Primarily for melody instruments, do you or other members of your session spontaneously play harmonies with tunes? If so, how do you decide when & what is appropriate, & what works best?
Also I understand the basic concepts of thirds, so how would one go about writing a pretty harmony line to a slow waltz, say Arran Boat Song? Just raise everything up a third, or is there something else to be tried? Can you just pick it out by ear after time or do you (personally) need to write it down so as not to drift back to the melody? Specific examples encouraged, esp on the slow waltz, thanks!!
Yeah, I do it lots, especially on the viola.
I think playing straight thirds is OK in small doses, but try to be more inventive. Sometimes athird below works, making the melody sound like the harmony. And listen to any stummers in the session to hear what notes make up their chords. A good stummer will vary their harmony through repeated bits of tunes. eg. say a tune in Gmaj starts on a B (third) the strummer might play a Gmaj chord first time through and a Bmin next. Following this, you could harmonize with a G first time through, then an Fsharp next.
It's all about using your ears.
For top tips, listen to country singers
I'd suggest to try and play a sixth below the melody (which is in fact the same note as the third but an octave lower). In my opinion, playing harmony notes higher than the melody makes the tune sounds rather vulgar, indeed like country/bluegrass singers do.
Third, six below, fith?
I think the nack is to vary it, not just play parrallel. Create new melodies. (and I like country bleugrass singers, they're not all vulgar, but I know what you mean)
If I'm not completely familiar with the tune, which is most of the time, I'lI play along quietly below the tune trying to fit in something that sounds harmonically ok, and as I get to know the tune I'll join in with the parts I recognise, hoping to be able to do all of it eventually. Anyway, if I can finish on the same note as everybody else I feel I've achieved something!
With most tunes it's not a good idea to play a 3rd or 6th below all the time, because if you do you'll interfere with the natural harmonic structure of the tune at some stage or other. This will happen, for example, if you try to follow an arpeggio all the way in 3rds or 6ths. Similarly with linear note passages. Don't forget that most tunes consist of fragments of arpeggios and scale passages - a typical baroque/classical scenario, and this in great part defines the harmonic structure. Also, unlike the classical scene, most itm tunes are in modes other than major or minor, mixolydian and dorian being the most common, and the modes have their own harmonic subtext, as it were.
Creating new melodies to accompany the tune on the fly, as michael suggests, is great on occasion - the technical term is "counterpoint" - but needs a good understanding of the basic structure of the tune, both melodic and harmonic, to be convincing. If you get deeply into this you may feel the urge to make a proper study of harmony and counterpoint sometime, which can never be less than a good thing.
Also, keyboard skills and access to a keyboard are a great help in experimenting with harmonies and counter melodies.
I don't think harmonies above the melody are necessarily a bad thing -- or vulgar thing. It depends a bit on instrumentation -- if a harmony line is louder, or even as loud, as the melody, it generally should stay below. But think of how lovely a whistle sounds floating above a voice. Nothing vulgar about that!
Harmony - It's a word for something beautiful. I have gone head to head with strictly traditional players many times over the use of Harmony. I quit those battles - no sense in carrying them on - I play the music fairly straight when I am with them and I enjoy it all the same.
I play with other groups who have less rigid views. I will play appropriate harmonies with them. I find the discussions of doing it this way or that way a little tedious. Everyone should exercise their liscence to make the music sound wonderful. Making the music sound wonderful does not come with a manual. Use your skills and your heart.
As Mark has insinuated above, it depends on the session - who you are playing with, how well you know them and so on. My instrument, the mandolin, is fairly unobtrusive whatever you do with it, so I get away with more than some players. Fiddles can sound good harmonizing in most situations. A whistle, I think, can harmonize nicely with another whistle (listen to Paddy Moloney and Sean potts), but in a big session, to my ears, usually sounds a bit silly).
