The Reharm Room

[SK]

My version wasn't even a version, but thanks. It was just a quick one with little thought, obviously. But cool that it led to a real version by you.

 

I recognized the Naimaism there, and it was a good use of it. BTW, I have no regrets over my 'writer's block' on this song, since I wasn't really trying to write one anyway.

[marino]

Here's a re-write of my Night & Day reharm, just for the heck of it!

 

Richard, I like the new version much better! I really dig some of the solutions you played om this one. Do you mind if I borrow a couple of ideas?

[Floyd Tatum]

Richard, I like the new version much better! I really dig some of the solutions you played om this one.

Thanks, Carlo.

 

Do you mind if I borrow a couple of ideas?

Do I have a choice?

 

Yes, you can borrow them, just be sure to bring 'em back in one piece!

 

[marino]

Do you mind if I borrow a couple of ideas?

Do I have a choice?

 

Of course... if you feel the slightest bit uncomfortable with it, I would avoid it carefully.

To explain myself a bit better, I like some of your chord movements. I'm not saying that I'm going to apply them to "Night and Day" or that I'm going to use them in the same order...

 

Here's an example:

 

I did a version of "All the things you are". I would have never thought to do that one, but I was playing it for fun yesterday, and I recalled Bob's idea to end the first section in A... so I started from that basic concept, and built an entire new progression around it.

 

The following audio rendition is completely schizophrenic... it starts with two chorus of blowing, going into hard swing for the second one... then, for some reason, I play a chorus of the melody with a bossa/latin feel. Don't ask... I don't know why either.

 

All The Things You Are

 

 

 

[Floyd Tatum]

Of course... if you feel the slightest bit uncomfortable with it, I would avoid it carefully.

To explain myself a bit better, I like some of your chord movements. I'm not saying that I'm going to apply them to "Night and Day" or that I'm going to use them in the same order...

 

I was joking, Carlo. I think we all borrow from one another, it's inevitable, and natural. I think we're all influenced by everything we hear. That's all I meant by my "do I have a choice?" comment/joke.

 

Yes, please, borrow away, I'd be flattered.

[SK]

That was unique and pretty, Carlo. Flowing, full of ideas.

 

I hope to also get to another version of this song soon.

[marino]

He he, thanks Richard - I used that as a sneaky way to introduce "All the things you are".

 

Truth is, I had never rehrmonized that song in its entirety, and Bob's idea gave me the the right input to do it.

[marino]

That was unique and pretty, Carlo. Flowing, full of ideas.

Thanks Steve!

The strangest thing of all is that I did it without a piano. (the reharm, not the audio ). I took a leadsheet from one of the Real Books, and did it during a dead moment, scribbling my changes over it, without a keyboard in sight.

What's even stranger, once I got to play it, it sounded pretty convincing - to my deranged ears, at least. I didn't change a thing...

A wonderful exercise!

 

I hope to also get to another version of this song soon.

Please do!

 

 

[SK]

Hardly worth the click, but since I haven't posted much recently (reharmer's guilt) here's something I did a while back on "Easy Livin". I wouldn't call it a reharm, but I improvised some kind of intro and a long outro, sort of a spontaneous composition.

 

Also, this is an old type tune, so the voicings are in that character more than "hip" or more modern. I also used a Rhodes patch, which ruled out some pianistics. Nothing exciting, just different.

 

http://www.divshare.com/download/4363603-b4e

[marino]

Very pleasant and intense, Steve. I agree that that song is rather hostile to any 'modern' harmonic treatment... perhaps WE could try! If we were able to do Night and Day...

:D

 

Btw the Rhodes sound is good. What instrument were you playing there?

 

 

[SK]

FP4, with some adjustments. Thanks.

 

For me, I don't think the tune necessarily deserves a modernized overhaul, but you're welcome to try if you like.

[Jazz+]

SK, "Easy Living" is one of all time my favorite tunes and I love what you did with it.

[SK]

Thank you, Jazz+! Glad you liked that.

 

Now there was a mention of writer's block a few posts back.

 

If anyone wants to know what that's like, I took the 3 most discussed tunes on the KC forum in the past weeks (Ipanema, Night&Day and Mr. Sandman) and put together this little 'writer's block training film'.

 

Yes... this is so wrong...

 

http://www.divshare.com/download/4366589-6a1

 

[Dave Ferris]

That to me sums up what this whole thread is about.

How we can take different influences and mold them into one beautiful tapestry of sonic nirvana.

I feel this reaches the peak of the summit as far as artistic achievement is concerned.

