Harmelodics?
Matt Trebelhorn
Big question, I know.
Peace, Go Reds! Smash State! ===
Matt ma...@sccs.swarthmore.edu |O-O\\
I say we are here in human form to learn by the human heiroglyphs || L ||
of love and suffering. There is no intensity of love or feeling || _ ||
that does not involve the risk of crippling hurt. It is a duty to ||\_/||
take this risk, to love and feel without defense or reserve. || ||
--William S. Burroughs, letter to Jack Kerouac, 1955 || ||
Jeff Beer
Matt Trebelhorn <ma...@raptor.sccs.swarthmore.edu> wrote:
>What is harmelodics?
It is the theory behind Ornette's music.
Here are some of my notes on what it means:
============================================
I heard Don Cherry explain the harmolodic theory by asking if when you
tune to A-440, do you hear it as a tonic in the key of A, or the leading tone
in the key of Bb, or the major third in the key of F? You really could
hear this in many ways, and doing so would open up many different kinds of
modulations that would not be available from standard harmony.
Especially when you're in a musical situation of the bass player and other
horns having specific key areas established. When I play Ornette's
music, I work this way a lot. I might establish a pitch, so I can get
the bass player to center in on that key (increase equilibrium), and as
soom as he does this, BOOM, I change its function, and there immediately
is a modulation into some polytonal space.
Beyond that, I think you can hear different kinds of parallel harmonies
in Ornette's larger ensemble works. Like what was in the Giddens'
article. I transcribed What Reason Could I Give. It is a series
of short melodic phrases in a ballad style, ending on a sustained note
before the next phrase is played. For the most part, the melody is in C
major, and could be considered modal. There is a trumpet part always
a perfect 5th away. If Dewey Redman's part is analysed as modal,
each succeeding phrase is in a different key, but that key is not
always the same interval away from the lead melody. And 1 phrase has
the qualities of voice leading. For instances, sometimes Dewey is in a
parallel harmony a perfect 4th away. Then the next phrase is in a
parallel harmony a minor third away. Another time he is in the same key
as the melody, but in a diatonic harmony.
Gunther Schuller in the book Musings writes of the Harmolodic Theory:
'It is apparently based on the untransposed performing in varied
clefs and "keys" the same muscial materials (lines, themes, melodies)
ths producing a simplistic organum-like "polyphony", primarily in
parallel unrelieved motion. It is not clear, however, how this theory
functions in Coleman's own improvisatory style.'
Schuller also calls it "modal", but that is not true. There are too many
clear modulations (chromatic or diatonic) in his melodies for it to be
considered purely modal. He also mixes modal harmonies in a parallel but
changing fashion such as in the example described above.
Occasionally the chromaticism of Charlie Parker is in the mix. Since the
elements can change so fast, the "Bird" element will never seem as
refined as the beboppers. The harmolodic theory is a mix of all these
elements in a fragmented and deliberately ambigious fashion.
Another factor not related to pitch organization is how the phrase
fits over the time. Don Cherry used to say that the first note of every
Ornette tune is the 1. That is not really true, but in general, the
melodies are free to be phrased so that they won't fit in the same place
of the meter. Schuller has a book of Ornette tunes, and you find all
sorts of wierd time signatures all over the place. Really what he
should have done was just leave a whole rest between bar lines and say
that it is an indeterminate rest. The horn players then listen to the
drummer and bass player and decide when to come in on that basis. You
can come in turned around, and while the rhythm section scrambles to get
back to what the time is, that is IF they do, there is some
interesting rhythmic conterpoint made.
Some quotes from Ornette:
Ornette: All I tell them is to play themselves. When they have a
problem that has to do with what key it is or what time
it is played in, that's when I give them a lesson in
harmolodics.