Certain tunes lend themselves more to harmonizing than others - perhaps those with more of a diatonic than modal feel. I find that harmonizing at 3rd and 4ths constantly throughout a tune can get rather tedious and some degree of variation is necessary to make it effective - moving independently of the tune, under and over the tune, in unison, at 5ths, 6ths, octaves etc. Players who are technically compentent but new to traditional music often seemto feel the need to harmonize (in the way they have been taught in classical music theory) because they don't appreciate the integrity of the self-standing melody. Harmonizing is probably best treated as another form of ornamentation, to be used sensitively and sparingly like any other ornament.
David
Good points in your last two sentences. ITM, like some other musical genres, is primarily melodic and not harmonic (you wouldn't try to harmonise Gregorian chant for example). So it may make more sense to try to construct a counter melody that weaves in and out of the tune rather than do four-square harmony. Just flying the flag on this one to see who salutes!
I think double stops on the fiddle are like ornamentation, and they can be overdone easily. Otherwise, I don't think that harmonizing is like ornamentation: When you put in rolls or triplets or birls or whatever, you are enhancing the melody line. That is the essence of ITM because ITM is a single-line music. Everything lies in the single melody line. It is very very different form Western art music in that respect, and more similar to Turkish or Indian music than to Mozart, Gabrielli, or Miles Davis.
To my mind that means that when you are adding a harmony line you are changing the core of the music. I am not saying you can't do it, or shouldn't do it. But it does become a different thing.
If you decide to do it, I think just playing thirds is going to be downright awful. You can't expect to be able to add harmony to a melody without understanding the harmonic structure of the tune. Do that by analysing the tune to see what chords it suggests and then pick your harmony line from the notes of that chord. If you are doing a Waltz, try to keep the harmony-line calm and steady. You can also try to write an attractive and interesting counterpoint, and not worry about the chord-notes, which may be more appropriate for faster tunes. (If you can combine both ways without comprising either, you're Johann Sebastian Bach, btw.)
Finally, ITM is very different from the "normal" Western music that you may have grown up on. ITM is not always clear or definite harmonically. For instance, if you are going to put harmony to a tune like The Knotted Cord (Junior Crehan's Favorite), you'd be stumped for your third right away: The tune centeres around A (starts and ends on it, for instance) but it contains neither a c-nat nor a c-sharp. So what third are you going to play? Are you just going to decide to make the tune A-maj or A-min? My feeling is that to do the tune justice, you should decide not to use any cs, sharp or natural, in your harmony (call it a gapped scale if you want). You may not have the same problem with tunes like Sally Gardens Reel, which is basically a G-maj appregio all the way through, but I hope it shows the fundamental problem of adding harmony lines in ITM. Invariably you are not only adding, but also taking something away from the music.
OK I'm getting 2 messages--use your ears, & use your brain. (which are the cake & frosting? lol) My infantile ears tell me to play thirds. Are there any good books or resources on ITM theory or melodic/harmonic construction? Will Harmon made up a wonderful reference chart on how to determine key & modality, but beyond that, I have to confess my overall ignorance of all this ITM structure we are discussing, esp since I am not a backer,& don't really appreciate the chord progressions etc. Suggestions for good reading, please, & yes I checked the archives, but am interested to pose the q again. Thanks for very cool answers here.
I don't have the book handy, but Chris Smith's book called Celtic Backup for All Instrumentalists, or something similar, has a good section with the common chord sets for the various modes in the commonly encountered tune keys for itm. Also a ton of suggestions for accompaniment patterns (drones, rhythmic variations, counterlines, etc.). A great resource all in all.
Bloomfield makes some great observations that should be read by strummers as well.
That one about there being no third or a floating third is common in diddly music and often stumps strummers. It can be very annoying to play a tune like this and have some strummer turn it into a major or minor.
It's imortant to remember that chords and harmony are the same thing, chords are just stacked up harmony. If you embrace one, then you embrace both. Or, on the other hand, you could keep it straight and "trad" if you wished.
There was one alarming thing that's coming through here. Some people seem to think that if they don't know the tune, they can sit a make up a harmony for it. Hmmmmm, I don't think so
Michael--what you just said--the "chords are just stacked up harmony"--something like that was just starting to occur to me, just from reading this discussion.
My harp teacher says to stay away from the third most of the time, when we are putting in the left hand (chord) part. But how come a nice big fat 10th chord often sounds really good when a "little" chord with the third does not? Just curious.
If you go back to the ancient greeks when harmony was a science not an asthetic, There was no such thing as the third. You got the fundamental.
Half the string (or column of air) and you get the octave.
Stlit into three and you get an octave and a fifth.
Quarter, two octaves.
I can't remember what the next one is, 5 splits, some boffin could enlighten me. But however you split it, you never get a third.
Maybe that on such an ancient and simple instrument as a harp, this matters. Just conjecture. What do people think?
harmonizing
harmonizing
Primarily for melody instruments, do you or other members of your session spontaneously play harmonies with tunes? If so, how do you decide when & what is appropriate, & what works best?
Also I understand the basic concepts of thirds, so how would one go about writing a pretty harmony line to a slow waltz, say Arran Boat Song? Just raise everything up a third, or is there something else to be tried? Can you just pick it out by ear after time or do you (personally) need to write it down so as not to drift back to the melody? Specific examples encouraged, esp on the slow waltz, thanks!!
# Posted on November 5th 2002 by emily_bmore
Re: harmonizing
Yeah, I do it lots, especially on the viola.
I think playing straight thirds is OK in small doses, but try to be more inventive. Sometimes athird below works, making the melody sound like the harmony. And listen to any stummers in the session to hear what notes make up their chords. A good stummer will vary their harmony through repeated bits of tunes. eg. say a tune in Gmaj starts on a B (third) the strummer might play a Gmaj chord first time through and a Bmin next. Following this, you could harmonize with a G first time through, then an Fsharp next.
It's all about using your ears.
For top tips, listen to country singers
# Posted on November 5th 2002 by ...
Re: harmonizing
I'd suggest to try and play a sixth below the melody (which is in fact the same note as the third but an octave lower). In my opinion, playing harmony notes higher than the melody makes the tune sounds rather vulgar, indeed like country/bluegrass singers do.
# Posted on November 5th 2002 by Bart
Re: harmonizing
Third, six below, fith?
I think the nack is to vary it, not just play parrallel. Create new melodies. (and I like country bleugrass singers, they're not all vulgar, but I know what you mean)
# Posted on November 5th 2002 by ...
Re: harmonizing
If I'm not completely familiar with the tune, which is most of the time, I'lI play along quietly below the tune trying to fit in something that sounds harmonically ok, and as I get to know the tune I'll join in with the parts I recognise, hoping to be able to do all of it eventually. Anyway, if I can finish on the same note as everybody else I feel I've achieved something!
With most tunes it's not a good idea to play a 3rd or 6th below all the time, because if you do you'll interfere with the natural harmonic structure of the tune at some stage or other. This will happen, for example, if you try to follow an arpeggio all the way in 3rds or 6ths. Similarly with linear note passages. Don't forget that most tunes consist of fragments of arpeggios and scale passages - a typical baroque/classical scenario, and this in great part defines the harmonic structure. Also, unlike the classical scene, most itm tunes are in modes other than major or minor, mixolydian and dorian being the most common, and the modes have their own harmonic subtext, as it were.
Creating new melodies to accompany the tune on the fly, as michael suggests, is great on occasion - the technical term is "counterpoint" - but needs a good understanding of the basic structure of the tune, both melodic and harmonic, to be convincing. If you get deeply into this you may feel the urge to make a proper study of harmony and counterpoint sometime, which can never be less than a good thing.
Also, keyboard skills and access to a keyboard are a great help in experimenting with harmonies and counter melodies.
-m
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by Trevor Jennings
Re: harmonizing
I don't think harmonies above the melody are necessarily a bad thing -- or vulgar thing. It depends a bit on instrumentation -- if a harmony line is louder, or even as loud, as the melody, it generally should stay below. But think of how lovely a whistle sounds floating above a voice. Nothing vulgar about that!
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by cuchulain54
Re: harmonizing
Michael
I must take up the viola sometime. They tell me that cellists adapt fairly easily to the instrument.
-m
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by Trevor Jennings
Re: harmonizing
Harmony - It's a word for something beautiful. I have gone head to head with strictly traditional players many times over the use of Harmony. I quit those battles - no sense in carrying them on - I play the music fairly straight when I am with them and I enjoy it all the same.
I play with other groups who have less rigid views. I will play appropriate harmonies with them. I find the discussions of doing it this way or that way a little tedious. Everyone should exercise their liscence to make the music sound wonderful. Making the music sound wonderful does not come with a manual. Use your skills and your heart.
Mark
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by Mark Cordova
Re: harmonizing
As Mark has insinuated above, it depends on the session - who you are playing with, how well you know them and so on. My instrument, the mandolin, is fairly unobtrusive whatever you do with it, so I get away with more than some players. Fiddles can sound good harmonizing in most situations. A whistle, I think, can harmonize nicely with another whistle (listen to Paddy Moloney and Sean potts), but in a big session, to my ears, usually sounds a bit silly).
Certain tunes lend themselves more to harmonizing than others - perhaps those with more of a diatonic than modal feel. I find that harmonizing at 3rd and 4ths constantly throughout a tune can get rather tedious and some degree of variation is necessary to make it effective - moving independently of the tune, under and over the tune, in unison, at 5ths, 6ths, octaves etc. Players who are technically compentent but new to traditional music often seemto feel the need to harmonize (in the way they have been taught in classical music theory) because they don't appreciate the integrity of the self-standing melody. Harmonizing is probably best treated as another form of ornamentation, to be used sensitively and sparingly like any other ornament.
# Posted on November 7th 2002 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: harmonizing
David
Good points in your last two sentences. ITM, like some other musical genres, is primarily melodic and not harmonic (you wouldn't try to harmonise Gregorian chant for example). So it may make more sense to try to construct a counter melody that weaves in and out of the tune rather than do four-square harmony. Just flying the flag on this one to see who salutes!
-m
# Posted on November 7th 2002 by Trevor Jennings
Re: harmonizing
absolutly
The tune is king, and never forget it. Harmonizing, like strumming and banging goat skins, is just the icing. Give me the cake any day
# Posted on November 7th 2002 by ...
Re: harmonizing
Icing without cake is disgusting. But I'm not absolutely crazy about cake without icing, either.
# Posted on November 8th 2002 by cuchulain54
Re: harmonizing
Depends on the cake
# Posted on November 8th 2002 by ...
Re: harmonizing
Depends on the icing
# Posted on November 8th 2002 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: harmonizing
No, any icing is disgusting without the cake, too sweet. But Oh, the best cake. Hmmmmm, lovely.
# Posted on November 8th 2002 by ...
Re: harmonizing
I think double stops on the fiddle are like ornamentation, and they can be overdone easily. Otherwise, I don't think that harmonizing is like ornamentation: When you put in rolls or triplets or birls or whatever, you are enhancing the melody line. That is the essence of ITM because ITM is a single-line music. Everything lies in the single melody line. It is very very different form Western art music in that respect, and more similar to Turkish or Indian music than to Mozart, Gabrielli, or Miles Davis.
To my mind that means that when you are adding a harmony line you are changing the core of the music. I am not saying you can't do it, or shouldn't do it. But it does become a different thing.
If you decide to do it, I think just playing thirds is going to be downright awful. You can't expect to be able to add harmony to a melody without understanding the harmonic structure of the tune. Do that by analysing the tune to see what chords it suggests and then pick your harmony line from the notes of that chord. If you are doing a Waltz, try to keep the harmony-line calm and steady. You can also try to write an attractive and interesting counterpoint, and not worry about the chord-notes, which may be more appropriate for faster tunes. (If you can combine both ways without comprising either, you're Johann Sebastian Bach, btw.)