 

Almost perfect, except one key element is missing.

[SK]

"key element" restored...

 

"Sonic nirvana/summit"? Wow, thanks! I guess I can retire now.

 

And apologies to my fellow reharmonizers for being so immature.

 

This is what is known (in the 'industry') as a temporary meltdown.

 

 

 

[cnegrad]

Pure genius. There's just no topping that. My hat's off to you.

[SK]

Well, thanks cnegrad. I consider it my best work of the thread. (looking around for a puking icon here)

 

Hope this doesn't ruin the thread.)

 

 

[Jazz+]

Marino,

 

Your version of "All The Things You Are" was brilliant. What was your thought process for penciling in those changes away from the piano? Is your chart viewable?

 

J+

[marino]

Steve, man, I think you've worked too much... maybe reharmonized too much... :D

 

I'd suggest a couple of Beatles gigs, with no reharm whatsoever... Or maybe a week at a mountain resort...

 

(I'm joking, ok? That was pure genius! )

 

Jazz+, I'll write down those changes for you tonight. I have to go quickly now!

 

 

 

 

[moj]

SK that really RAWK! Fugu Jazz!

Easy Livin' - very nice to hear you on a Rhodes vibe. You must be a pretty good blues player, too.

 

Marino that was wonderful and really flowed. I really like how your piano sounds.

 

Dave - Nicely played solo on How Deep Is The Ocean. I think that's gotta be the most enjoyable way of playing, just play and see what you come up with.

 

Richard nice version of NnD. I'd like to hear it with a percussion track. too.

 

Legatoboy - Did you post a track, Con Alma? I couldn't find it.

[Floyd Tatum]

This is what is known (in the 'industry') as a temporary meltdown.

 

 

This is the dawning of the age of aquariums.

 

A labour of love, for sure!

 

Ha, Ha!

 

What synth did you use to get that really boss sax section sound? Or was it a sample library?

[Legatoboy]

Legatoboy - Did you post a track, Con Alma? I couldn't find it.

 

No MO, just 'These Foolish Things' a while ago.

 

These Foolish Things

[SK]

Carlo, I think I may just consider that suggestion of a week at a mountain resort. heh

 

Hey Richard. That was a tenor sax sound from the humble FP4.

 

LB, there's a purity and honesty in your playing. Plus you have a relaxed, nice sense of time.

[marino]

Marino,

 

Your version of "All The Things You Are" was brilliant. What was your thought process for penciling in those changes away from the piano? Is your chart viewable?

 

J+

 

Here are my changes (melody in original key of Ab):

 

| C#m7 | F#7 | Gm7 | C7 | Bm7b5 | E7 | Amaj7 | A#m7b5 D#7 |

| G#m7 | C#7 | Dm7 | G7 | F#m7b5 | B7 | Emaj7 | (G#m7b5 C#7) |

| F#m7b5 | B7 | Emaj7 | (Bb7) | D#m7b5 | G#7 | C#maj7 | % |

| C#m7 | F#7 | Gm7 | C7 | Dm7 (11) | Db7 | D7b9 | Eb7 |

| E7alt. | F7 | F#maj9#11 | (D#m7b5 G#7) |

 

While playing, I could have discarded some of the passing chords at the end of sections, added others, or treated some chords rather liberally...

 

About my "thought process", first thing coming to mind is, naturally, "easier done than said"... But actually, the process was rather schematic, so I'll try to have some fun explaining it:

 

OK, so as I have said, my ony starting point was to end the first section in A, so I wrote the first eight bars with that goal in mind. About the starting chords, I thought to begin with some dark/outside harmony, but suddendly modulate to a more light, open key (Gm-C7). After that, the Bm7b5-E7 fit like a glove both melody and progression to lead to A major.

 

The 'b' section is an exact transposition of the 'a' section a fourth lower, so I simply did that with the changes too. That led me to E major.

 

For the following section, the original stays in G major where the previous section ends, then modulates to E major... so I thought to stay in E major where my version ended, then modulate to C# major. I needed to use minor II-V cadences resolving to a major I to fit the melody... but that sounded good to me.

 

The final section is a variation of 'a' with a different ending and a coda, so I just started it like the A section and steered at the appropriate moment. I used a sequence of dominant chords going up chromatically (as opposed to the bebop circle of tritones, which goes down). That's a trick I've used quite a bit to try uplifting section of tunes a bit.

 

The resolving chord came naturally after that. Just like after a series of dominants going down semitones, you often find a closing major chord a further semitone down, I went a further semitone up... the last Ab of the melody worked pretty well as the ninth of F#maj9.

 

Lastly, I added some passing chords at the end of sections.. but as I said, I tend to treat those rather freely.

 

As you can see, I mostly used standard bop substitutions and tritones, with the big difference that I felt free to change the main tonal centers as well.

The most unortodox progression is in the third bar when C#m7 F#7 resolves to Gm7 C7... but even *that* is not so uncommon.

 

Of course, I tried to spice the harmony up with voicings and melodic phrases... but that's another story.

 

And about writing away from the piano, I guess it's just a matter of having worked a lot with harmony, and having the ability to hear in your inner ear. That said, I had a lot of fun, but I'm not religious about it... I write in all sort of ways, and if some part of the progression wouldn't have sounded as I imagined, I would have changed it without hesitation. It just happened to work.

 

Hey, looks like you've awaken the teacher in me! Sorry for the long post... I hope it will be of some use to someone.

 

Why there's not a symbol for the half-diminished chord on this f@ç*]#° computer keyboard...!!!?!

 

 

 

 

 

[linwood]

Above and beyond the call. Thank you, Carlo!!

[SK]

Very well delineated, Carlo, and thoughtful explanation.

 

I played your chords, so hope you don't mind... I'll try to give a little further analysis here which I don't usually attempt, except in a bird's eye type view. I'm sure this will prove to be most unacademic.

 

It's interesting: the Gm / C7 (or 3rd and 4th bars of the A sections) feel (to me) like unresolved passing chords leading to the next set of changes. That's just an observation, not a criticism.

 

That's a shift in the equilibrium from the original, where the song resolves on the 2nd bar on Bbm, the 4th bar to the key of Ab, and continues on to 'unexpectedly' resolve in C, like an addendum to the previous set of changes. The A section contains 3 separate key resolutions.

 

So the original A section resolves with two bars- one key - two bars - another key - and then 4 bars - a final key. Your new version is 8 bars of chords, all leading in various ways to one resolved key of A or E by the 7th and 8th bar.

 

In the original, the resolution through 2,5's to each key gives a specific momentum to the tune. Each resolved key becomes like an anchor, to be sprung from again. By having almost 8 bars of unresolved keys, the equilibrium is stretched broadly and actually becomes a different musical experience.

 

Now of course, that's all a matter of personal taste, with lots of possibilities. Yours was very creative and honestly wouldn't have occurred to me.

 

This was just to show how people may look at the same material differently, or as to what they consider in approaching a rewrite. And Carlo, I applaud your creative treatment.

[Floyd Tatum]

Why there's not a symbol for the half-diminished chord on this f@ç*]#° computer keyboard...!!!?!

 

ø

 

It's not on the keyboard, but, does that help? Does that symbol show up at your computer? Here, it looks like a half-diminished symbol.

[marino]

This is going to get interesting...

 

Well, first of all, thanks Steve - I'm flattered that you took the time to analyze my stuff. That said, I'm not sure I understood all your observations. I'll try to clarify my intentions on the specific places you mentioned, so you can understand whether I understood... or not.

(Gosh, it's late night, and my English is falling apart... )

 

It's interesting: the Gm / C7 (or 3rd and 4th bars of the A sections) feel (to me) like unresolved passing chords leading to the next set of changes. That's just an observation, not a criticism.

 

Well, what I did after the Gm7-C7 is just a false tritone - resolving a 'regular' dominant a semitone below (C to B), as it were a tritone substitution. The fact that it resolves to a II in minor key (Bm7b5) means that the modulation is very close: F major to A minor - just one fifth apart on the circle.

 

 

That's a shift in the equilibrium from the original,

 

Sure. The whole reharm can be defined as such!

 

 

where the song resolves on the 2nd bar on Bbm, the 4th bar to the key of Ab, and continues on to 'unexpectedly' resolve in C, like an addendum to the previous set of changes. The A section contains 3 separate key resolutions.

 

So the original A section resolves with two bars- one key - two bars - another key - and then 4 bars - a final key. Your new version is 8 bars of chords, all leading in various ways to one resolved key of A or E by the 7th and 8th bar.

 

Now, *this* is where I have trouble following you. Let's clarify that when I speak about the 'original' changes, I mean the simplest set of changes that's usually played:

 

| Fm7 | Bbm7 | Eb7 | Abmaj7 | Dbmaj7 | Dm7(b5) G7 | Cmaj7 | % |

 

Of course you can substitute dominants for the II etc. while playing, but if we are talking the unadulterated above progression, to me it's VI-II-V-I-IV in Ab, followed by II-V of C or C minor (depending if you play the Dm7b5 or not), then I of C.

What I mean is that I can't see the key change in the first two bars. Maybe you're used to play a different version of the changes? That's very possible.

 

 

In the original, the resolution through 2,5's to each key gives a specific momentum to the tune. Each resolved key becomes like an anchor, to be sprung from again. By having almost 8 bars of unresolved keys, the equilibrium is stretched broadly and actually becomes a different musical experience.

 

That's quite clear. After all, it matters little if there are two or three key "anchors" in the original 'a' section, since your observation seems to be about the fact that my version has only one... well, that was precisely my intention... I mean, I wanted to keep that melody in perilous waters *until it stays diatonic*, and resolve/anchor it just when it goes out of its original path.

Admittedly, I used rather extreme changes, especially in the third bar... but that's the effect I wanted: To start dark and dense, suddendly open a lighter landscape, and build from there. It's something I learned in part from my fellow Roman (and stellar jazzer) Enrico Pieranunzi, who use to do similar things a lot in his original compositions. I'm a big fan of him.

 

 

Now of course, that's all a matter of personal taste, with lots of possibilities. Yours was very creative and honestly wouldn't have occurred to me.

 

Well, I don't think this is a bad thing... I, for one, I've enjoyed several solutions in your reharms, which I would have never thought by myself... this is how we learn from each other, I believe.

 

 

This was just to show how people may look at the same material differently, or as to what they consider in approaching a rewrite. And Carlo, I applaud your creative treatment.

 

Thanks a lot... and please do not take this response as anything defensive; I enjoyed your observations, as I enjoyed trying to explain myself.

 

Gosh, I never wrote so much *about* music at once!

 

 

[marino]

Why there's not a symbol for the half-diminished chord on this f@ç*]#° computer keyboard...!!!?!

 

ø

 

It's not on the keyboard, but, does that help? Does that symbol show up at your computer? Here, it looks like a half-dimished seventh symbol.

 

Yeah, it shows on my screen, and yeah, that's exactly what I would have needed while typing all those changes. Is there some hidden command to type it? For my Internet computer, I'm using a rather cheap keyboard...

 

 

[SK]

Man, Carlo, glad you didn't feel any need to defend because I wasn't being critical. The whole belabored point was for comparisons; to show our different thought processes on how to approach changing the same tune. Not a matter of right or wrong, and certainly not bad. And I was hoping for 'interesting' there, not confusing. Sorry to put you through that!

 

You understood most of what I was saying, but (ah) I think I found where the perspectives differ just now...

 

Yes, regarding the unadulerated original changes, you perceive them as a numeric chord progression leading to Ab, which technically is correct.

 

Now this is going to be tough to explain, but it's my own fault for trying to anyway, so here it is:

 

When a composition is complete, we can look at the chord symbols and assign their value, as a II, or a IV, for example, based on the direction and chords they ultimately lead to.

 

It's a subtle difference here. From a strictly ear perspective, playing in the moment, one tone leads to another, and you're free to go anywhere at any moment.

 

There is a different impact when you only hear the first two chords - Fm to Bbm. At that point, it hasn't resolved to Ab yet, so the emotional feel is a brief resolution in the key of Bb minor. Rhythmically that's borne out too, by the way the time pauses on the Bbm, the Ab, and ultimately the Cmaj7 - as though these are each moments of some brief resolution.

 

So if we heard two chords, Fm to Bbm - and the room blew up and we didn't hear the rest of the song, we might not think that was necessarily part of a progression in Ab.

 

Can't believe I've gotten myself into this but my point was the stress of the timing of the lines with the sense of resolution at each of those points, even though they are a progression in Ab after the fact, give the hint of resolution to me.

 

So in a new reharm, I might try to preserve that effect for tentative resolutions, but change the chords to new resolutions. And you chose to look at it as a series of longer progressions for chordal substitutions throughout leading to A or E or Db, which is certainly commendable, logical and brilliant in its own way.

 

For emotional effect, I take one note and moment at a time to consider the next one, as though the rest of the song hasn't been written yet. And in spite of the fact I 'know' where the rest of the tune is supposed to go.

 

So I try to preserve those spots or hooks that seem to identify the tune. Your approach was a grander, more elaborate reharmonization with many more harmonic possibilities, which I thought was fascinating - and maybe another reason why our reharms sound different. And I'm glad they do!

 

Whew! This was about perspective only, and the most I've written about music in a long time too. If it still doesn't make sense, let's go vegetate in the BossAquarium and forget all about it.