds good".

take a vanilla blues, very basic structure. just one four five. look at some lessons on "jazzing up a Blues" at Matt Warnock's site, here, and elsewhere. you're going to get common substitutions for chords.

but again, these are not rules they're just common practice. they answer the basic requirement of sounding good. take one embellishment at a time and really get your ears around it. understanding it is more about just learning to HEAR it.

the thing which is slightly confusing about jazz is that we take tunes with great chord changes and add the SAME or similar changes at a smaller level as a substitution for one chord. for example, a tune can have a 6251 progression and, at the same time, have a 6251 SUBSTITION over the 5 chord of the progression. Kind of like fractals. :-)

start with the simple blues, maybe check out "hearing the changes" by Jerry Coker et al.

[matt.guitarteacher]

1) these are "common" chord progressions. ii-V-I, I-vi-ii-V, etc.
2) these are ways in which you can substitute/alter/enhance a chord.
The problem is I don't understand why that ii-V-I is there in the first place. I have seen people dissect harmonic motion and say, "see, if you strip away the embellishments you have a ii-V-I followed by a I-IV a modulation to the minor of the same key, and then to a iii-ii-V-I." But why? What about the melody told the original composer what basic harmonic progression to choose? I get that some progressions are common, but they aren't being used randomly over melody lines, are they? There must be something that guides why a iv-ii-V-I makes sense over this melody, why switching to the relative minor just here, why one common progression and not some other common progression.
I feel like no matter how many voicing and substitutions I know I'll never know how to improvise chord melodies unless I understand what essential chord progressions the melody supports or implies. All I'm doing is memorizing melodies and whatever chord progressions are written in a chart. Adding substitutions and embellishments just feels like randomly adding spice to the pot, not really cooking. This is deeply dissatisfying for me.
I realize this is not something that can be answered in one quick post, but can anyone suggest a way in? Is there a book one can recommend? A musical term I'm missing that describes what I am talking about?
Thanks!

Have a second to sit down now...

Common chord progressions are mostly tradition. You can analyze the evolution of music with voice leading in monophonic to contrapuntal to harmonic etc., but the basic answer is tradition. The "theory" part is more about describing and dissecting common practice or tradition. They're not rules, or if they are, they're broken more and more through history until the rules change to suit what people actually play.

Dominant chords tend to want to resolve down a 5th in folk songs, classical, traditional western music. That's common practice. It's definitely not the case for modern jazz. But take a folk song with only tonic and dominant. You should be able to hear those basic changes. Then, anything you add to that is just gravy. If you can hear the V7, try replacing a 4-beat V7 with a II7. Once you're cool with that, try the back-door blues cadences or tritone subs for the changes.

One problem is that real books are already completely "subbed out". There's not any room to learn to "jazz things up". Start with Vanilla Changes for a basic tune and jazz them up a little bit, or start with a basic blues.

(Different Matt below BTW):

Jazz Blues Chord Progressions And Substitutions

Jazz Blues Tritone Chord Substitutions

[rlrhett]

I accept your answer, of course, but I'm disappointed. Considering all the possible chords that could contain a particular melody note picking one at random until it sounds good is a daunting prospect.
I get that in reality that means identifying common one or two bar melodic motifs and coming up with favorite harmonic devices for them. Guided by traditional progressions, this wouldn't be impossible, just dissatisfying. I just memorize dozens of these, practice them, an use them where applicable.
As I said, my mind resists doing things because that's how I memorized it. That's partly true because if I understand the why I remember much better. Otherwise, I can't remember my own name! I was hoping that there was some guide that could teach me something like, " a two bar melody that starts on the major third an ends on the sixth implies a ii chord of a ii-V-I progression."
The road to Carnegie Hall may take a manager, a good promoter, backing by serious money, and a shameless need for self promotion. However, sounding like you belong in Carnegie Hal takes practice, practice, practice!

