Melodeon.net Forums
Discussions => Teaching and Learning => Topic started by: Mark Leue on April 19, 2019, 09:22:27 PM
-
I ran across this, some nice simple bass side variations that I have since applied to a few typical minor tunes in one way or another.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5dLJl5ophM
I am currently using some of these patterns and voicings on a Breton tune many of you must know, "The Wren" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8yQpChyYmo
Also some of my Morris tunes get bits of it, particularly "donkey riding"
It would be nice to figure out some similar things for major tunes bass accompaniment.
-
It's great advice. I think Anahata did something very similar with the same tune, but I haven't found it yet. If I remember right he did a bit more with the tune to make it more interesting.
-
I am both captivated and frustrated by turns with what feels like the very limited choices available on the bass end of a two row, eight bass button box.
This was a breakthrough for me to get at least a little outside the inevitability of the most obvious chord structure of the tune without playing something "wrong"
Modal accompaniment is much easier to find on a minor tune in general. The most Ive been able to do with the major tunes is the surprise chord at the end of a phrase to get resolved as the next phrase comes along, not a real leading bass line. I guess there's plenty of room for rhythmic variation, but what I'd like to find are recordings where the interesting bass parts don't go whizzing by so fast that I can't steal from them.
-
what I'd like to find are recordings where the interesting bass parts don't go whizzing by so fast that I can't steal from them.
You can always use software like Audacity (which is free!) to slow down a recording without altering the pitch. In Audacity it is called "Change tempo" and you should check the box for "high quality / slow", otherwise it'll end up sounding choppy. I've used this to great effect in figuring out bass parts and also quick ornaments.
-
Or if using Apple stuff, their Amazing Slowdowner app is excellent.
I use it on my iPad to learn a tune by ear. It slows down and can change keys in half tone jumps.
Recommended.
Don't forget you don't need to um-pah all the time, a nice little bass run lifts it, as mentioned in the recent video. I'm consolidating a tune in Em and it has several opportunities for such things. Just let your imagination wander a bit whilst twiddling the tune.... don't forget there is no 'right or wrong'!
Q
-
I think Anahata did something very similar with the same tune, but I haven't found it yet. If I remember right he did a bit more with the tune to make it more interesting.
The version I did was here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thk1A5Fm6o0
Not so much "doing a bit more" as finding (with help from Jack Humphreys) a different version of the tune altogether, because I am aware the the "standard English session" Bear Dance is a rather dumbed-down version of the original.
My classical harmony training (I didn't do very much, probably not enough) is resistant to the bass line Liam demonstrates with such excellent clarity. I was taught not to write harmonies in parallel fifths as it break the rules of classical harmony. There's an alternative that's workable on a melodeon, though.
Where the treble goes
BB AA GG FF | EG F/E/D E4
The bass can go
E2 B2 E2 D2 | C2 B2 E4
So where there's parallel movement it's in thirds, which doesn't break the rules and sounds better to me.
In the video referenced above, the tune doesn't really do that anywhere, though I am doing a similar bass line in the same place where it would.
But rules are made to be broken, so it's an open question...
-
I was taught not to write harmonies in parallel fifths as it break the rules of classical harmony.
.
.
So where there's parallel movement it's in thirds, which doesn't break the rules and sounds better to me.
In the video referenced above, the tune doesn't really do that anywhere, though I am doing a similar bass line in the same place where it would.
.
.
But rules are made to be broken, so it's an open question...
I understand what is meant, but who makes these rules?
Is/was there a committee of self imposed top notch (Western) musical academics? Is it the same committee who decided that 440Hz=A should be a standard and we should all use 12 tone equal temperament?
I'm just musing :)
-
I understand what is meant, but who makes these rules? Is/was there a committee of self imposed top notch (Western) musical academics?
Conventions get taught as rules, but if you regard them as advice for keeping within the boundaries of a style, they don't seem so terrible. If you're studying classical composition, and are intending not to write anything that will make people jump or do a double-take (or if you want to pass an examination), then you will take the advice to avoid parallel fifths. My guess is that the objection is that your music will sound like plainsong or very early music.*
If you want to "break the rules" because you like the effect of doing so, that's another matter.
* Google "parallel fifths" and you'll get lots of answers, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consecutive_fifths
-
There are lots of reasons not to use them, but it is also ok to use them if it is a deliberate choice. In Anahata's scenario, parallel fifths would lose some of the independence of the writing.
Yes, with parallel 3rds there is a strong relationship between the two parts which links them. With 5ths (in independent part writing, rather than just chords) the lower note also 'contains' the top note in its harmonic spectrum, which both makes them a little redundant and a little over-emphasised.
