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.
stig
