new article: writing better vocal harmonies
- Thread starter lykwydchykyn
- Start date
I thought is was a very good article. Technical, yet presented in a way that most people with a basic knowledge of scales, etc could understand.
I printed it out to read again when I have more time - but I'm sure it will go in my binder of "techincal advice, product reviews and general recording trivia".
Good job!!!!
I printed it out to read again when I have more time - but I'm sure it will go in my binder of "techincal advice, product reviews and general recording trivia".
Good job!!!!
Fat_Satchel
I suffer Narcoleptic Rage
I feel stupider than I thought I was for having read that. I never realize how little Ive learned about music in 20 yrs till someone comes along talking theory.
I really just cant imagine sitting in a studio making music something like this...
dude! you keep doing that parallel 4th thingy again!! try the dominat seventh like I told ya to...it'll sound cool!!
That WAS my dominant seventh!! maybe I should just do the 6ths like we talked about earlier.
ok...I guess...but Im gonna do 4ths an octave above ya, ok?
Really though...it looks like an excellent article, I just wish I could understand it.
I really just cant imagine sitting in a studio making music something like this...
dude! you keep doing that parallel 4th thingy again!! try the dominat seventh like I told ya to...it'll sound cool!! That WAS my dominant seventh!! maybe I should just do the 6ths like we talked about earlier. ok...I guess...but Im gonna do 4ths an octave above ya, ok?Really though...it looks like an excellent article, I just wish I could understand it.
lykwydchykyn
New member
Thanks guys; fat satchel, I've had many conversations of that nature working out harmonies with people. I don't see why it's so weird; they're just words, words that stand for concepts that nearly every musician understands. It's just a matter of learning the vocabulary.
Anyway, it's not for everyone, I guess. Hopefully it will help some.
Anyway, it's not for everyone, I guess. Hopefully it will help some.
andydeedpoll
i do love smilies...
I havent read it all yet, but i will do.
i'd say its a good basis for harmony between any instruments, not just voices.
the list of "Donts" is good as well... i find people telling me what Not to do a lot easier to understand than people telling me what i can
but it might be important to point out the whole "breaking the rules" thing. Bach and other geniuses who practically wrote the modern rules of harmonising broke the rules all the time... but they knew what the rules were first, and thats why it alway sounded good
good article though
i'd say its a good basis for harmony between any instruments, not just voices.
the list of "Donts" is good as well... i find people telling me what Not to do a lot easier to understand than people telling me what i can
but it might be important to point out the whole "breaking the rules" thing. Bach and other geniuses who practically wrote the modern rules of harmonising broke the rules all the time... but they knew what the rules were first, and thats why it alway sounded good
good article though
Aaron Cheney
Favorite Chord: C 6/9
Lykwyd:
Awesome article on a very "under-covered" topic! I thought it was well laid out and the topics were ordered correctly, building on each other well. Nice work. It assumes that the reader has a basic knowledge of theory, but it wasn't talking clear out in left field "jazz-snob" territory either. It was just right for the average educated musician.
Here's a few things I'd suggest:
1: While you're defining the three basic types of harmony you should give an example of each. Examples really help readers confirm to themselves that they fully grasp what your talking about. You mentioned that tight harmony is common to pop music. I'd also mention that chordal harmony is most common in choir music such as hymns, and contrapuntal harmony is most common in classical music.
2: Where your are talking about parallel octaves, I'd change this sentence from "...we're not talking about a situation where the melody is doubled at an octave above or below, which is a common arrangement technique in pop and rock music" to "...we're not talking about a situation where the melody is doubled at an octave above or below, which is a common production technique in pop and rock music". Nitpicky, I know, but calling it an arrangement technique is implying that it has some musical value, when in fact that technique is usually only used for its sonic effect.
I particularly enjoyed the "problem solving" portion of the article. Those were all problems I've run into before and it was interested to see your take on how to deal w/ them.