It does, as pointed out earlier in the thread, also have a bare quality that reminds us of earlier music when 4ths and 5ths were considered consonant, oddly enough.
Happy to talk more about it.
-
As they say in Jazz-world:
If it sounds good, it is good.
-
5th etc. Interesting stuff.
But all this is only largely true when we are talking about the committee contrived system of music we are molded into from an early age.
-
Indeed - the linked article, quite early on, describes parallel motion as:
"used in, and evocative of, various kinds of popular, folk, and medieval music"
The rules may be contrived, but are empirically based on what sounds "wrong" and "right" in a wide variety of harmonies constructed from independent parts in musical styles spanning several centuries.
-
I remember being told to avoid parallel 5ths and octaves.
It often sounds right in Breton stuff though and I've come to like the sound of parallel 2nds.
-
I've often said that Theory is Music post mortem, sort of an artistic autopsy. I know all the theory, but "in the rear view mirror". Music first, explanation second and avoid paralysis by analysis.
-
I understand what is meant, but who makes these rules?...
Is/was there a committee of self imposed top notch (Western) musical academics? Is it the same committee who decided that 440Hz=A should be a standard and we should all use 12 tone equal temperament?
The "rules" don't come from nowhere, though. The 12 note equal temperament convention is a best compromise derived from the practicalities of the mathematics/physics of sound
If you're confused, try this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT9CPoe5LnM.
The A=440 standard is, however a pretty arbitrary response to the competitiveness of human nature
-
I've often said that Theory is Music post mortem, sort of an artistic autopsy. I know all the theory, but "in the rear view mirror". Music first, explanation second and avoid paralysis by analysis.
I know what you are saying, but there is nothing contrived (not your comment) about the harmonic spectrum, it is not an artificial set of rules, but a way of explaining why something isn't so effective as it might be. I've just spent the morning marking compositions - firstly by ear, then with the student scores. In every case I was able to explain to the student why the clunkers in their pieces happened, and how they can be avoided. In many cases it was because dissonance was arrived at by leap, or quitted by leap. The parallels also jumped out as weak by ear in the context of the rest of their piece - suddenly a loss of texture and an angularity of movement. This happened as a real time reaction to their music, not in a reflective look at the score.
I'm not trying to convince people who have no interest in these things that they matter, but I do think it is not quite fair to dismiss theory as book learning rather than a different way of using musicianship. If you suddenly heard a jarring note in a melody, you'd know it was wrong. Knowing why it was wrong is just a way of helping to fix it.
-
I've often said that Theory is Music post mortem, sort of an artistic autopsy. I know all the theory, but "in the rear view mirror". Music first, explanation second and avoid paralysis by analysis.
I know what you are saying, but there is nothing contrived (not your comment) about the harmonic spectrum, it is not an artificial set of rules, but a way of explaining why something isn't so effective as it might be. I've just spent the morning marking compositions - firstly by ear, then with the student scores. In every case I was able to explain to the student why the clunkers in their pieces happened, and how they can be avoided. In many cases it was because dissonance was arrived at by leap, or quitted by leap. The parallels also jumped out as weak by ear in the context of the rest of their piece - suddenly a loss of texture and an angularity of movement. This happened as a real time reaction to their music, not in a reflective look at the score.
I'm not trying to convince people who have no interest in these things that they matter, but I do think it is not quite fair to dismiss theory as book learning rather than a different way of using musicianship. If you suddenly heard a jarring note in a melody, you'd know it was wrong. Knowing why it was wrong is just a way of helping to fix it.
I don't dismiss it, I just point out that it's possible to reach the same result from more than one direction. I happen to be an experiential learner and though I can read and understand the logic and intent of the Theory, I require actual context and evidence to retain the "by the book" aspect of the theory. Once I have the contextual experience, the question of theory is effectively rendered moot.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiential_learning
As teachers we realize that everyone learns differently.
Here's a bit of musicologic history regarding systems and analysis I found of interest.
http://vaczy.dk/htm/scales2.htm
-
Re: the original post - a great video from Liam Robinson, such a shame that he is no longer able to play.
-
Re: the original post - a great video from Liam Robinson, such a shame that he is no longer able to play.
Really! :( What … a shame; a loss to music. I met Liam at Whitney 8-9 years back and he was definitely top new talent of the weekend for me.
=> Dick - there's a sort of inverted cast structure on melnet about anything resembling music theory. A lot play by ear (as I do) ... but then wonder why certain chords are so sweet in one tune yet ring false in another :o
It isn't rocket science. However, while you can say that there is such a thing as 'major key' for folk purpose, that isn't true of minor stuff. For folk purposes we need two scales to cover our 'minor' tunes, (plus 'harmonic minor' for French, Scandi, Klasmer and quite a few songs, if that's what rock your boat).
