-
Well, I didn't go to Berklee, but I think this:
Originally Posted by eh6794
No good songwriter lets the harmony lead, 'modern' or no. Better to harmonize melodies than melodize harmonies.
I think Stephen Sondheim or someone else smart said that the harmony should be attractive---not dominating, attractive.
I think if one's melodies have strong, suggestive chord tones the changes will pretty much write themselves. I also don't believe in 'unrelated' chords. Non-resolving, perhaps....
-
09-10-2016 08:23 PM
-
That's an approach. Not THE approach. There is no right or wrong answer...
This is not a factually correct statement. Originally Posted by fasstrack
-
Why? Elucidate, please... Originally Posted by jordanklemons
-
Heck, many of the tunes that are the basis for "modern jazz" as we know it are contrafacts.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jazz_contrafacts Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
Not that they are an authority on everything...
-
Because it's just not factually true. There are some fantastic songwriters and giants in the voice of the modern jazz community that I happen to know for a fact utilize this approach sometimes when composing. If it's not your cup of tea, that's cool. But to shut it down by saying that nobody good lets harmony lead just isn't true. And it shuts down a perfectly acceptable approach to creating music. Originally Posted by fasstrack
And Jeff makes a good point regarding contrafacts... though that wasn't the original intent of my comment.
-
I didn't shut it down, just gave my opinion and said it was opinion. Never meant to infer that other approaches are not acceptable. If it came across that way I apologize. Perhaps I came on a bit strong. Originally Posted by jordanklemons
I'd like to see some examples of what you are indicating. I respect your opinion, but would like it fleshed out a bit more.
I admit my melody-first bias. I'm strongly melody-driven in playing and writing, just the way I'm put together. To my way of thinking melody and rhythm are related and the main event in the composition, and the harmony supporting. Of course there are exceptions. Perhaps that sounds old-fashioned, and perhaps I'm old-fashioned (I love the moonlight..).
You probably aren't going to like this much either, but IMO a lot of what loses my interest in not all but much jazz improvising and writing in, say, the last 40-50 years is a certain harmony-first emphasis. Of course there are great harmonic players and composers. Chris Anderson is an example of a player that orchestrates as he improvises. I think he was phenomenal and unique. Woody Shaw was pretty harmonic, playing and perhaps writing, and wonderful. I don't know how Wayne Shorter writes. I sure would like to. But to me thing of putting the harmony 1st possibly invites a danger of getting away from the heartbeat of the thing.
But I may change my views, and hearing a really strong player or writer with a wholly different take than my own or people I respect often gives me pause to re-examine my thinking. For example, I was turned onto this guy Reinier Baas here today. Very different than what I usually go for, but the MF blew my mind. I thought he was amazing, possibly a game-changer. I put his videos up everywhere I could.
I went on a bit long. Peace out, brother...Last edited by fasstrack; 09-10-2016 at 11:29 PM.
-
Is not every ii v i or blues tune harmony first?
So good we have young cats mixing it up. I love the ones infusing their national music (Greek, Polish etc) into the equation.
Jazz is smokin' at the moment.
-
Good point about blues, lyric-driven too. Originally Posted by gggomez
Yes, jazz is smokin'. Internationally. People are finally getting away from the idea that you have to play American to play 'right', and delving into their own cultures as you say. This is healthy, and can only help the music grow, including over here...
-
When I try to compose, I generally use the piano, and try to play a melody against a bass line. I play them together and explore the possibilities. I inevitably write better melodies in this fashion than just trying to write the melody alone. The bass provides an interval foil for the melody.
Once in a while I get the whole enchilada. Just sit down and it all just flows, which is my favorite compositional mode, but you cannot always wait for that to happen. Simply be grateful when it does. And this seems to occur unexpectedly at four or five in the morning usually, though I have had the experience of waking up with a melody in mind where the harmony just flowed almost effortlessly with lyrics as well.
