>I just kind
>of work and reshape the melody till it says what I want it to, regardless
>of length. Can this be seen as problematic?
Different lengths or entirely legitimate, but you may encounter resistance.
Harold Arlen insisted on repeating the last phrase of "Stormy Weather" so
it came out to 18 bars instead of 16, and to this day a lot of players drop
that repeat. But there are a lot of great tunes that meander along,
metrically speaking, and still work because each phrase has so much
integrity.
Instead of trying to judge yourself, write what sounds best to you, Then
see what happens when you get other people to play your tune. When you find
out where they have trouble phrasing it, or what seems more comfortable to
them, you may want to change your mind.
>Also, in the process of getting the melody together, I'm aware of the bare-
>bones harmonic implications, but do not fully consider it until after I
>have the melody completed. (actually I haven't yet completed a melody, but
>I haven't worked on any chord progressions for the melody fragments either
>and don't plan to until a particular melody is completed.) Should I change
>my approach? I was wondering what processes are used by others on the list?
Sometimes a melody is really strong, and can take any number of harmonic
schemes along with it. The multiplicity of possible changes for "Over the
Rainbow" that was posted here awhile back is a good example. (Monk and
Ellington, among others, sometimes re-harmonized their own tunes). But IMO
that's exceptional, and most jazz tunes work because the changes are
effective. So I usually think real hard about how the changes are working
before setting a melody.
---- Fathom ---- > 8-) >
"If there is something you've got to do, and a way to enjoy it,
you'd be a fool to do it any other way." --Thomas M. Disch