It ALL happens on the 6th and 7the notes of the scale. Notes 1-5 of these minorr scales are identical .… easy peasy?
OK: We are in E 'minor' - whatever that means. You find out by listening to its 'C'=6th note
Had it all played on D row: notes = E F# G A B C# D E - the 'dorian' with raised 6th, as referred to be Anahata
OR - you can use G row C note = E F# G A B C D E (cross fingering style = the same)
Not all that hard, surely. The 'theory' bit is that the raised C# in dorian affects the chords. Our left end C is actually wrong - should be C#. Music theory gives lattitude when notres are flattened so … C 'sounds OK' and you hear it all the time is sessions. But try A pull chord next time - it will have a nice clean sound
This tune isn't dorian though. It's the simple minor and the simple C that's on our G row, Which is why Liam's bass run works. I did emphasise the lack of any rocket science in this ;)
-
Here's a bit of rocket science >:E
Instead of playing tune when you do the bass run - just hold an Em chord down on the right. That's 3 adjacent buttons E,G,B, pulling. Now move your index onto the button above, G inner row. That is F# and you are playing an Em9 chord. That's actually pretty cool as a variation in itself?
The ballistics is in its effect on the bass run, turning the C bit from a 'relaxed' chord… into one of tension.
If you are 'showing off' - and why not - you can bring this out by bass running note+chord Em=>Dpull=> C,
and further by spreading out your left fingers to play the Cbass with the Emchord. The affect is astonishing - a chord you could clean your teeth with! I'll not name is as it'd scare the innocent, but it's one of my absolute favourites on the instrument.
Summary (all pull)
o Rt hand plays Emtriad with index finger moved in a row
o left hand Emchord/Ebass > Dchord/Dbass> Emchord/Cbass
Try it ... (the magic is in that F#)
-
Cmaj7 - a powerful weapon that should only be entrusted to responsible adults...
(My Oakwood needed a lot of air to do that run, just tried it)
-
Cmaj7 - a powerful weapon that should only be entrusted to responsible adults...
(My Oakwood needed a lot of air to do that run, just tried it)
Adding in the suggested e f# b RH triad you end up with a nominal Cmaj7b5. The inclusion of both the g (from the LH e minor chord) and f# (in the RH triad) is a bit of an anomaly, but if you've a "no thirds" LH it's strictly legit.
-
There's always a taker ... ;)
[theory]
1. Maj7 chord is no 'scary' thing. It is simply notes 1,3,5,7 from the major scale. Chord iii
is minor so I think of it as simply … Em chord laid onto a different base. You can express
that as a 'cross chord' on the left end (Em / C bass) or play the easy Em on the right
(D row pull E,G,B) against left bass, or even the right pull C ( DrowE,G,BGrowC).
It all depends what the rest of the tune is doing. Practice all 3 … you can pop it in at will
The 'devil' is in the using of it. As an extended chord it has a jazz feel and can fight folk tunes a bit.
Be sparse about that. It harmonises (obviously!) as either C or Em so can be easy lubrication whenever
your tunes runs against C=>Em or Em=>C (:) Essentially playing CMaj7 right through … works
2. I got the Em9/C trick from Stéph Milleret when I had a week with him, few years back. Dick is spot
on with his analysis, but Stéph calls it CMaj7#13 recognising that the F# throws into 2nd
octave, conventionally continuing our note numbering 1,3,5,7…11,13,15 'right through'. That seems to
be the way it's done now ... Wagner's "Tristan" chord (also trivial on melodeon ;)) is looked at in these
terms. NB had we played F# in lower octave it would clash horribly with the C. Played 18 semitones
apart … well it feels like tears to me :'( NB2: this is 2-row stuff. Not an accidental in sight ;)
[/theory]
[practice]
I'm presently working up Harry Robinson's "Little Pot Stove" for box, following Nic Jones' lead in using
mainly sus chords for cadence. Also Nic's (incredible, inimiatable!) swing. Extending the chord in this
way is just perfect as if you pull the lyric forward or backward … it still harmonises. (See Cmaj7 above)
The chorus is … all about ice and misery? So I extend my C chord =>maj7 and just 'touch in' a brief
F# with my (Rt) little finger - otherwise idle. Timing against the song is … subtle and I only started
this experiment this morning. So far so good.
[practice]
Back to topic … I suggest the 5 note chord simply as a variation, and … just the once. But it is a natural, and fairly easy extend to what Liam is doing.