I realize that this is a discussion about "advanced harmony practices", but if it is not out of place, I have a question for you all. My favorite composer of "jazz" tunes besides Hoagey Carmichael is Jimmy Van Heusen. I think his tunes are rather remarkably inventive in the way he shapes his melodies and the harmonies. I think the best songs always have a kind of 'surprise' moment where there is something you don't expect in the melody and chordal progression. A twist. In any case perhaps you all might feel that JV Heusen is too conventional for this discussion but when you consider his extensive catalogue of standards, I think he was a fantastically successful composer.
-
I think I might agree with you on the last sentence. I may be wrong, but is Inner Urge could be example of such unrelated chords progression? Originally Posted by fasstrack
-
A tried-and-true approach, melody with bass. It's also important IMO to have the lead voice and bass line reckon out in ways that avoid unisons. There are better choices, like contrary motion when possible. I tend to do that when a melody is ascending scale-wise. Example, off the top of my head: I did a chart on J.J. Johnson's Lament. Where the melody goes F G A Bb (bar 9) my bass line was D Db C C. Nothing earth-shaking about that. Composers have been doing it for centuries. Originally Posted by targuit
I love Van Heusen too. I think the changes to Here's That Rainy Day have perhaps been changed in usage, and not for the better. I like G Minor for the first chord rather than G major, as the lyric is sort of sad. Then, after the Eb Maj 7 (bar 3) I would almost bet he either stayed on that chord in bar 4, or went to Eb 7. The Ab Maj 7 in common use sounds a bit vanilla to me.
I also recommend songwriters look into Alec Wilder's (another terrific composer) American Song. He is strongly opinionated, and you may not agree with them all, but he presents highly intelligent discussions of many major songwriters in the ASB canon...Last edited by fasstrack; 09-10-2016 at 11:52 PM.
-
Dunno. I never could play s%^t on that tune anyway (insert rolling eyes emoticon here). Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
BTW, some excellent (prose) writers here. I am greatly enjoying each and every one of youse..Last edited by fasstrack; 09-10-2016 at 11:33 PM.
-
I didn't realize you meant your original comment as opinion, as you never used that word. You did state "Well, I didn't go to Berklee, but I think this:" Originally Posted by fasstrack
Which I see now could be interpreted as a statement of opinion... had I not missed it. Though you follow it up with a rather strong statement that doesn't lend itself to an opinion interpretation.
"No good songwriter lets the harmony lead, 'modern' or no."
That's just seems like a clear cut line in the sand. Not... no songwriters that I like let harmony lead. But no good songwriters let harmony lead.
As for examples. First off, the basics... like Jeff mentioned... contrafacts. Also, we all improvise melodies over chord changes. And improv can be said to be a form of spontaneous composition when done masterfully. To say that you have to start with the melody and then build the harmony implies that that form of playing would be an impossibility. Because it requires that we begin with the harmony and create melodies specifically for that harmony.
As for the player(s) I'm talking about. I didn't join this site to be a name dropper. Just to share ideas and find out what others are working on.
It literally just so happens that I got to spend a couple of hours last week with a guy who I would classify as a major voice in the modern jazz scene and (in my opinion) an incredible songwriter. I've been dealing with some health issues (most recently neuropathy in my hands and fingers - numbness) and he was kind enough to share some ideas and advice and brainstorming with me as to how I can continue staying in the music given that I can't play guitar. His advice was very personal and was not something I saw in a youtube video of a masterclass, and I don't feel it right to share it, as I've never heard him talk about this part of his process publicly... and it's not my role to do so for him. But it was a harmonic first approach. And one that I've been thinking about a lot since our talk. I asked him if he ever used this approach in his own writing, even picking out specific albums and tracks as having the sound to my ear that it could have come from that approach... as most of his tunes sound melody first. He said that he does write melody first sometimes, but that this was a big part of his compositional approach.
That's about as much as I can offer. Again, if it's not your cup of tea... that's fine. Don't even think about it. But it is a valid approach... and one that EVERY great improvisor utilizes when creating new melodies, and one that at least this one super talented songwriter utilizes as part of his process. And my guess is, that many others do as well.