Ornette: I'll tell you what I had done with the classical guy. ( Chris
Rosenberg) I asked him to come by and I said: "Look, I want you to
play the best piece that you like to play that's classical. Forget the
composer, the key, don't worry about anything but the fact that you love
to play this piece. I want you to play this piece for me, and let me
hear it, and I'm going to take my horn and interpet that same piece in
harmolodics with you while you're playing it". So he did that and I
picked up my horn and played with him,and I asked, "Well, how do you
think I did that?". The first thing he said was "You must have a
phenomenal ear.". I said, no, it's not just my ear, it's this thing
that I have found out that all sounds have in common. For instance, you
tell me one interval of a melody, and I can tell you the next four notes
that you would have to have in your melody.". He said, "OK, B". Then I
said, "the notes are going to be probably F, D, B, and E". He said,
"Well you got three of them right, how did you do that?" I said,
"Through harmolodics". Basically, that's how I work with someone who's
going to work with me.
If a person decides to think of his instrument as a chordal instrument
or a rhythm instrument or a melodic instrument, that if someone was
doing somthing that was against the principles of how he could play in
that same environment, that it was going to cause him to have a problem,
I decided to show each one (musician) how to play each other's parts
without getting in each other's way.
Finally, here is something Miles Davis realized when he was
listening to Stockhausen, "that Ornette was right about things being
heard more than one way. You can have many independent parts, and you
can be funky and down". The theory isn't about explaining why the music
works. I don't think any music theory does that, on any music
regardless the genre.. Rather it is a conceptual tool to explain some
of the music's features, it attempts to point out where some of the information lies.
alaf...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
> What is harmelodics?
>
> Big question, I know.
The Harmelodic Theory was devised by Ornette Coleman, and is notable largely
for the fact that no two people seem to agree on its definition.
Coleman himself has stated that it is a way of placing harmony, rhythm, and
melody in total equality with one another. Other attempts at describing the
system have stated that every note in the chromiatic scale exists as the tonic
simultaneously, and that the system allows any player to play anything at any
given time.
I believe there is an attempt at explaining this system by Ornette in his intro
the the Atlantic/Rhino _Beauty Is A Rare Thing_ booklet. Unfortunately, his
intro is largely incomprehensible, and is unlikely to shed any further light on
the theory of harmelody.
--Andre LaFosse
alaf...@macalstr.edu
Jerry Whiting
melodic, harmonic and rythmic changes simultaneously. Check out his bio
written by Leitweiler (sp).
Off hand, I can't think of any liner notes were he pontificates on the subject.
jwhiting
Larry Lewicki
Minnesota (or was it the Guthrie theatre - must be a sign of old age) where
he explained harmolodics. I must admit the words sounded familiar (i.e.
he was speaking American) but I had a hard time tracking his sentences
and I left the lecture as confused as ever. All I can say is Ornette
uses harmolodic sentence structures as well. It doesn't surprise me that
people find his writing in Beauty is a Rare Thing umm - confusing.
:-P (dopey faced)
L^2
In article 1...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu, alaf...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu () writes:
---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Larry Lewicki | National Semiconductor |Opinions are mine and in *NO* |
*l...@galaxy.nsc.com | Santa Clara, CA |way represent National Semi. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael Mann
>About 11 years ago I attended a lecture by Ornette at the University of
>Minnesota (or was it the Guthrie theatre - must be a sign of old age) where
>he explained harmolodics. I must admit the words sounded familiar (i.e.
>he was speaking American) but I had a hard time tracking his sentences
>and I left the lecture as confused as ever. All I can say is Ornette
>uses harmolodic sentence structures as well. It doesn't surprise me that
>people find his writing in Beauty is a Rare Thing umm - confusing.
> :-P (dopey faced)
I can relate to what you are saying. I have read various articles,
interviews, liner notes, etc by Ornette over the last 25 years or
so and have never been able to understand anything he says. It's
like you say, he's speaking a foreign language using English words.
I've always loved his music though and the music by his colleagues
(Haden, Redman, Cherry, Jaamaladeen, Metheny, etc). I guess I hear
harmolodics as kind of melodic improvision with diatonic scales that
change key at will.