[matt.guitarteacher]

I accept your answer, of course, but I'm disappointed. Considering all the possible chords that could contain a particular melody note picking one at random until it sounds good is a daunting prospect.
I get that in reality that means identifying common one or two bar melodic motifs and coming up with favorite harmonic devices for them. Guided by traditional progressions, this wouldn't be impossible, just dissatisfying. I just memorize dozens of these, practice them, an use them where applicable.
As I said, my mind resists doing things because that's how I memorized it. That's partly true because if I understand the why I remember much better. Otherwise, I can't remember my own name! I was hoping that there was some guide that could teach me something like, " a two bar melody that starts on the major third an ends on the sixth implies a ii chord of a ii-V-I progression."
The road to Carnegie Hall may take a manager, a good promoter, backing by serious money, and a shameless need for self promotion. However, sounding like you belong in Carnegie Hal takes practice, practice, practice!

I wouldn't assume that most harmonic progressions are composed to "fit" a melody. I'd assume the opposite much of the time. You can harmonize a given melody multiple different ways, but I think composers generally begin with the harmony, especially when it's complex. Maybe more general ideas of tonic, dominant and subdominant with melody, but I don't think there's anything to replace experience. You're talking macro level stuff when you're talking about harmonic structures or re harmonization.

The melody itself isn't necessarily going to give you everything. Every melody note and be a "tension" or a "chord tone", depending on the harmony. The melody often outlines the harmony, but it's not so concrete. Maybe I don't know exactly what you're asking.

At the most basic levels of really simple music you can make some basic assumptions on common practice: "Melody notes on strong beats are more often chord tones than not". "Passing tones are usually between these". But in my mind jazz is all about tension. It's kind of a different beast. I think you start with the harmony. Melody informs and elaborates on what the harmony is, but it's not as simple as "melody first - make the harmony fit".

[rlrhett]

I wouldn't assume that most harmonic progressions are composed to "fit" a melody. I'd assume the opposite much of the time.

Perhaps we misunderstand each other because we differ on these basic concepts. I assume some composers start with harmony and try to find a melody to compliment. That's an interesting concept that certainly helps expand my thinking and adds to the notion that music is anything we as a society want to call music. I am not sure I accept that most jazz was composed that way. As I understand it, jazz has its roots in brass bands of the late 19th century trying to gather crowds by "jazzing" up familiar melodies from marches and dance music. Many iconic jazz standards are adaptations of popular songbook of the 20's and 30's, that is to say melodies of the period. Even purely jazz compositions seem to come from melodic motifs and riffs, if the anecdotes are true. According to legend Billy Strayhorn wrote "A Train" from the sing-song he heard in Duke Ellington's instructions on how to get to his house.
Many players and instructors I have met over the years insist Jazz is about melody lines. Learn the melody first, listen to singers, then look at a chart. Clearly both approaches seem reasonable. To me, a melody first approach seems more in tune with my musical experience.
Given that melody first approach I was hoping there were some theories, formulas, or even just guidelines to help build cord progressions that would sound acceptable ( given culture and tradition) and not dissonant over a given melody. I was hoping for more than just trial and error. I was looking for something parallel to the theories about V7 chords resolving to I chords, or that a dominant chord can be substituted with a dominant built on the bV to increase tension but not sound completely dissonant, etc.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Many players and instructors I have met over the years insist Jazz is about melody lines. Learn the melody first, listen to singers, then look at a chart. Clearly both approaches seem reasonable. To me, a melody first approach seems more in tune with my musical experience.

Yeah. It's about the melody. The harmony is implied by the melody. Sure. Good melodies outline harmony. A lot of times people that are saying those kind of things are reacting to an overemphasis on running scales over chords or something.

But there's an assumption in what you're saying that melody is its own thing, independent of the harmony. Melodies aren't just composed out of thin air. They're shaped over larger forms and forms within. Those forms are largely shaped by harmony, whether simple tonic and dominant or more sophisticated harmony. The melodic patterns, harmonic rhythms and rhythmic structures all work together to shape the form of the melody.

Given that melody first approach I was hoping there were some theories, formulas, or even just guidelines to help build cord progressions that would sound acceptable ( given culture and tradition) and not dissonant over a given melody. I was hoping for more than just trial and error. I was looking for something parallel to the theories about V7 chords resolving to I chords, or that a dominant chord can be substituted with a dominant built on the bV to increase tension but not sound completely dissonant, etc.