Sorry if that's not enough to elucidate to the depth you were hoping for. It's just not something I can share 100% of in a typed out, public forum.
-
Oh, and lastly (it's late... ideas are floating in and out of my head)... any great large ensemble/big band composer would have utilized this approach (to some extent) when writing shout choruses for their tunes. They write the A section, the bridge, the solos, the background melodies, etc... and then often times would write new melodic material over the original harmonic material to exit the solos and re-enter the tune before probably restating the original melody and ending the tune. So that would be another example of this approach in action.
-
Point taken about drawing a line in the sand. You are right: probably I should have said 'no songwriter I like'. Originally Posted by jordanklemons
I asked for examples, not names. Don't want to make anyone uncomfortable, and I respect your not wanting to drop names. I used names myself only where pertinent in making a point.
I'm going to mull over your responses to me today because you are quite smart and impassioned in your views (as I am---the impassioned part that is), and if something resonates I will adapt my thinking. I'm here to learn like everyone else.
I wish you the best with your current health issues. Sorry to hear about this, and I hope they are short-lived. A lot of my friends are going through this because we are getting older, and it sure is a f^&*ing drag.
Over and out, bedtime for this little guy. Maybe we can pick this up another time...
-
I take it you mean contrafacts by 'this approach'? Or am I wrong? Originally Posted by jordanklemons
-
Jordan, I hope you can find relief from your malady and get back to yourself musically. My heart goes out to you, brotha.
-
I know that I write harmony first. I try to make the melody as clear as possible, but I feel this is a classic guitarist's crutch. Originally Posted by jordanklemons
I was always given to understand that from the perspective of 'real' composition (i.e. classically trained composers) that this was a bad way of doing things. Thing is classical composers write melody first and harmonise after. The people who wrote the American Songbook by and large compose this way and this may be why these songs are so renewable.
That said, jazz composers often write the other way around. This is understandable in part because the pedagogy is so based around getting people to solo on progressions. Compositions will tend to be written in this way too.
I get a bit bored with this TBH. Middle eastern music has helped to get another perspective, because there is really no harmony in that music, and the melodic line encapsulates the entire composition (a bit like bebop), and that fascinates me. Also common practice music is really interesting because I think the teaching I have come against regarding functional harmony and tonality in jazz has been geared towards improvising on changes rather than composition.
IMO one special challenge for a composer in the jazz field is to find interesting ways of incorporating improvisation - again studying musical history and other cultures can give ideas beyond the usual 'play the complicated arrangement and then solo on the convoluted changes' style of jazz composition. Not that that isn't fun sometimes perhaps in contrast to more song-like material.
That said I like contrafacts, because you can write something new, and then the improvisors will sound great because they are doing something very natural. I have to say beyond perhaps Allan Holdsworth I can't think of many jazz players who sound better on originals than they do on standards. Musicians like a challenge though, I know I do.
To be honest I don't take much inspiration for composition from contemporary jazz. I tend to listen to it more for the playing TBH and like it best when they play standards (I always feel vaguely guilty about that) but maybe that will give my own 'thing'.
Anyway I take the craft of composition pretty seriously, which is why I have trouble calling myself a composer. I simply haven't put in the hours. I write tunes.Last edited by christianm77; 09-11-2016 at 05:02 AM.
-
Yes, I would say so. I quite enjoy playing it though. It's a fun thing to put at the end of a set, after some beautiful old song. Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
-
I know that when I write songs, most often the harmony comes first ... but the song doesn't get finished if it isn't pregnant with melodic suggestions. Even as a rock guitarist, major chords and standard progressions don't cut the mustard for me -- in a sense, the harmony is the terrain, and the melody is the track wending its way through it.
So even starting with harmony first, how interesting a trail can I ever make if the terrain I lay out is prairie?
I've written a few songs which started based on a melody, and it's a challenge for me. In fact, I'm working on one like that now, I'm hearing in my head as a pseudo-Indian raga ... this thread is giving me a lot of food for thought regarding it.