Finally, ITM is very different from the "normal" Western music that you may have grown up on. ITM is not always clear or definite harmonically. For instance, if you are going to put harmony to a tune like The Knotted Cord (Junior Crehan's Favorite), you'd be stumped for your third right away: The tune centeres around A (starts and ends on it, for instance) but it contains neither a c-nat nor a c-sharp. So what third are you going to play? Are you just going to decide to make the tune A-maj or A-min? My feeling is that to do the tune justice, you should decide not to use any cs, sharp or natural, in your harmony (call it a gapped scale if you want). You may not have the same problem with tunes like Sally Gardens Reel, which is basically a G-maj appregio all the way through, but I hope it shows the fundamental problem of adding harmony lines in ITM. Invariably you are not only adding, but also taking something away from the music.
# Posted on November 8th 2002 by Bloomfield
Re: harmonizing
OK I'm getting 2 messages--use your ears, & use your brain. (which are the cake & frosting? lol) My infantile ears tell me to play thirds. Are there any good books or resources on ITM theory or melodic/harmonic construction? Will Harmon made up a wonderful reference chart on how to determine key & modality, but beyond that, I have to confess my overall ignorance of all this ITM structure we are discussing, esp since I am not a backer,& don't really appreciate the chord progressions etc. Suggestions for good reading, please, & yes I checked the archives, but am interested to pose the q again. Thanks for very cool answers here.
# Posted on November 8th 2002 by emily_bmore
Re: harmonizing
I don't have the book handy, but Chris Smith's book called Celtic Backup for All Instrumentalists, or something similar, has a good section with the common chord sets for the various modes in the commonly encountered tune keys for itm. Also a ton of suggestions for accompaniment patterns (drones, rhythmic variations, counterlines, etc.). A great resource all in all.
# Posted on November 8th 2002 by JamesPV
Re: harmonizing
Bloomfield makes some great observations that should be read by strummers as well.
That one about there being no third or a floating third is common in diddly music and often stumps strummers. It can be very annoying to play a tune like this and have some strummer turn it into a major or minor.
It's imortant to remember that chords and harmony are the same thing, chords are just stacked up harmony. If you embrace one, then you embrace both. Or, on the other hand, you could keep it straight and "trad" if you wished.
There was one alarming thing that's coming through here. Some people seem to think that if they don't know the tune, they can sit a make up a harmony for it. Hmmmmm, I don't think so
# Posted on November 9th 2002 by ...
Re: harmonizing
Michael--what you just said--the "chords are just stacked up harmony"--something like that was just starting to occur to me, just from reading this discussion.
My harp teacher says to stay away from the third most of the time, when we are putting in the left hand (chord) part. But how come a nice big fat 10th chord often sounds really good when a "little" chord with the third does not? Just curious.
# Posted on November 9th 2002 by Andee
Re: harmonizing
If you go back to the ancient greeks when harmony was a science not an asthetic, There was no such thing as the third. You got the fundamental.
Half the string (or column of air) and you get the octave.
Stlit into three and you get an octave and a fifth.
Quarter, two octaves.
I can't remember what the next one is, 5 splits, some boffin could enlighten me. But however you split it, you never get a third.
Maybe that on such an ancient and simple instrument as a harp, this matters. Just conjecture. What do people think?
# Posted on November 9th 2002 by ...
Re: harmonizing
4/5 gives a major third, 3/5 gives a sixth (major?, minor?), 2/5 gives a tenth (octave plus a third). No???
ps. save your boffins for when you might need one... (grin)
# Posted on November 10th 2002 by scottythefiddler
Re: harmonizing
4/5 ?
I don't understand
# Posted on November 10th 2002 by ...