You've written a great head. Now what?

[Jay Norem]

I'm finally to the point where I'm getting a group together that will play my music, 100% original jazz music. Now that I'm there, I've been listening to the songs and something hits me in the face: my solo sections sound similiar to each other. So I listened to some of my favorite jazz records and came to much the same conclusion. It's not the players. They're doing all kinds of great stuff. It's what they're improvising on.
So what can be done, once you've written a great head, other than use the harmonic material you've compiled thus far in order to compose the solo section? You've got a bunch of chords (I know this is putting it simplistically) and you give each chord one measure, or something...I should probably mention that my music is very much in the hard bop-post bop type of whatever you call it.
Maybe I'm thinking about it too much, but this is, after all, the life blood of jazz. What you solo over, yeah? Anybody got any thoughts on this? Come on, of course you do (can't wait to hear from my man Phil.)

[Jay Norem]

Okay maybe this will work. I've got a song with a pretty cool little head thing happening, quarter note=230. The changes for the A section are:

B7#9 C#7#9 F#7#9 B7#9 C7#9 C#7#9 A13 E7#9 C7#9 F13 C#7#9 C7#9

So I've got 12 chords here that work just fine with the melody in the A section, which is 5 measures long. Now I like to keep things simple so I decide to limit myself to those 12 chords for the solo section I have yet to work up, leaving the B and C sections out, just to give one example. Since the melody of A goes through several meter changes it doesn't seem practicle to have the guys solo on the actual form of the A section, so I need to come up with a solo section using these chords but cast in 4/4 time, to keep things simple and grooving. In the past I've tried giving an equivalent number of bars to beats for a chord, for example if the first chord is played for four beats in a measure of 6/4 that chord gets four bars in the solo section and so on. It can sound quite cool but it just further complicates things. And I've given each chord one measure apiece, giving me a twelve-bar chorus that repeats until the soloist is done, simple but not all that creative.
Seems to me that the original harmonic material dictates what the soloists will use for their improvisations, in keeping with the integrity of the song. I've always written this way. But there are, I am convinced, as many ways to do a thing as there are people to do it, so I ask again: what do you people think?

[Jakeweiser]

it's an interesting problem. I think, for me when I write a tune I don't think about the improvisational aspects until it's the last thing I do with it, Unless I'm writing a tune with it's intent, obviously to be a blowing tune (simple melody with fun changes especially for blowing).

Ideas maybe...

Modulate to make soloists have a fresh key to blow over, modulation works in all other forms of music to create interest, why not solo sections in jazz?

Very specific Solo section material in terms of rhythm section hits, 2 feels/broken feels vs 4 feel. Example, you can orchestrate very intricate rhythmic shots for the soloist on his first 2 choruses and then let it fly on the top of the 3rd time through, I always think this really kicks the energy up through the roof, always great for good high voltage tenor players.

Write different changes entirely for the first solo, example being some sort of vamp somehow related to the tune if need be, then work your way through the form for other soloists.

Reharmonization is a fairly obvious thing you could do, especially with your plethora of Dominant chords, you could have the rhythm section turn over and play all their Tritone subs instead of the written chords, while essentially the innerds of the harmony stays the same, you do in essense have a new root movement.

Just some thoughts.

[Jakeweiser]

As a personal example, a Tune of mine that I've posted here before and have on my myspace page has gone through many solo forms and continues to grow, which makes it interesting.

Originally the form of the tune is ignored for the blowing and improvisation takes place over the tune's 4/4 bridge (as opposed to 3/4 A sections). In the recording, the first two solos are in 4 the last two are in 3 (to transition to the melody). My Quintet performed the tune with the first solo over the 3/4 bridge changes, 2nd solo over the entire form, last solo over a 4/4 bridge section, every section different, yet connected to the melody and it worked great.

[LDGuy]

The other thing to bear in mind is that if you have good blowers and a good rhythm sect, the changes dont necessarily have to be very logical to work. If you look at a lot of post-bop (anything from Wayne to Brad Mehldau) tunes can shift all over the place. The logic comes with solo line-leading and looking for common notes by soloists. Dont feel that your solo changes need to be built on conventional structures or what might appear obvious at the piano. It will make your tunes more difficult, but it can allow for variety of soloing - perhaps use different sections of more illogical harmonic movement contrasted with more usual changes. The contrast will make the more common changes sound more interesting.

An example might be a tune like Lament for Linus from Mehldau's AotT1. These are some pretty extraordinary changes, which create very emotive rising and falling figures. There are some 2-5's, but also a lot of switches and jumps which make for interesting soloing.

L.

[Jay Norem]

Very specific Solo section material in terms of rhythm section hits, 2 feels/broken feels vs 4 feel. Example, you can orchestrate very intricate rhythmic shots for the soloist on his first 2 choruses and then let it fly on the top of the 3rd time through, I always think this really kicks the energy up through the roof, always great for good high voltage tenor players. (Jakewieser)

Now I like this idea very much, for one thing because it continues the compositional approach all the way into the solo section. So why didn't I think of this before? I can see lots of possibilites with this approach. These rhythmic hits could come directly from the melodic syncopation of the head, for one. Cheers, Jake!

[Jakeweiser]

Nooooo problem. Just stuff whirling around my head. I took classes in Composition and didn't learn jack shit in them (maybe a few things but nothing realy). Composition is trial and error as you most certainly know already.

One other thing is feel changes, even subtle. I'm a huge kenny Wheeler fan, and on Aspire, the first track from "The Widow in the Window" each solo is over a different feel, same changes, and yet each feel is just very subtle... example

Melody is a slow March like feel
Kenny's Solo is broken swing but builds intensity and dies down
John Taylor solos over an almost latin 8th feel, Erskine uses brushes then it swings
John Abercrombie solos in a loose swing feel but his second chorus double time feel to kick it up again, everything has a very specific compositional arch to it and it really makes it into a masterpiece.

Throughout that entire album these ideas take place, a great album for anyone to check out as I've pluged it about a million times Hahahaa

[Tarquin1986]

Jake has already hinted at this but let me lay it out anyway. In tunes in odd time sigs people are generally aware that, for example, if you are in seven the band will be agreed on whether the feel is 3+4, 4+3 or 2+3+2. So why not apply this in 4/4. Divide your first 8 bars into 4 quavers + 4 quavers and divide the last 4 bars into 3 quavers + 2 quavers + 3 quavers. I've had success with this in the past.

[Jay Norem]

Jake has already hinted at this but let me lay it out anyway. In tunes in odd time sigs people are generally aware that, for example, if you are in seven the band will be agreed on whether the feel is 3+4, 4+3 or 2+3+2. So why not apply this in 4/4. Divide your first 8 bars into 4 quavers + 4 quavers and divide the last 4 bars into 3 quavers + 2 quavers + 3 quavers. I've had success with this in the past.

Not to come across as stupid, hopefully, but are quavers quarter notes? I'm guessing that you're British, or European. I'm pretty sure that quavers are quarter notes, but I have to admit that I'm not sure of this.
Also, none of my songs are in one meter or another. It's up to the melody how the meters work out as far as writing the chart is concerned, but I almost always cast my solo sections in 4/4, unless the tune is obviously in 3/4, for example. And I am convinced that it just takes up too much rehearsal time, and places too much pressure on the players, to get too fanciful with solo sections. Not to say that I am dismissing your point, not at all. And to take it further, everything I write is written with improvisation in mind. It is the old head-solos-head thing, which has always served jazz well. To me it is the essence of the music, the improvisation. It's very meat-and-potatoes, but I love meat-and-potatoes.

[Jakeweiser]

Hehe, yeah I always get thrown off, Quavers are Quarters, Semi Quavers are 8ths, then uh... Semi Demi Quavers?

I find that pretty interesting personally. I once had someone try to explain something about music to me in French and the system is fairly different as well, I think it's all based on Solfege

[LDGuy]

Hehe, yeah I always get thrown off, Quavers are Quarters, Semi Quavers are 8ths, then uh... Semi Demi Quavers?


Semibreve = whole note
Minim = half note
Crotchet = quarter
Quaver = 8th
Semiquaver = 16th
Demisemiquaver = 32nd
Hemidemisemiquaver = 64th
Semihemidemisemiquaver = 128th
... ad infinitum

(just to clarify)

L.

[Tarquin1986]

I'm Irish. I didn't realise these terms were a localised thing. Anyway, LD guy has the right idea.

[bassist]

Semibreve = whole note
Minim = half note
Crotchet = quarter
Quaver = 8th
Semiquaver = 16th
Demisemiquaver = 32nd
Hemidemisemiquaver = 64th
Semihemidemisemiquaver = 128th
... ad infinitum

(just to clarify)

L.


but WHY!?

does that come naturally to anyone? not only do the words not quite roll off the tongue, but it just doesn't feel righ tto me.
i am american, but i began taking piano lessons at a time when i lived in england, and my piano teacher talked with words that sounded like that... i could never get used to it.

curious as to where they come from and whatnot.
dan

[Jay Norem]

Yeah it really does seen counter-intuitive to the extreme, but then I'm American. "Crotchet?" Well, whatever works. What if an American goes to England to start a band and talks about quarters and eights? Would they know what he meant?

[Tarquin1986]

I don't know about England because I've never been there but I've understood both for a while now. I think I picked up "quarters & eights" from the internet while I learnt the other way when I was no older than ten so it does feel fairly natural now.

[Slant]

but WHY!?

does that come naturally to anyone? not only do the words not quite roll off the tongue, but it just doesn't feel righ tto me.

I'm American, and, as such, I was raised on the old whole, half, quarter, 8th, 16th, 32nd, etc. system. I've had a book by Gavin Harrison for some time, and, being British, he uses the "odd" terms as described above. I actually love that system!!! Here's why:

The system that I was raised on (and most people from the States I assume) IS LOCAL ONLY TO THE METER 4/4. Conundrum: even if you are playing in, say, 12/8, you are told to continue to use the nomenclature that is local to 4/4. So, we are told that there are 12 eigth notes in one bar of 12/8. DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE?? HELL NO. There are, in reality, twelve 12th notes in a bar of 12/8 (or just say "12"). Sounds strange, yes, but it's true. If you were actually to divide a bar of 12/8 into an even 8 parts you'd have quite a strange rhythm on your hands, and it would take time to learn for sure!!

Is anyone following me here?

Another example: how many 8th notes in a bar of 7/4? Most people will say 14. To phrase it another way: "there are fourteen 8th notes in a bar of 7/4". Does that make sense? Hell no!! Why? Because the term "8th" note IS LOCAL TO THE METER 4/4, not other meters!! But, because we don't have an alternative generic form of nomenclature, we apply the 4/4 terminology to all other meters. It's simple math, really!

Our system is actually the very strange one.

On the other hand, the term "quaver" (and the other associated terms) is much more generic, and therefore I can see how it would apply quite easily to any meter w/out confusion. The same goes for the other sub-terms they use.

Example: how many quavers in a bar of 7/4? "There are 7". Makes sense to me!! As opposed to: how many QUARTER notes in a bar of 7/4: "there are 7 quarter notes in a bar of 7/4". What???!!! The term 'quarter' itself implies 4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm glad this subject came up. It only further convinces me that the "foreign" system is better. I'm going to start using it from now on!

[Jay Norem]

On the other hand, the term "quaver" (and the other associated terms) is much more generic, and therefore I can see how it would apply quite easily to any meter w/out confusion. The same goes for the other sub-terms they use.

Example: how many quavers in a bar of 7/4? "There are 7". Makes sense to me!! As opposed to: how many QUARTER notes in a bar of 7/4: "there are 7 quarter notes in a bar of 7/4". What???!!! The term 'quarter' itself implies 4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Actually, there are seven crotchets in a bar of 7/4, or fourteen quavers. Right?

[bassist]

Slant-
yep, that'll do for an explanation! does the job good too! now, why couldn't i think of that?

anyways, thanks! there's one musical mystery solved in my book!
dan

[LDGuy]

I perfectly understand both systems, perhaps favouring the american when talking about jazz. Dotted-eigth, for example, seems to imply jazz to me, whereas dotted-quaver is too english. Just my own instincts though.

[Jay Norem]

I was thinking about requesting that we get back to the original topic, but now I'm interested to see where this is going. "Dotted-quavers" indeed!

[Morph]

Actually, there are seven crotchets in a bar of 7/4, or fourteen quavers. Right?

yep, that's it.

What do american's call a breve? (a breve is twice a semibreve and so 2x whole note)

[Jay Norem]

What do american's call a breve? (a breve is twice a semibreve and so 2x whole note)

Um...two whole notes, I guess.

[sooze]

I happened upon this posting because your original question was very interesting to me. I am trying to write original tunes for the first time and it has been so frustrating coming up with the right changes.

I have to admit that when reading about the quavers, I assumed that they were quarters as well and was not sure of the origin of that label.

After reading the replies, I have to say I agree with Slant in my experience.

I teach many kids and teens basic theory and trying to get them to think of dividing measures like they do with fractions works to a point. However, it is counter-intuitive when you have to deal with odd time signatures/compound meters.

Using a labeling system like the European system seems much clearer, sadly I will have to continue explaining why we call quarter notes quarter notes even though we may have 5 or 6 or 7 etc in a measure.

[Jay Norem]

I happened upon this posting because your original question was very interesting to me. I am trying to write original tunes for the first time and it has been so frustrating coming up with the right changes.


Hi Sooze - Now, I don't think there is any such thing as "right" changes, except insofar as they make the melody come to its full fruition, so to speak. Sometimes the right chord is a dissonance to the note of the melody, but if that's what the melody wants, that's what it gets. It's your universe you're creating.
One hears a lot about voice-leading and resolutions and so on, and if you're teaching theory then you're surely already aware of those considerations. But really, it's pretty much wide open territory for you to fill. One thing that helps me is to harmonize my melodies with a counter melody, and use that to choose my chords. I don't mean counterpoint, just a harmony, no matter how strange it may sound. Like I said, what the melody wants, the melody gets.
My problem remains one of what to bring to my solo sections. Jake had some really good ideas. You charge right into this forum and you'll get a lot of great stuff back. So, charge!

[Jakeweiser]

hehe, I've been bugging her to join for a year now ;)

Great point though... it's interesting to me how it reflects our popular music and how out dated the linguistics of it are at this point. For a long time Jazz was in 3 (6) or 4. Now people write in all sorts of meters. One of my teachers says 7 is the new 4.

Then again, I know from similar experience to Sooze that 90% of what kids learn in lessons is always in 4 time, with maybe every now and then a bar of 2 or something thrown in... except or like, highly arranged Metallica stuff

RAWK!!

:guitar:

[Jay Norem]

Hey Jake ( and everyone else) I just finished a new song and I wonder how you would approach this solo section. Tempo is quarter note=160. Each chord gets one bar.

C7#9 D7#9 C#7#9 F7 D7 G13 E7 C#7#9 C7#9 B7#9 C#7#9 E7 C-13 Eb7 (Repeat those 14 bars)
B7#9 Eb7 Bb7 C#7 F7 C#7 C7 Eb7 E7 D7

And that's the solo chorus, 38 bars. I'd love to put an MP3 up but I don't know how to do that on this forum (it says "You may not post attachments). The potential for substitutions is obvious, and it feels pretty good, sort of bluesy and Monkish, but it's not carved in stone yet. So...anyway.

[Jakeweiser]

Jay

I relish the chance to play with your changes a little bit, I think I have an idea at least of the vibe through your description.

I've just spent the last 3 hours trying to notate my own new composition and then arrange it for 3 parts plus rhythm and the meter changes are giving me finale issues which is frustrating because I'm normally pretty good with finale. At least I've trouble-shooted my way through and produced a lead sheet and arrangement after much frustration.

I will try my best to look at it in the afternoon :D

[Jay Norem]

I've just spent the last 3 hours trying to notate my own new composition and then arrange it for 3 parts plus rhythm and the meter changes are giving me finale issues which is frustrating because I'm normally pretty good with finale.

You know, I couldn't warm up to Finale. I use Encore.

[Slant]

yep, that's it.

What do american's call a breve? (a breve is twice a semibreve and so 2x whole note)

Morph,

I'm not sure what the answer to your question is (and there may be no true answer except for what Jay Norem stated), but this does remind me of yet another oddity of the system we use. There's a really stupid "catch-all" rule around the use of the whole note (and only the whole note). The rule goes like this: if you are writing in a time signature other than 4/4, the whole note is nevertheless used to apply to any bar in any other meter. In other words, in 9/4, 9/8, 3/16...any meter, really, the whole note means the same thing. It means that you hold the note for the entire measure, regardless of how many beats there are!

Example: if you are playing in 11/8 and you see a whole note in some measure, you are to treat that note as though it holds a value of eleven 8th notes, as opposed to its literal value of eight 8th notes, which is what is crammed down our throats as children! This rule, for whatever dumb-ass reason, is not applied to any other note other than the "whole". So here is one example when, for whatever reason, we feel compelled to interpret the term 'whole' in a figurative, non-literal fashion (which approach I personally prefer, but I recognize the total confusion it leads to). If, on the other hand, we stuck to our literal guns we'd fill an entire measure of 11/8 as follows: whole note tied to quarter note tied to an 8th note, or any equivalent combination thereof making eleven 8th notes.

Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!

[Slant]

Actually, there are seven crotchets in a bar of 7/4, or fourteen quavers. Right?

Ah...sorry. Obviously I need to brush up on the terms and their value!!

So, if I'm following right, quaver = 8th, crochet = quarter?