-
I met a jazz singer who writes her own tunes. She said she doesn't think about any chord theory, she just comes up with those weird chords by ear. I've been practising it every now and then. It's fun to try and reharmonise a song with a set of seemingly nonrelated chords.
I always feel like a bad songwriter when someone tells me I shouldn't have a chord progression first
But aren't well chosen chords like a melody? Especially if you keep the voicings the same during the songwriting process? I guess the rhythm of the melody and the vibe the chords give it are more important than the pitch choices to me.
I try not to limit my melodies to the chords I have chosen by going away from the instrument for a second. I then have a melody that either can be used over the chords or not. If I have a good melody I'll let it lead the harmony and change the chords. Oftentimes the chords don't have to be changed at all.
I think mixing it up, having all these tools to use is a good thing though. I dig the kind of chords mentioned in this thread
-
And another thing....! :-)
Art is often about the exclusion of possibilities. Denying yourself the use of a certain resource. (Jordan's 4 note cell exercise anyone?)
That could lead you in some interesting directions harmonically.
-
Theres a video where Julian Lage says he doesn't always play what he hears but he's often inspired by something he played on the instrument out of curiosity. I feel like that is a huge part of how I come up with ideas. He mentions that unexpected sounds like this can lead you in a direction that you couldn't even hear in your head before playing it. Now that the chord happened you have a new direction in addition to what you heard before this chord
I also heard someone say that a composer shouldn't ask "can I do this?" but rather "what if...?"Last edited by mokapot; 09-11-2016 at 06:22 AM.
-
That was my point, though perhaps I didn't put it all that well. There's a reason these songs, symphonic strains, etc. have been sung and played, or whistled in the shower for years, and will be in perpetuity. Arguably they will be around long after certain less-than-approachable jazz compositions. Perhaps this is partly due to accessibility, but the combination of a strong singable melody coupled with an attractive harmonic underpinning, memorable lyric which resonates and maybe a catchy rhythmic hook make these songs palatable and loved even by people who have no musical skill or training. Short of dumbing anything down, I would like to write music that is approachable and perhaps remembered. Originally Posted by christianm77
That said, Jordan is correct: there are many ways to Rome, harmony-first being as valid as kosher food or wearing a hat and coat in winter.
I also take the craft of composition very seriously, as should be apparent to folks here. It really is my passion, and without mentioning names I am heartened and proud that my compositional efforts have been embraced by some writers and players I have a lot of respect for. So perhaps I am doing at least some things right. But I have much to learn, and often feel limited and frustrated by my somewhat narrow palette. I am intrigued, challenged and inspired by aggressively searching composers like George Russell and Bob Brookmeyer. They go places I have not, at least not yet. Joe Six Pack is probably not going to sing The Lydiot on the way to work anytime soon, but for the composer there are devices and tools used by writers like Russell et al that can take us to new places and help break old habits. Writing from cells, artificial scales, these are things I don't 'hear', but am curious to investigate. You have to jump into the cold water sometimes.
My own 'old habit' is this: I tend to write from titles. Often the first strain of melody is culled from the title and an imagined lyric using it. That seems to work well on a song level, but much as I love writing songs (including, for the past 10-15 years, lyrics) and am pretty decent at it I don't want to stay stuck there--as much as I won't let myself stay stuck in any one period or style playing jazz. There are enough self-limiting thinkers out there, including some friends of mine who I love and whose playing I like and respect yet don't understand their rather provincial thinking sometimes. I don't want to be that way myself. I'm not an innovator or re-inventor of the wheel, but I would like to absorb and make my own the many materials that are out there.
PS: Never did contrafacts as a rule myself, but I did write a tune once on the changes of Sweet and Lovely.
I called it Old and Annoying (cue comedy exit music)...Last edited by fasstrack; 09-11-2016 at 10:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
Has anyone ordered from white/blue/green/red...
Today, 02:55 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos