Head's melody as tune's backbone

[christianm77]

Then I guess I'm a bebopper! That's how I think on this tune. Plus some Django and Brian Setzer licks thrown in just for fun.

But it's a 'burner' tune, no? I usually use it as example when 'melody as backbone' doesn't apply, at least for me. Go and shred and have some fun, show off your chops! I know, it's heretic on this thread, but if I hear a player tune after tune hiding behind the melody, I might start to think their really just don't have enough chops haha

Sure. But your burning chops will vary according to background.

Swing players might well opt for pent+blues+line cliches

A bopper might lean heavily into the ii Vs/dominant vocab

A modern player might use Chord scales or crazy superpositions

And a really great player might give you a history of jazz in their solo (I can think of examples on Rhythm Changes)

[alez]

Yeah.

So back in the day, tunes were often written from the point of view of 'diatonic melody chromatic harmony'
[...]

I really enjoyed reading this post. I have never approached tunes from any perspective other than the music itself, so I totally lack the historical perspective, which in view of this is so important. It's so good to check the things you describe on the tunes I've been looking at. They mostly conform to one of the descriptions you've given.

Notice that Aebsersold has kept the chord symbols here bare bones - just the basic chord quality, no extensions.

This comment could easily become a specific thread. Different fake books tend to follow different approaches. I guess Aebersold sits at one extreme and tends to focus on the composition. At the other extreme is the New Real Book series, which focus on the way a particular performer played it in whatever recording, accurately.

This is NOT how the song was written (Noble was a classically trained composer from the 1930's, and this stuff is a post-modal jazz concept) but it is a way to interpret what's going on for improvisational resources.

And of course that's what jazz is all about... I mean, so many jazz standards have their origin in simple old folk songs, for example.

Melody oriented players such as Peter Bernstein have some element of unifying melody with the chords in this way even if they might not think in chord scales per se. In fact chord melody guitar ENCOURAGES one to think this way, as does a piano style with the two hands working together rather than separate (i.e. Keith Jarrett as opposed bop or stride).

Wow, I was thinking Jarrett as I was reading this paragraph and bang, you mentioned it.

Summary

In general I would characterise the history of mainstream jazz harmony as --> diatonic melody based --> chord only --> unified chord & melody. If that's not too Hegelian...

Hegelian or not, it works for me Thanks.

Since then music has seemed to sound like chord progressions were composed first in a more generic way so that they fairly stood on their own, if even a bit more pedestrian, and the melody lines were added after to fit the already existing chords. This sound is, in my opinion, becoming increasingly pretty lame, but characteristic of the modern approach in which progressions of three or four chords are used to make zillions of songs that, to a musical ear, are sadly recognized as just more awful variations of the same machine-like songs. The lines, especially modern vocal lines, sound like someone oblivious of melodies was assigned to write them using a CST program, and vocalists convinced to sing them... they sound quirky, goofy, not melodic.

To me, smooth jazz for example does not sound melodic; it reveals strongly the algorithm of simple chord progression first, then the wanky attempt at applying a selection from a store of safe bolt-on melodies after. It has the sound of good studio musicians suffering poorly contrived machine music with the obligatory style control switch set to "Sounds like jazz!".

This rant really made me laugh

I found a way to quote Thunderstruck on Swing 42 or Crazy Train on Douce Ambience btw, to a pretty enthusiastic response. I wouldnt make them backbone of the tunes though.

Ha ha, yeah, just don't make that the backbone of your soloing

"Bebop is the music of the future"

- Barry Harris

(Google if you've not heard of him)

I guess what's important here is when exactly he said that, because I understand this guy has been around for quite a few decades now

I like happy sax land too! Charlie Parker is the most joyful sound I know.

What say you?

(Did not mean to hijack post)

Please do hijack post.

[...]
And a really great player might give you a history of jazz in their solo (I can think of examples on Rhythm Changes)

Yes, that has to be a really great player.