-
Well, here's a thing.... Most serious jazz musicians have had their playing critiqued and guided at important times in their development. They have practiced numerous exercises and patterns, and ways of sharpening and refining their technique and so on and so forth.
Composers have to go through the same process. You study counterpoint, harmony, orchestration, form and so on. You have your works critiqued by experts. I don't feel I have gone through this process.
I do feel there's a lot of legitimacy in classical technique. I think it is good to learn some in the same way as you would for your instrument. It gets your chops together even if you have no interest in writing fugues!
There are some people who write a lot and really get into the art of composition. I know some guys myself. And yet many jazz improvisors who wouldn't otherwise need to compose are in a position of having to write original material because of the way copyright law discriminates against the jazz musician's art.Last edited by christianm77; 09-11-2016 at 10:47 AM.
-
09-11-2016 10:39 AM
-
just learn from the people that YOU like and take it from there.....so what, different approaches.....melody/baseline fill in the cords....kind of a standard in pop tunes.....where did Sting and Miller come up with these great tunes?....Miller said in a workshop.....I was just messing around and found this little progression...Sting hears it and says...that's a song...it can be that simple o
-
I had great teachers, especially the late Bill Finegan---also a bit with Manny Albam and John Carisi. I always wanted to study with Brookmeyer, though I was afraid of his rapier mouth. Never happened, sadly. Jimmy Raney also encouraged my composing, being a wonderfully expressive and accomplished composer himself. Carisi intriguingly suggested I try writing pieces with only one interval, say 6ths. All were conversant in classical music and the masters. Bill was always pushing me to get scores by Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, etc.
Originally Posted by christianm77
But the guy who taught me the most about composing, repertoire and being a rounded musician was the late John Foca. John was a jazz accordionist as a teen, but had to stop due to back problems. So he played organ in a (horrible) club date band weekends and taught 40 plus hours a week out of his Mill Basin, Brooklyn home. They called him Johnny Solo in the club date biz, because his given name sounded like a curse over the mic. He was a composition and theory major at the Manhattan School, and studied under one Ludmila Uelelah, who BTW was not at all fond of jazz. He taught me about form and critiqued my pieces when I brought them in. He would suggest better chords and was the one who hipped me to the above-alluded-to avoiding unisons between lead voice and bass. He was a great teacher, and after a long teaching day his 'delinquents' like myself, Ralphie and Big Gary B. would knock on the door at midnight and hang out until he kicked our wild young asses out around 4 AM so he could finally get a little shuteye before beginning the next grueling teaching day. He would hold court and make sure we ate as we all had intense discussions about music and everything else, broke balls and asked questions about life. He taught me to be a musician and a man. I can still hear him saying, as he pinched my cheek, 'Shiminud. When are you gonna become a musician?'
I also went to a peer I respect, Glenn Mills, who is a hell of a writer and former Brookmeyer student. He had me do species counterpoint exercises, because it's a 'chop', and asked me to identify the main motive in a Beethoven piano sonata (which I failed to do).
All these things are foundation skills which cannot hurt regardless of the direction one wants to go in.
I am so lucky to have rubbed shoulders with these great men. I think about them almost every day...Last edited by fasstrack; 09-11-2016 at 01:55 PM.