Ok. Here's one idea:

"Melody notes on strong beats are more often chord tones than not". "Passing tones are usually between these".

Here's an exercise. Take a tune from a lead sheet, and circle the chord tones in the melody. Look at the patterns: On the strong beat or part of the beat, enclosures, anticipations etc. It's in the music. It's in the tunes. Use a lead sheet with vanilla changes if you like, just to keep things simple. I don't think you will, but that's your deal.

Why do 6251's work? Really? Did you even look at the excellent lessons I linked in my previous post? You keep talking about V7 to I as if you understand that. That's the most basic resolution in western harmony. Well, that's a chord resolving down a 5th. ii7 to V7 is down a 5th as well...and also vi7 to ii7... and so on and so on. The short answer may be "tradition", but it's also a pattern. There's a pattern (or formula if you're hung up on that) in the root movement of the chords that's very logical and mathematical if you really require that. If you want to really geek out on the stuff, all of those chords voice lead to other in almost exactly the same way as V7 to I.

That's backcycling! Backcycling is only one example. There are quite a few just as good, in that article. And yes, jazzers are hugely into harmonic forms, in and of themselves. Rhythm changes, blues of all types, and countless contrafacts of popular tunes' changes are the norm. Jazzers talk about larger forms.

I assume you're just trolling at this point. So, I'll leave you to it. If you want to have an actual conversation re. the content of the lessons which I linked, and which actually answer your original questions, great. But do some actual work on your part before you complain anymore.

[ronjazz]

Perhaps we misunderstand each other because we differ on these basic concepts. I assume some composers start with harmony and try to find a melody to compliment. That's an interesting concept that certainly helps expand my thinking and adds to the notion that music is anything we as a society want to call music. I am not sure I accept that most jazz was composed that way. As I understand it, jazz has its roots in brass bands of the late 19th century trying to gather crowds by "jazzing" up familiar melodies from marches and dance music. Many iconic jazz standards are adaptations of popular songbook of the 20's and 30's, that is to say melodies of the period. Even purely jazz compositions seem to come from melodic motifs and riffs, if the anecdotes are true. According to legend Billy Strayhorn wrote "A Train" from the sing-song he heard in Duke Ellington's instructions on how to get to his house.
Many players and instructors I have met over the years insist Jazz is about melody lines. Learn the melody first, listen to singers, then look at a chart. Clearly both approaches seem reasonable. To me, a melody first approach seems more in tune with my musical experience.
Given that melody first approach I was hoping there were some theories, formulas, or even just guidelines to help build cord progressions that would sound acceptable ( given culture and tradition) and not dissonant over a given melody. I was hoping for more than just trial and error. I was looking for something parallel to the theories about V7 chords resolving to I chords, or that a dominant chord can be substituted with a dominant built on the bV to increase tension but not sound completely dissonant, etc.

Look at the tunes, find the common points. Composition is not a solely intellectual exercise; it also takes into account all the music one has heard in a lifetime, as well as inspiration, experimentation, etc. Every composer works a little differently, even from piece to piece. You may very well be over-thinking it: most jazz musicians acknowledge that thinking is the enemy of fluid improv, which is, after all, instant composition.

[rlrhett]

Yeah. It's about the melody. The harmony is implied by the melody. Sure. Good melodies outline harmony. A lot of times people that are saying those kind of things are reacting to an overemphasis on running scales over chords or something.

But there's an assumption in what you're saying that melody is its own thing, independent of the harmony. Melodies aren't just composed out of thin air. They're shaped over larger forms and forms within. Those forms are largely shaped by harmony, whether simple tonic and dominant or more sophisticated harmony. The melodic patterns, harmonic rhythms and rhythmic structures all work together to shape the form of the melody.



Ok. Here's one idea:



Here's an exercise. Take a tune from a lead sheet, and circle the chord tones in the melody. Look at the patterns: On the strong beat or part of the beat, enclosures, anticipations etc. It's in the music. It's in the tunes. Use a lead sheet with vanilla changes if you like, just to keep things simple. I don't think you will, but that's your deal.

