Hi all, In the spring, I'll be teaching a new section of graduate jazz theory at the U., and I'm redesigning the course from the ground up. One of the sections that I want to add regards the amount of reharmonization that has already been added to the changes that most of the current generation of players came up using. I'd like the course to have an ongoing theme on this subject and will be curious to see how the subject affects (or doesn't) the student's views on the subject of reharm in general. However, in order to do this, I'll need access to some older sets of changes to many standards that we all now think of as being "in the repertoire". Clearly, a lot of these came from musicals, and while I am sure that getting the original score of each musical to cop the one or (if I'm lucky) two "standard" tunes from it would be the most authentic way to go about this - and I may look into making this a nice 20 year or so project - this approach won't help me much for this spring's section of the class. If anyone knows of some more readily available resources for more originally authentic standard changes, any and all suggestions are welcome. In addition, I like to make a point of calling out reharmed changes that clash with the melodies of tunes as discussion subjects and as "error detection" exercises (For instance, "I Hear a Rhapsody" and "I Can't Get Started" are two notorious examples of commonly used changes which contain glaring clashes with the melody). If you have any real annoying examples of this annoying phenomenon, post 'em here and we'll get a nice list going. I'm hoping that eventually, the lists of "annoying clashes" and "original changes" can be brought together to shed some more light on the music. Don't get me wrong - I love a good reharm as much as the next guy...I just think that it's so much better to approach the subject from a very organic starting point (which is a very PC way of saying that arbitrary ii-V chains and the like get on my nerves big time, and I would greatly enjoy being in a position to debunk them with more authority than simply saying that they often sound like **** rather than music ) Anyway, enough rambling. Any and all contributions welcome.