-
I'm glad somebody does, because for me I don't even wanna try- it would be a disingenuous act. I can't barely stand listening to it, almost like fingernails on the chalk board. And I avoid playing something I don't have a feel for, no matter what everyone says I have to do to be a career musician. I don't exclude the possibility I will grow to like it at some point though, happened before... Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Ah I see. Sorry if I misunderstood. I was thinking and speaking about specific songwriters more than examples of process... so when you asked for examples, I took it to mean a list of examples of musicians who write this way. Originally Posted by fasstrack
I won't go TOO far into detail (for the reasons already listed, plus the fact that it was about a 2 hour conversation and it would fill pages and pages of typed word), but essentially it was just to experiment with the harmony first. With baby steps if necessary. Find a voicing that - stand alone - really catches your ear. Just something you can close your eyes and get lost inside of. Can be done on a piano, keyboard, iPad app, computer software, whatever. Just use your ears and go with the voicing. Then, do it again. It could be immediately following the first one, or it could be a week later... find a voicing that you really dig. They could be related, but there's ultimately no reason they NEED to be, as the exercise is to use the ear and to find harmony that absorbs you. Continue this process, writing down or recording each voicing as you go. Eventually, you're left with a harmonic structure. A lot can be done with this harmonic structure at this point depending on what the composer's goals are. At a certain point however, we will want to just sit and listen to it... maybe on loop. Maybe with some type of drum loop going on underneath it. Eventually this harmonic movement will start to become internalized and we can try and hear/sing/play melodies that weave through the changes. No different than if we were simply improvising over a chord progression... except the ultimate goal being to find a melody with a strong enough personality that we, as the composer, can fall in love with it and crave hearing it every time we play the tune.
That's the gist. With plenty of room for creative, outside-the-box thinking and approaches left for different individuals to tweak it and make the process their own if they so choose.
Also, thank you much for the well wishes!
Originally Posted by fasstrack
Man, that's actually a really interesting question that I've never looked into. I've never thought of the shout chorus in a big band chart in terms of a contrafact. But yeah, I suppose in a way, it sort of is. Any old school, big band, swing era guys on here know the history here? Did the idea of the contrafact evolve out of the shout chorus from big band charts??
As far as I know, the purpose of the shout chorus in a big band chart was effectively similar to that of a bridge in a standard. It just offers some new melodic material to the composition. The difference being that the form happens so quickly in a tune that we need a bridge to get thrown in during each chorus to keep things moving forward. Whereas the purpose of the shout chorus is sort of like adding a bridge to the entirety of the arrangement. If the arrangement is long and utilizing the same melodic material the entire time, the shout chorus gives the audience a break from "the known" and allows them to experience something new and unforeseen... much like the bridge. It breaks up the arrangement and lets the composer introduce some new melodic material into the big picture, and it's usually (or maybe always?) based on the harmonic movement of the tune itself. I would love to know if this is where the idea of the contrafact historically came from... if anyone knows.
-
Ouch. That bad, huh? Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
-
The well wishes are free, Jordan, and I offer them again. We need thinkers like you in music. Originally Posted by jordanklemons
As an addendum to what you said I lament the dropping of through-composition in a lot of current jazz writing. In the '20s and '30s, for example, writers like Don Redman, Andy Gibson and Ellington---to name just a few---used this to keep the pieces interesting and the musical ball changing hands. I especially like a piece by Nat Leslie (of whom very little seems to be known---I asked some experts and came away empty-handed) called Radio Rhythm. It was recorded by the Fletcher Henderson Orchestra, I think, in the early '30s. It just keeps percolating and building, hardly ever repeating any strains. It's exciting as hell.
Once, at one of his symposiums, I asked a well-known jazz critic I'm friendly with and respect about this disappearance of through-composition from jazz writing. Unfortunately, he gave me a BS answer that skirted the question and told me nothing.
BTW, I don't suggest here we go back to the '20s and '30s and earlier jazz styles. I just wonder what became of a useful way to sustain interest in the course of a composition.
And I just might try your friend's approach sometime. Anything to kick my own ass and take a journey away from same old same old...Last edited by fasstrack; 09-11-2016 at 03:32 PM.
-
I quite enjoy writing tunes starting with harmony, BUT usually that harmony will be attached to a groove and it's gotta be catchy, at least for me. Then I would work out some kinda melody on top, or better yet, I give it to a singer or a horn player I work with to write something on top. Writing with someone is really fun!
That being said, the modern harmony that tend to be harsh with unrelated chords just for intellectual purpose is not my thing. It's easy to say different strokes for different folks, but living in modern times and always look back in the past for inspiration is kinda tiresome sometime...
In one above post Christian mentioned writing compositions and tunes as two different things. I tend to think of all jazz standards as tunes, and that's what I interested to write as a composer, just fun tunes. I guess that makes composition more as a Classical property? Where do you draw the line between two?
-
Haha, yea pretty much! I saw a band playing this tune in a restaurant, they really stretched it out with long 'out' solos, I could see people at the their tables asking for the checks rather in a hurry lol Originally Posted by fasstrack
-
Thanks Joel, I appreciate nice feedback. Maybe I should, but I wouldn't know where to start looking? No connections in that area lol Originally Posted by fasstrack
-
Nah I disagree I think tunes/songs are proper compositions too in a way. After all frickin Schubert bro.
Standard songs are great compositions. Just because they are shorter than symphonies doesn't mean any less craft went into them.
Although.... It is a different skill...Last edited by christianm77; 09-11-2016 at 03:21 PM.
-
haha, yeah, ok, don't disagree with me, disagree with yourself Originally Posted by christianm77
"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."
-
And Jordan:
One last thing about swing era composers:
In 1984 I worked with a leader named George Kelly. He was a tenor player out of the Savoy Sultans, and a nice arranger. He made this recording of Don Redman's music:
The Music of Don Redman - George Kelly | Songs, Reviews, Credits | AllMusic
and was fresh off of a movie cameo in Moscow on the Hudson when we did this gig (with a great band) at the West End playing selections from the recording. (Bucky Pizzarelli was on the date, but didn't want to do the gig, so I was called).
It was a great experience playing Redman's music with these gentlemen of jazz. The most interesting tune, presented nicely by George, was Chant of the Weed. It is built from whole-tone scales, another device, possibly inspired by Debussy and/or Ravel---no longer in use in jazz writing.
Here's a clip of Redman's Orchestra performing it. And, yeah, the weed in question is 'that' weed:
And here's a great Betty Boop cartoon from the '30s with Redman and co. performing Chant, plus 2 other pieces, I Heard and How'm I Doing:
Last edited by fasstrack; 09-11-2016 at 03:26 PM.
-
Now you're just quoting things I said ;-) Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
haha, yeah, ok, don't disagree with me, disagree with yourself
"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 07:45 PM.
-
Try licensing it for film use. There are ways. You have to do a bit of research... Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
-
Not about use in big bands, but a good read nonetheless: Originally Posted by jordanklemons
Jazz Contrafacts and Jazz Reharmonization for Improvisers | jazzadvice.com
-
related or unrelated is how you (me or anyone else) hear it.. without this any chords are just unrelated sounds...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.
If the chords do not fit some common well-known theoretic concept then it means that probably composer still hear some realtions - it's not really necessary that he can explain why and how it works theoretically.
As per pratice..
I really like doing 'unrandomize the random' practice game...
I take a few occasional chords and improvize over them tryuing to make a melody throughout.
I try to focus on what I hear first but I also use any theory I know but mostly chord-scales realtions in this case...
It's reallly fun.
The melody you play in this case is impersonification of harmoy, harmony in this case is potencial.
-
It really can work both ways, and I think that I am not the only one composing who mostly does harmony and melody at the same time. Originally Posted by fasstrack
I also doubt that Debussy sat down with just a melody when he used the whole tone scale, and the same goes for how Shorter did. That didn't make the melodies any less good though.
Jens
-
I guess fasstrack meant mostly 20th century song-writing - and in this style it is really often true about domination of melody... it's just the tune after all.I also doubt that Debussy sat down with just a melody when he used the whole tone scale, and the same goes for how Shorter did. That didn't make the melodies any less good though.
I do not think it can be used for classical composers even when they composed songs (songs like Schubert's for example has nothing to do with modern pop song-writing even as great as Stevie Wonder or Cole Porter)
-
Originally Posted by Jonah
Ok, so all composers "modern or no" means 20th century songwriting?
And Wayne Shorter is a classical composer?