Why do 6251's work? Really? Did you even look at the excellent lessons I linked in my previous post? You keep talking about V7 to I as if you understand that. That's the most basic resolution in western harmony. Well, that's a chord resolving down a 5th. ii7 to V7 is down a 5th as well...and also vi7 to ii7... and so on and so on. The short answer may be "tradition", but it's also a pattern. There's a pattern (or formula if you're hung up on that) in the root movement of the chords that's very logical and mathematical if you really require that. If you want to really geek out on the stuff, all of those chords voice lead to other in almost exactly the same way as V7 to I.

That's backcycling! Backcycling is only one example. There are quite a few just as good, in that article. And yes, jazzers are hugely into harmonic forms, in and of themselves. Rhythm changes, blues of all types, and countless contrafacts of popular tunes' changes are the norm. Jazzers talk about larger forms.

I assume you're just trolling at this point. So, I'll leave you to it. If you want to have an actual conversation re. the content of the lessons which I linked, and which actually answer your original questions, great. But do some actual work on your part before you complain anymore.

Wow! "Trolling"? Really? You are clearly having an argument with someone else about something else. I'm pretty sure I never asked why 2-6-5-1 works, nor am I questioning how cadence works. I have no idea what you think I'm "complaining" about.
It doesn't really matter what I was asking. You've answered the question you wanted to answer and further discussion is clearly upsetting you personally. I guess you needed this thread to finish whatever argument you are struggling with. I can seek answers to my questions elsewhere.
Thank you for your input. You are 100% right about everything you have said. Further discussion is pointless.
I hope that helps and that whatever is upsetting you resolves in your favor.

[christianm77]

To be completely honest I've not had time to wade through every post here, so apologies if I haven't responded to, or am just repeating information given elsewhere.

My thoughts on what may help you. I think a process rather than info is the key...

1) Learn simple changes. The ones in the Real Book are already too complicated. Ralph Patt's Vanilla book has been mentioned on the forum on numerous occasions as a great resource for this.

2) Focus on standards to begin with. More modern tunes use a different style of harmony. To understand functional harmony, learning as many tunes as possible is a time honoured way to do this. It gets easier because you start to spot familiar patterns.

3) in standards harmony the function of the harmony is to support the melody. Golden Age songwriters generally worked lyrics --> melody --> harmony. Often the composer will write in a strong counter line - often more chromatic than the melody - that compliments the melody and forms the basis of the chords...

4) Learn to hear the one or two notes that makes a chord change go. Don't think about chords, necessarily, listen to the voice leading and the melodies within the chords as well as the bass line.

For example, the progression C-A7b9-Dm7-G7b9 has two important lines you can pick out - C-C#-D-D and C-Bb-A-Ab.

Guide tones (3rds and 7ths) are often useful for this, but they are not the only ones. Guide tones for example would be:

B-C#-C-B and E-G-F-F

5) Compare the Vanilla changes with what you see in more complicated charts (in the Real Book for example). See what conclusions you can draw regarding chord substitution and embellishment.

6) Theory - theory works best when it is used to understand real music. You will find that there are different ways of talking about the same thing sometimes. What is an altered scale harmony to one person will be a tritone substituted minor arpeggio to someone else. That's fine - go with what makes sense to you.

7) Functional harmony - majors and minors in a key divide into two categories - tonic (I, vi, iii) and subdominant (IV and ii) everything else (7, o7, 713b9 etc etc) is generally setting up one of these chords or a new key. Look at the way dominants and diminisheds move to different chords, and what types of movement are the most common for what. Dominants are sometimes use to set up dominants too, in cycle progressions.

8) Experience - play music as much as you can. I realise that now what I do is I look at an iRealB chart and I subconsciously strip away half of the harmony to see what's underneath - the basic structure. It seems simple to me, but when I try to explain it step by step, it gets complicated. I think it's what one could call experience.

[fumblefingers]

I would advise that you take some theory and then come back to this question. You already have a good base of knowledge to build on. You would probably be able to answer a lot of this yourself after coming back to it.

[matt.guitarteacher]

[COLOR=#333333]My thoughts on what may help you. I think a process rather than info is the key...