Michael Mann
Christopher K. Koenigsberg
My impression, my personal interpretation of the word "harmolodics" as
reflected in Ornette's music and performances and recordings, is
different from what's been mentioned. You've discussed the modulation
at will, but you haven't mentioned the changing emphasis on rhythm,
harmony, etc. in addition to melody, and on the ability of any player
to attack anything at any time.
I think this was developed to its finest extreme in the electric Prime
Time band, circa 1981-1986 that had two drummers (after Ronald Shannon
Jackson left), two bassists (including Jamaaladeen Tacuma) and two
guitarists, which I saw perform at the NY Town Hall anniversary
concert along with the Coleman/Cherry/Haden/Higgins original acoustic
quartet, all onstage at once!
That's when they really finally had completely broken down the idea of
taking turns at "solos". After that, Tacuma left and the sound changed
for "Virgin Beauty", then the guitarists and 2nd drummer left and
Coleman supposedly hired a new band with percussionist and keyboard
player (has anyone heard this new version, have they recorded any
albums?).
In usual jazz (with exceptions, of course), the rhythm and
harmony/changes are held constant, and the rhythm section provides a
supportive background, but the melody is altered, by a "solo" which is
supposed to stand out above everything else.
In Prime Time's prime harmolodic type performances, on the other hand,
any parameter can either be held constant or can be altered in "solo"
fashion, by any musicians, at any time. The listener chooses which
particular threads to focus on and follow, in the harmolodic mix of
equally important individual performances, rather than being presented
with a "lead" and "background". The performers listen intently to each
other and play off of what each other is doing, but there is no
division into lead and background, except on a changing, moment to
moment basis.
Thus Ornette's saxophone may be wailing a lead, but suddenly you
realize that one of the drummers is starting to mess with your head in
rhythmic changes (what might ordinarily be referred to as a brief
"drum solo") while Ornette is actually holding down a more stable
rhythm in accompaniment. Or layers of guitars do battle with each
other in contrasting yet complementary ways, each in a different key,
different harmony, different rhythm, yet mimicing each other's
gestures somehow. Or Tacuma on bass would slash in and out of what
everyone else was doing, trying to melt down and alter your sense of
rhythmic/harmonic/melodic/phrase continuity.
The performers even dressed differently -- once in 1982 or so I saw
them and each guy was wearing a completely different style suit,
different colors, everything, as if they were each from a different
planet, and their music sounded that way too. On mushrooms it was
totally mind-blowing :-) :-)
Jim McCrae
>
>In usual jazz (with exceptions, of course), the rhythm and
>harmony/changes are held constant, and the rhythm section provides a
>supportive background, but the melody is altered, by a "solo" which is
>supposed to stand out above everything else.
>
>In Prime Time's prime harmolodic type performances, on the other hand,
>any parameter can either be held constant or can be altered in "solo"
>fashion, by any musicians, at any time. The listener chooses which
>particular threads to focus on and follow, in the harmolodic mix of
>equally important individual performances, rather than being presented
>with a "lead" and "background". The performers listen intently to each
>other and play off of what each other is doing, but there is no
>division into lead and background, except on a changing, moment to
>moment basis.
>
You've done a great job of capturing the essence of harmolodics, as I understand
them. I saw an incarnation of "Prime Time" at the briefly reopened Fillmore West
in '89 or '90. It was a wonderous thing to behold. Ornette wanted to make sure
the audience didn't think that this was just a lot of random mayhem, so the band
opened with four or five bursts of "harmolodic" improvisation, each of which would
abruptly end in dead-on unison, with no visual cues whatsoever. After that, the
audience had been properly introduced to the level of discipline being exercised
on stage. It was one of the best concerts I've seen, and my wife, a hard critic
and neither a musician nor into jazz at that time, was completely captivated.
(Maybe it was Ornette's pastel multi-colored pointillist suit.)
Jim McCrae