How could one harmonize 'If you never come to me' for 4 voices

eb maj7 (eb g bb d)
d maj7 (d f# a c#)
db maj 7 (db f ab c) ... here you use the fifth# (it is not natural)
c7 9b (c e g bb db)

You can play the following movements "d c# c db"
The bass could be the notation itself: e d db c
Other interesting parts:
- eb d |c# a|ab e|
- g eb | d c# (thus imitating the eb d of the first measure)| f a third above| e

Then play around with it a bit

Passing notes, flourishes. In the end, it depends on what style you like.

Sorry, but shouldn't parallel movements be avoided? I mean, are 5ths and 8ths prohibited?

Here is the criterion I used, but I cannot convince myself of it.

While on one hand I try to follow the contrary motion of the bass, on the other hand I move in parallel with the melody.

Are these minor problems? Am I perhaps a bit too paranoid, or is this doubt common?

I checked the one before this and it is not worth downloading because it is truly wrong.

How does this type of harmonization seem to you?

One needs to understand the purpose of this harmonization: I imagine it is a jazz harmonization given the piece; in this case, although the chords are not wrong per se (except for the D-flat note in the D maj7 chord, which should be C# and not D-flat), better solutions can be found regarding the choice of notes and their arrangement. Fifth and octave motions should only be avoided in a strictly contrapuntal context; in this case they do not constitute an error, so I would recommend focusing not so much on avoiding errors of this type, but on the choice of intervals in the various voicings—for example, for the initial Eb maj7 chord, a quartal arrangement works well, since the bass moves between the tonic and the dominant, so Eb-Bb in the bass and G-C-F in the right hand. Even if the chord symbol is Eb maj7 and the major seventh is not present in this voicing, it doesn't matter because the type of chord remains the same.

If instead it is just a way to harmonize in a more "expanded" manner compared to a school context, I believe the piece is not suitable for this type of exercise, because very particular notes are sung to the melody and there are no "traditional" tonal relationships between the chords harmonically.

The fact is this.

I am creating a backline for 4 wind instruments.

2 trumpets

2 tenor saxes

1 trombone

Rhythm section.

I wanted to know at least if the voicing arrangement was okay as marked in the last examples I posted.

I wanted to know if the chord symbol can be treated as a bass to be harmonized. Just a thought. But I think the answer was given

by geppino.

I also understand the sol do fa extensions which, in this case, would be third sixth ninth if I am not mistaken.

Practically, you choose to make an extension different from Ebmaj7. It is certainly beautiful, but if the guitar, for example,

continues to read the Real Book playing Ebmaj7 and I give the winds your extended harmonization, I think it could be a nuisance,

so I limit myself to respecting the extensions of the chord symbols.

As for the melody that creates an auditory disturbance for me, my perplexity is this.

In the first measure, the Bb melody resonates easily with the 5th of the chord.

In the second measure, there is a B natural, while in the harmony I have an A natural, but the fact

that they are an octave apart partially saves the effect.

As you have seen, the 4th voice is missing; that is, I used three voices to avoid too many

dissonances, which instead were left in the example I posted before this one, of which I am not satisfied

since, upon listening, they sound bad to my ears.

So among these posted, I think this last example produces the best effect to the ear.

In the absence of rules that I do not know, I rely on my ear. Am I doing it wrong?

raffaeleb wrote:

I rely on my ear. Maybe I'm doing it wrong?

The ear is always the best judge

"Regarding the melody that causes me auditory discomfort, my perplexity is this.

In the first measure, the Bb melody resonates peacefully with the 5th of the chord.

In the second measure, there is a B natural, while in the harmony I have an A natural, but the fact

that they are an octave apart partially saves the effect."

I would like to dwell on this phrase by raffaeleb because, as Chick Corea also says, often the answer is already contained within the question. Given that the melody is "sacred and untouchable," it cannot and must not create an "auditory discomfort"; this means we must bend the harmony to the will of the melody and not vice versa. Therefore, if a melody allows itself the "luxury" of lingering on a thirteenth, such as B on a Dmaj7 chord, it is appropriate that the harmony also be more fluid and open up toward possible extensions and alterations. The auditory discomfort stems from the fact that while the melody is very wide and free, and the chord changes are equally so, the harmonization of them is too scholastic; these are positions that do not work jazzistically—it would be like trying to harmonize a dodecaphonic series using tertian harmonic connections; the two things clash visibly.

The advice I feel compelled to give is to look not so much for which extensions to use—that is, a ninth rather than a seventh, etc.—but also and above all for the DISPOSITION of the individual notes within the voicing. Often in jazz, voicings work where the extreme notes are tonic-dominant or tonic-tonic, but in between there is an entire world of alterations, linked to each other by intervallic logic that goes far beyond the symbol, which is only a general indication. Ebmaj7 absolutely does not mean we must use the notes Eb G Bb D, but it means we must use a chord attributable to the category of the fourth species seventh; it could be 6, 6/9, add9, #11, it doesn't matter, as long as it has the flavor of a maj7.....

In the end, the so-called "auditory annoyance" derives precisely from this underlying inconsistency between the complexity of the piece and the scholasticism of the voicings, which in themselves may even be correct, but it is not guaranteed that they work...."

Thanks Geppino. So the ear was validated in this case.

I don't think the issue is harmonizing in parts late.

Do you think a solution could be found even with tight parts?

"Practically, you choose to do an extension different from Ebmaj7. It is certainly beautiful, but if the guitar, for example,

continues to read the real book playing Ebmaj7 and I give your extended harmonization to the brass, I think it could be a hindrance

such that I limit myself to respecting the extensions of the chord symbols."

How could this fact then be overcome? Do I necessarily have to tell the guitarist to add the extensions that I added in the new harmonization, or can I perfectly well let him play his chords freely?

You can have him play chord symbols, it won't cause any disturbance to the brass section. And anyway, the same guitarist will be able to decide independently how to execute the voicings on his instrument.

Aside from quoting Geppino's wise interventions, I struggle to grasp the object of contention. There is never just one single solution; one just needs to have clear ideas on what to do.

Just so we understand each other, what is the COMPLETE lineup of the band?

I had been quite clear in the seventh post

2 trumpets

2 tenor saxes

1 trombone

Rhythm section.

Perhaps it is not known that the rhythm section is Drums, Double Bass and Guitar or Piano.

For geppino:

Does having a certain independence also apply to Substitutions?

I imagine not, because substitutions intervene precisely by replacing an entire chord....

Forgive my uncertainty regarding this.

Anyway, two instruments play the theme and the others play the "accompaniment"

clearly this is a step towards arrangement. For now I wanted to understand if the starting harmonizations are correct

Anyway, thanks geppino. You're great.

raffaeleb wrote:

I had been quite clear in the seventh post

Sorry Raffaele, I missed it... I was focused on the attachments

I wouldn't be categorical about the choice of who plays the standard and who plays the harmony; you have a quartet with more polyphonic instruments (albeit limited to the guitar); if I understood correctly, you also wanted to push towards counterpoint. You could even conceive the ensemble as a double duet... based on this, I would choose how to manage the solos. Setting aside the framework (the theme), the harmonic context can always be enriched ... but also impoverished.

The auditory disturbance stems from the fact that while the melody is very wide, free, and the chord changes are equally so, their harmonization is too scholastic; these are positions that do not work jazzistically—it would be like trying to harmonize a dodecaphonic series with three-sound harmonic links; the two things clash visibly.

Would it be better then to harmonize as Oscar P indicated, that is, without inversions?

In any case, maj7 chords are still jazzistic. Of course, with more extensions, they would become even more so.

If I choose to emphasize only the root, the third, and the seventh, and at most add the fifth if I have an extra instrument,

Am I doing something scholastic?

Some time ago, there was a discussion about the Real Book lead sheets being un-jazzistic. Is this also a case where one could say they are such?

Frank wrote:

Sorry Raffaele, I missed it... I was focused on the attachments

I wouldn't be categorical about choosing who plays the standard and who plays the harmony; you have a quartet with more polyphonic instruments (albeit limited to the guitar); if I understood correctly, you wanted to push towards counterpoint as well. You could also conceive of the ensemble as a double duet... based on this, I would choose how to manage the solos. Aside from the framework (the signature), the harmonic context can always be enriched... but also impoverished.

I agree with enriching and impoverishing. In this case, my doubt was regarding the fact that having a descending chromatic bass,

I was trying to harmonize while keeping in mind finding relationships between the chord sequence. By practically using inversions to

search for relationships, these unpleasant sounds automatically pop out to my ears.

The consequences that follow are:

1) having a bass line to harmonize freely, one would easily find relationships

2) having a bass line with the constraint of respecting the maj7 interval, i.e., augmented seventh, considering the bass always as the root, then the problems begin.

raffaeleb wrote:

In any case, maj7 chords are still jazzy. Of course, with some additional extensions, they would become even more so.

Diminished and augmented fifths, major sevenths are insufficient to assign a piece to the jazz genre; to name one thing, it is enough that you listen to the Ave Maria I wrote for the LAB of choral music, where practically the major seventh is omnipresent, but the piece is anything but jazzy.

In short, a chord is never classical or jazzy; the voicing can make the difference, improvisational character and above all swing are needed. If you have these 3 ingredients and use even poorer chords... you get a "result".

raffaeleb wrote:

2 having a bass with constraints to respect the maj7 interval, i.e., augmented seventh, while always considering the bass

In a major seventh, anything goes; try thinking about this.

How many chords would you write between a C and a B natural? These will be the colors. Furthermore, you can "bypass" the notes of the standard during the arrangement without forgetting that the drummer can "pollute" the bass.

But the main question is: "why must the bass be a constraint in an arrangement?"

I don't know if you have it, but I would give a quick read to

Giancarlo Gazzani

WorkBook

Composition and arrangement for JAZZ ORCHESTRA