Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

RE: Chords (was Adrenalinn)

Title: RE: Chords (was Adrenalinn)
the same thing has happened with jazz.  gotta hand it to bach: he pretty much wrote the book on "music theory" without meaning to do so.
 ** don't you think that bach picked up a lot from other folks and then just made it his? he seemed to have at least borrowed from people like buxtehude and vivaldi, no?
>most people seem to start with a melody that would lead the harmony as it goes<

this is not always the case with traditional jazz. often, composer x will start with harmonically interesting chord changes (think giant steps, countdown, etc.) and the melody comes next.  it makes the most sense this way.  since the harmonic progression (changes) will be the basis on which composer/musician x will be improvising, the chords therefore have more significance than the melody and thus come first.  charlie parker wrote new melodies over old tunes, keeping the chord progression intact...although this has just as much to do with not wanting to pay royalties on tunes he played/recorded.

** well, i did say *most* - - not *all*. in my opinion, for parker the tunes were more a means to blow, not necessarily for being themselves; it was nice that they were good tunes, but not really necessary. a guy like ornette, on the other hand, doesn't really use chords - - neither did miles in some of his more modal moments. i think they're thinking more in *tonal areas* or some such. art pepper didn't know anything about chord theory for quite a while, it was all by ear. people who really play well through "rhythm" changes are probably not really thinking about the chords at all. but, i guess my original point is that the melody better really sing or the harmonic hipness may be of no real import. a real synergy is to be hoped for.