Excellent post.

[pingu]

its a deep deep question
I think the tune is itself the teacher

and each tune should be studied as
a thing in itself ...

"chords" are an intelectual construction
and in a way have too much baggage already

yeah vanilla is the way to go to get what is really going on with the tune

if you dig a tune then you already 'get it' emotionally ..

then we use our minds and ears to de construct it
and take everything away that is filler untill we're left
with the bones of the tune

like leonardo dissecting the human body in layers
to get to the bones ....
then building it back again to draw those incredible things

ps
that sounds incredibly pretentious....
but hey what can u do

[rlrhett]

Thank you all for your feedback. There is so much discussion on how chords relate to each other, it's hard for me to put that in the context of the underlying melody.
I did get a great tip from a friend I'll pass on: he suggested taking a familiar melody and harmonizing it with NO harmonic motion. For example if I had an eight bar melody in Cmaj, then play some form of Cmaj over beats 1 and 3 of each bar. For example if there is a C in beat one and an F in beat 3, he would suggest playing a second inversion C6 with the C in treble. Then perhaps a Cmaj sus4 on beat 3. So on for all 8 bars.
Then he suggested substituting a single G7 (or some embellishment that includes the melody note) in each of the sixteen possible places. Keep the ones I think sound good. Then substitute a Dmin for any of the remaining Cmaj. Again keep the ones I like. Then substitute a Amin for any remaining Cmaj, especially before a ii chord. So on and so forth adding complexity until I'm satisfied.
It is still a bit too trial and error a system for me to love it, but at least it's a way to start!
Does anyone one else have a system they use for composing a harmony for their melodies?

[Cunamara]

I accept your answer, of course, but I'm disappointed. Considering all the possible chords that could contain a particular melody note picking one at random until it sounds good is a daunting prospect.

Well, it's not that daunting. There are four chords to consider first: the ones with the melody note as the root, 3rd, 5th or 7th. That covers most of the situations and those are pretty easy to find. Then consider the melody note as the 6th. In terms of standards those five chord positions will apply to 95% or songs. "Jazz" songs like "Recorda-Me" or "Naima" may have the note in other places (#5 or b5, b13, etc., but less commonly).

But that doesn't really answer your question. It's only the "chord of the moment" and not the progression or cadence. When you look at chord progressions, look at the root movements. That's how a lot of chords are chosen in terms of the roots, then the quality of the chord (major, minor, dominant, diminished, half-diminished, augmented) is chosen by the melody and the emotional tone that is desired.

I get that in reality that means identifying common one or two bar melodic motifs and coming up with favorite harmonic devices for them. Guided by traditional progressions, this wouldn't be impossible, just dissatisfying. I just memorize dozens of these, practice them, an use them where applicable.
As I said, my mind resists doing things because that's how I memorized it. That's partly true because if I understand the why I remember much better. Otherwise, I can't remember my own name! I was hoping that there was some guide that could teach me something like, " a two bar melody that starts on the major third an ends on the sixth implies a ii chord of a ii-V-I progression."

Well, the "rules" aren't that tight but you can suss them out just by looking at a dozen or so standards and looking at them and analyzing what's happening. But look at the notes as relating to the chord tones, rather than to the key (e.g., when you are thinking of the 3rd or the 6th), because of jazz's tendency to shift tonal centers throughout a progression.

[Grendle]

I like your suggestions, especially the third one:It's simple, basic but makes for good practice...thanks
Jazz Blues Tritone Chord Substitutions

[austin]

If I'm constructing a harmony from a melody the first thing I do is determine the key that is outlined from the melody. The harmonised chords from that key or scale become my first port of call for chord choices. If I want more tension I will reharmonise a chord, or pivot into a key modulation. But what mostly informs my choices is how the voices in each chord lead from one to the next, and I think that is what many if not most composers are listening for.

"I was fascinated with contrapuntal sounds. I wanted lines to move, I wanted things to happen, and I wanted to treat every note in each chord - every voice - as if it were a melody. But not disjointed. Each melody had to make sense as much as possible, with the bass line being the most important." - George Van Eps