Nice work.
A
Awesome article on a very "under-covered" topic! I thought it was well laid out and the topics were ordered correctly, building on each other well. Nice work. It assumes that the reader has a basic knowledge of theory, but it wasn't talking clear out in left field "jazz-snob" territory either. It was just right for the average educated musician.
Here's a few things I'd suggest:
1: While you're defining the three basic types of harmony you should give an example of each. Examples really help readers confirm to themselves that they fully grasp what your talking about. You mentioned that tight harmony is common to pop music. I'd also mention that chordal harmony is most common in choir music such as hymns, and contrapuntal harmony is most common in classical music.
2: Where your are talking about parallel octaves, I'd change this sentence from "...we're not talking about a situation where the melody is doubled at an octave above or below, which is a common arrangement technique in pop and rock music" to "...we're not talking about a situation where the melody is doubled at an octave above or below, which is a common production technique in pop and rock music". Nitpicky, I know, but calling it an arrangement technique is implying that it has some musical value, when in fact that technique is usually only used for its sonic effect.
I particularly enjoyed the "problem solving" portion of the article. Those were all problems I've run into before and it was interested to see your take on how to deal w/ them.
Nice work.
A
Aaron Cheney
Favorite Chord: C 6/9
andydeedpoll said:
I completely disagree.
The "breaking the rules" caviat has become so cliche that I almost wish I never had to read it or hear it spoken again. Yes, rules can and have been broken in brilliant ways, but even the greatest musicians spend 90% of their time following the "rules". THe "rules" are "rules" for a reason... they are musical observations made by great minds about how and why notes work and what effects they produce in different combinations.
Let the article stand on its merits as an informative tool and leave it at that, I say.
A
andydeedpoll
i do love smilies...
yeah ok smarty pants i was just pointing out that its not 'just' the rules that make music though... and that by following the rules you dont automatically create a great piece of music, and that theyre not like 'laws of music' more 'guidelines for stuff that definetly works' ... which, in my opinion they are *shrugs*.
lykwydchykyn
New member
Thanks Aaron; when you talk about examples, do you mean specific songs that use these techniques, or actual spelled out examples (like giving notes).
As a side note, does anyone know a good way to incorporate actual music notation into a document? I suppose I could make jpegs with a notation program, but what a hassle!
As for the breaking the rules thing... yeah, it's kind of implied whenever you write a theory text. I thought about it, but you know, if I put that in every theory article I wrote it'd get tiresome. I'm working on a full-blown theory primer that says a bit about that anyway.
I've found that most of the time, when people "break the rules", they aren't really breaking the rules, they're just using a somewhat more advanced rule that most people don't know about. I guess there is some genuine rule-breaking out there, though; I did mention grunge using parallel 5th vocal harmonies.
Besides, I don't know too many musicians who respect authority enough not to at least TRY breaking the rules now and then.
As a side note, does anyone know a good way to incorporate actual music notation into a document? I suppose I could make jpegs with a notation program, but what a hassle!
As for the breaking the rules thing... yeah, it's kind of implied whenever you write a theory text. I thought about it, but you know, if I put that in every theory article I wrote it'd get tiresome. I'm working on a full-blown theory primer that says a bit about that anyway.
I've found that most of the time, when people "break the rules", they aren't really breaking the rules, they're just using a somewhat more advanced rule that most people don't know about. I guess there is some genuine rule-breaking out there, though; I did mention grunge using parallel 5th vocal harmonies.
Besides, I don't know too many musicians who respect authority enough not to at least TRY breaking the rules now and then.
Aaron Cheney
Favorite Chord: C 6/9
By examples I mean song examples, so they can say to themselves "Oh... I know that song, and it does use the kind of harmony he's explaining here. I understand fully now. How helpful. I'm glad he followed Aaron Cheney's advice."
A
A
lykwydchykyn said:
This is one reason I love the Internet! Thanks for sharing the article. I look forward to seeing more of your book as you work on it. Things need a skeleton to really get up and walk around, is how I would describe the need to have an understanding of theory. Structure provides the essential basis for any solid enterprise. I have A LOT to learn and it's sooooo cool that I can learn it at places like HR from people all over the place. (Though I do plan to take some courses when my schedule allows it.)
Fat_Satchel
I suffer Narcoleptic Rage
lykwydchykyn said:
Its weird because it doesnt seem fun to me. Dont get me wrong, I honestly thought it is an excellent article and I have no doubt it will help alot of people, myself included.
Its sorta like listening to two mechanics discuss repairs to your car. Deep down you truly wish to comprehend what they are talking about but reality says you should probably be satisfied with knowing youre a good driver and leave the mechanics to the....uhh...mechanics.
If I have to consider why my valves are tapping slightly out of tune I might not enjoy driving as much as I do.
BTW...I am aware that may very well not make any sense whatsoever
lykwydchykyn
New member
Fat_Satchel said:
Different strokes for different folks, I guess. To me it's no different from saying things like "turn up the treble on that track a few dB" or "This part needs more of a single-coil though a 2x12 combo sound" or "try to develop that metaphor a little more in the bridge". For me it's more about fine-tuning your creations and crafting something you're proud of than just kicking back and having fun. I'm not interested in driving the car, I'm building the car. Every musician has something to offer, though. Some people aren't interested so much in the mechanics of the music as they are the lyrics, or the feel, or giving a knockout performance. But I guarantee no matter what your focus is you have some "Theory" behind it, and talking about it would leave the average guy scratching his head.
Thanks again for the comments!
Hi lykwyd,
Thanks for posting the article.
The people I work with tend to adopt the "instinctive" approach to harmony, and while that generally works well for us as each piece evolves over time I know that arming oneself with a little musical theory can certainly enhance the success and creativity of that approach. I think this is an article that has the potential to drastically improve music composition for those looking to get a more sophisticated end result.
For those of you who read the article and thought you'd stumbled on a multi-lingual post, grab a chord and scale chart for keyboard or piano, and just test out the ideas yourself. Chances are that those of you who haven't had a theory base for your music, will readily understand what's being said just by hearing the sound of it, and observing the relationships between the notes on those diagrams or even the instruments themselves.
You might like to check out sites like these ones to help you visualise the notes you could choose a harmony line from:
http://www.berm.co.nz/chords/piano.html
http://guitar.to/chordgen/
but get ready to swat the pop-ups!
I hope that's useful...
AG
Thanks for posting the article.
The people I work with tend to adopt the "instinctive" approach to harmony, and while that generally works well for us as each piece evolves over time I know that arming oneself with a little musical theory can certainly enhance the success and creativity of that approach. I think this is an article that has the potential to drastically improve music composition for those looking to get a more sophisticated end result.
For those of you who read the article and thought you'd stumbled on a multi-lingual post, grab a chord and scale chart for keyboard or piano, and just test out the ideas yourself. Chances are that those of you who haven't had a theory base for your music, will readily understand what's being said just by hearing the sound of it, and observing the relationships between the notes on those diagrams or even the instruments themselves.
You might like to check out sites like these ones to help you visualise the notes you could choose a harmony line from:
http://www.berm.co.nz/chords/piano.html
http://guitar.to/chordgen/
but get ready to swat the pop-ups!
I hope that's useful...
AG
lykwydchykyn
New member
AussieGal said:
Definitely! Whenever you read about theory, it's a great idea to have an instrument on hand that you're familiar with. After all, we're talking about music here, and some things just make more sense once you hear them. I mean, something like avoiding parallel fifths just seems like arbitrary nonsense -- until you hear it, and realize that it has a distinctive sound that probably wouldn't sound very good in most applications. Same with resolving tritones, or most of the rest of it, for that matter.
Thanks AG!