I don't know about Cole Porter, he uses IVm so much in places where it isn't dictated by the melody that I suspect he might have started with the chords take the beginning of Night and Day or how What is this thing is constructed?
But ok, I see now that I did not notice that this discussion was already really long.
Jens
-
Thank you. That's exactly what I meant. Originally Posted by Jonah
But I also didn't mean to infer that one can't start with a chordal idea or rhythmic hook or groove first and develop that. I really meant to say that you start with a germ---of any stripe---and the piece will reveal itself per that germ. (In my own case it's often a title from which springs the initial melodic strain). I revealed my own prejudices in so doing, and maybe limitations (self-imposed). I sort of jumped the gun, and should have thought it through more before responding. My bad.
A good idea is a good idea is a good idea...Last edited by fasstrack; 09-13-2016 at 07:52 AM.
-
Pre-rock 20th century song writers by and large, with some exceptions, were classically trained composers. Originally Posted by Jonah
Barry Harris points this out in one of his videos, having a whole go at the 'ii-V' thing. It's a significant detail, because the harmony is not seen necessarily as a backdrop - the whole thing is conceived together in one go (despite what I said above), actually.
A lot of the versions we play as jazz musicians are somewhat simplified in comparison to the original sheet music, especially as a lot of jazz musicians changes playing technique centres around ii-V's and ii-V-I's. Stella is a case in point. The original is Romantic piano theme, essentially. It's film music in the style of Rachmaninoff.
Depends on the tune/songwriter though.
Re: Wayne, yes Miles did credit him with being a 'real composer' didn't he...
-
And, guys, please call me Joel.
My mother did (among other things, some unprintable
)...
-
Sure... It can be any way...I don't know about Cole Porter, he uses IVm so much in places where it isn't dictated by the melody that I suspect he might have started with the chords take the beginning of Night and Day or how What is this thing is constructed?
Harmony may have also independent meaning - some 'colouristic' effect too... I think it's too complex to describe in details without getting into analyzing specific songs...
I just meant that the whole concept of pop song is more about 'making a catchy tune' first of all... they all keep it in mind more or less... just because it should sell better)))
Stevie Wonder uses extended harmonies often in a way independent from the melody often too but still it's the tune and basic harmony that is most important thing in his songs
No of course not... but jazz coming originally out of pop material - more or less kept this mentality of 'making it a tune' even in later days...And Wayne Shorter is a classical composer?
Again I do not say they think only about the melody... this is probably unconcious process...
-
Christian, you see I think for this point such a backgroud as classical education does not really matter much...Pre-rock 20th century song writers by and large, with some exceptions, were classically trained composers.
Barry Harris points this out in one of his videos, having a whole go at the 'ii-V' thing. It's a significant detail, because the harmony is not seen necessarily as a backdrop - the whole thing is conceived together in one go (despite what I said above), actually.
A lot of the versions we play as jazz musicians are somewhat simplified in comparison to the original sheet music, especially as a lot of jazz musicians changes playing technique centres around ii-V's and ii-V-I's. Stella is a case in point. The original is Romantic piano theme, essentially. It's film music in the style of Rachmaninoff.
there were plenty of music in Romantic era (or before) that also used a catchy tune to get the audience quickly: lots of vaudeville, operatic music, parlour songs and all... this tradition is coming from folk popular music... and if they apply some skills from professional training to it does not change the main character much.
there are some really simplistic songs by Mozart for example - obviously written on occasion and using the same trick of 'catchy melody'.. but there are also masterpieces like Abendempfindung that use complex harmonic development with modulations and all... Schubert brought a song to unsurpassed level in that sense... how about moving from E-minor to D#-minor right in the first line of the song? And then back immediately... and I do not even say what's going on after that (Der Fluss) Even this is very strong move and the melody here is absolutely secondary...
Reply With Quote
D'Addario Eclipse Rechargeable Headstock Tuner
Today, 01:55 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos