Anyone know how to do 3 part harmonies?
Cletus
Everytime my group tries we fail miserably and it just sounds like one
voice tripled. I don't know too much about music theory, but there has
to be a basic explanation someone could provide me with.
Any help at all would be appreciated.
Upsala1
note above the melody and the third is kinda of a monotone. We do a few songs
that someone is on the first, third and fifth, but apparently that is not a
true three part harmony. I don't know why since everyone is on a different
note
Gary Myers
fifth, but apparently that is not a true three part harmony <<
Sure it is. Why do you think it isn't? I don't know what else has
been said about this, but the most basic chords are triads, or
three note chords. If one note is the melody note, then the other
two complete the three part harmony. If the melody is a non-chord
tone, then there are other harmonic possibilities. When the
melody is moving between chord tones, one or more of the harmony
voices may do that also. There are many ways of voicing harmony,
even in simple three part styles.
Gary
jim lawton
attempts to sing harmony with people who *do* know what they're doing,
so I'll share with you some snippits I've come up with, and maybe
among the howls of derision and disapprobation from other members of
the newsgroup, you'll get more input. (I did wait a couple of days
before offering my puny input!)
1. other places to ask this question are rec.music.a-cappella and
alt.music.a-cappella.
2. Janet Wood to an audience:- "You can sing harmonies if you like,
harmony, that's a tune I'm not singing".
3. Voice quality matters, so if you three all have similarly pitched
voices and are all same sex it will be harder to do and sound less
interesting.
4. Harmony is harmonious, and the different voices make chords, hence
when the voices aren't making chords it can sound discordant, although
sometimes such 'clashes' are interesting.
5. If you all sing on thirds & fifths all the time then you can be
said to be singing parallel harmony, extreme exponents were the Everly
Brothers, and in the folk genre I would recommend The Voice Squad's CD
'Many's the Foolish Youth'.
6. The harmony lines don't have to follow the tune, the intervals can
change, a note can be held in the harmony while the melody proceeds,
and words can be held in the harmony lines while the text in the
melody continues (known as fugueing - no idea how to spell that!)
At the extreme the harmony lines almost become tunes in their own
right, and I recommend any Coope Boyes and Simpson CD to hear this.
When people get good they can construct harmony on the hoof, and to
here this check out the Watersons back catalogue.
7. If possible find someone who can do it, any competent music teacher
should be able to give you some guidance, also leaders of small choirs
are good.
8. Even if you can't read music, find some arrangements written down,
of shape note songs say, and look what the notes are doing.
9. One person sing the melody, while the others just play around
singing what they think sounds interesting (one at a time). If you
want to get out of the 'parallelism' make sure that one of the
harmonies moves from above to below the melody.
10. Janet Russell :- "It should be fun".
OK that's it. If others want to shoot me down in flames, now's your
chance.
Cheers Jim (who sings solo and unaccompanied most of the time!)
On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 23:11:32 -0500, Cletus <theb...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
John J. Schuster
>5. If you all sing on thirds & fifths all the time then you can be
>said to be singing parallel harmony, extreme exponents were the Everly
>Brothers, and in the folk genre I would recommend The Voice Squad's CD
>'Many's the Foolish Youth'.
This sounds quite odd and is not easy to do. Try playing a simple tune on the
piano (Twinkle Twinkle Little Star or Humpty Dumpty, for example) using the
melody note as the root of a tonic chord and you'll see what I mean.
>6. The harmony lines don't have to follow the tune, the intervals can
>change, a note can be held in the harmony while the melody proceeds,
>and words can be held in the harmony lines while the text in the
>melody continues (known as fugueing - no idea how to spell that!)
Harmony can also do what it called "Scissoring" the melody. This means that
when the melody is moving up, the harmony is movind down and visa-versa.
>When people get good they can construct harmony on the hoof, and to
>here this check out the Watersons back catalogue.
I started singing harmony as a small child and can, generally, hear and sing
several different possible harmonies to a melody I've heard once or twice.
Some people can hear harmonies in their mind rather naturally (I consider
myself a bit blessed in this) and others cannot. I sang barbershop baritone
for 8 years and know several lead singers who just cannot hear harmonic
possibilities.
For someone who does not already hear/sing harmony, I would suggest getting
together with another (willing) person. Have the other person sing "simple"
melodies (don't try to get fancy at first) while you try to find notes which
complement the melody. Thirds, fifths and even sometimes sevenths will work
but that is the technical side. What we are shooting for is to train the ear
to hear harmonic possibilities. There are two ways harmony can be done:
1. Learned harmony (written on sheet music and learned by rote).
2. What the barbershoppers call "Woodshed harmony" where one learns to hear
the possibilities and can sing harmony to almost anything without music or
specific practice. Try listening to some old "Sons of the Pioneers" albums to
hear fairly simple yet pleasing harmony.
This has gotten much wordier than I intended but please pursue your desire for
harmony in whatever way you can. It is a joy.
Regards,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
John J. Schuster ELECTRONICS ENGINEER
UNIV. OF MS. OFFICE (601)232-5072
OCIS FAX (601)232-7180
POWERS HALL, RM. 302 EMAIL: cc...@sunset.backbone.olemiss
UNIVERSITY, MS 38677 http://www.olemiss.edu/~ccjjs/
_______________________________________________________________________
Joe Kesselman, yclept Keshlam
harmony. It may not be the harmonies someone else would have chosen.
People vary on whether all three parts should be independently
interesting; I'd say that's nice when you can do it but usually
overoptimistic (basses in particular often wind up just singing "drone"
harmonies) and generally doesn't matter to the listener, only to
the performers.
In <36762ad9....@news.freeserve.net>, jla...@tabbytail.freeserve.co.ukNOSPAM (jim lawton) writes:
>2. Janet Wood to an audience:- "You can sing harmonies if you like,
>harmony, that's a tune I'm not singing".
Or Pete Seeger: "If you sing another note, and it sounds right, that's
harmony. If you sing another note, and it sounds wrong, that's jazz."
>3. Voice quality matters, so if you three all have similarly pitched
>voices and are all same sex it will be harder to do and sound less
>interesting.
Which is one reason you get the standard division into sporano, alto, tenor
and bass voices.
>a note can be held in the harmony while the melody proceeds,
Informally known as a "drone" harmony. Basses wind up doing this
fairly often...
>When people get good they can construct harmony on the hoof
A skill that comes with practice, like improvising on any instrument.
Learning to hear the implied chord, and jump to other notes within
it (such as the 3rd or 5th) is the starting point. Note that as the
chord changes, and as the note within the chord changes, the
proper intervals for harmony change -- holding a constant "third
above the melody" is not always the Right Thing.
>also leaders of small choirs are good.
As someone who's lead a small chorus: The leader may or may not have
a clue, but there are generally enough other folks around who do --
at least to the point of being able to demonstrate the harmony lines
they've been using -- to provide a good basic intro.
>9. One person sing the melody, while the others just play around
>singing what they think sounds interesting (one at a time).
Or practice against your favorite recordings...
>make sure that one of the harmonies moves from above to
>below the melody.
I have to disagree with this one. Sometimes it does make sense.
But _unnecessary_ crossing of lines may mean that your
arrangement needs work. If you do it, do it because it gives you
the specific sound you want.
>10. Janet Russell :- "It should be fun".
Amen. Music should _always_ be fun!
>>Everytime my group tries we fail miserably and it just sounds like one
>>voice tripled.
If it really sounds like one voice, either you're hitting octaves (which
don't add anything to the harmony) or you're tracking each other
too precisely and are unusually good at hitting the harmony dead-on.
Harmony lines which exactly parallel the melody just change the
texture of the sound... which is a fine effect, but does tend to merge
into a single sound, like playing a chord on a piano. If they follow
independent lines -- each being its own counter- melody, essentially
-- the individual voices stand out more, like one hand of a piano
composition playing against the other. The harmony may hold
constant while the melody goes up, or have a slightly different
rhythm than the melody does, or...
Looking at a few written-out examples, or hitting that chorus mentioned
earlier and seeing how they handle this, should provide some good examples.
If you're in the Westchester County, NY area, feel free to drop by
one of Walkabout's rehearsals (see webpage) and we can try to
demonstrate. Or join the chorus and have an excuse to practice
the skill...
------------------------------------------------------
Joe Kesselman, http://www.lovesong.com/people/keshlam/
Performing December 12th at Walkabout Clearwater: Bill Staines and
Nancy Tucker. http://www.lovesong.com/walkabout/coffeehouse.html
Laura
get a feel for what harmonies should sound like...
Sit at a piano... start with middle C. To make a major chord, you go up
a major third and then a minor third. To make a minor chord, you go up a
minor third and then a major third. In other words...
A C chord...
C...4 half steps (E)...3 half steps (G)
A Cm chord
C...3 half steps (Eb)...4 half steps (G)
Have the low voice sing the C, the middle voice sing the E, and the high
voice sing the G...then have everybody move up a half step and see how
well you can stay in tune with each other. Keep going up a half step at
a time.
If you can't blend basic chords together...well... just keep practicing.
:-)
You gotta start somewhere.
-Laura
Cletus wrote:
>
> Can anyone shed some light on how groups sing three part harmonies?
> Everytime my group tries we fail miserably and it just sounds like one
> voice tripled. I don't know too much about music theory, but there has
> to be a basic explanation someone could provide me with.
> Any help at all would be appreciated.
--
How old would you be if you didn’t know how old you was?
- Satchel Paige
Karen Rodgers
yclept Keshlam) wrote:
>In <36762ad9....@news.freeserve.net>, jla...@tabbytail.freeserve.co.ukNOSPAM (jim lawton) writes:
>>2. Janet Wood to an audience:- "You can sing harmonies if you like,
>>harmony, that's a tune I'm not singing".
>
>Or Pete Seeger: "If you sing another note, and it sounds right, that's
>harmony. If you sing another note, and it sounds wrong, that's jazz."
I learned the quote as "If you sing a note, and it's not the right
note, but it sounds good, that's harmony.
But if you sing a note and it's not the right note, and it doesn't
sound so good, that's jazz."
I never knew who first said it.
Karen Rodgers
remove _xz_, the obvious spam block, for emailing.
Joe Kesselman, yclept Keshlam
>But if you sing a note and it's not the right note, and it doesn't
>sound so good, that's jazz."
>
>I never knew who first said it.
I don't know if Pete coined it, but he's used it in songleading as far back
as I've heard him (which admittedly isn't that far; I didn't catch him live
until '90 or so).
I'll try to remember to ask next time I run into him. One advantage of
having led a chorus associated with Clearwater is that you get to ask
Pete impertenant questions. Whether he answers them may be another
question. <grin/>
Frank Hamilton
Hi,
It ain't easy but I have a Cyber solution for ya'. Get yourself a
simple music notation software program, hook it up to MIDI and play
around with step time notes. It's got to be something like Encore
that will allow you to immediately play back what you've just put on
the page. Finale is Parkinson's Law in spades. Gotta' do something
else before you do anything. Besides, it doesn't play back easilly.
Keep messin' with it until it sounds somewhat like harmony and then
try it out. Of course you gotta' make sure you don't give the soprano
the alto part or the bass part to the tenor. Another tech type
solution is to get yourself a little four track and start overdubbing
parts til you get what you want. When ever you can it'd be a good
idea to listen to folk harmonies by traditional groups and copy them.
Ya' learn so much. Best thing IMHO is keep it simple and don't move
too many parts around. Stick on one note as much as possible.
Otherwise you'll be into Barbershop or Take Five (isn't that the name
of the group that does complex jazz changes?)
Sometimes it pays to forget any music theory you've learned and just
do what sounds good to you.
That's my 2 cents and hope you find it helpful. Best.
Frank Hamilton
JLizKenn
on top of the melody. Instead of melody note, third above melody, and fifth
above melody, try this:
melody, sixth below, and fourth below, as a starting point. It's the same
notes, only inverted.
Triads like this will sound best on the notes that you hold the longest. You
might like the result if you try one song ( a simple one, as others have
recommended) where all the harmony notes support the melody, which is the
highest thing going.
Joan Kennedy
World Access News
Cd abcent Friends. Voor wie het niet weet deze groep is schitterend met
ierse muziek.
hun CD abcent friends is een schitterende CD
JLizKenn heeft geschreven in bericht
<19981216180829...@ng136.aol.com>...
PegBertsch
voice leading and things, but that might be too "formal" for what you're trying
to do.
I think basically you want to look for opportunities to diverge from typical
"parallel" movement; that is, if the harmony voices are always moving at the
same basic (parallel) intervals to the lead vocal, it will probably get stale.
I have a tendency to move directly to those "parallel" harmonies (lots of
thirds and fifths away from the lead vocal ;-) and while it almost always
works, it also can get really boring and predictable.
Something I haven't tried myself, but am considering, is to pick up one of
those electronic "harmonizer" devices (Digitech Vocalist). I think they've
come out with some fairly cheap models ($300-$400?), and I have a few friends
who think these things are amazing. I think the low-end model lets you plug
your mic right into it (you still need an amp to run the out to), and you just
sing. It figures out the harmony for you. They set up all kinds of different
"modes" and "scales" in the presets, so you can just goof around and maybe
stumble onto something really cool.
Finally, the tried and true method is to just put the lead vocal on tape and
start singing along to it, making all kinds of horrible-sounding mistakes (but
hopefully no one else is listening ;-) until you hit on something that works.
Or sitting at a keyboard and trying out different notes until you find
interesting chords that work vocally.
I think the more you do it, the more you develop an ear for it and can do it
almost automatically. Like a lot of things, it's a practiced skill.
Have fun!
--peg
ghost
>It *might* help to look up some books on music theory, where they talk about
>voice leading and things, but that might be too "formal" for what you're trying
>to do.
It will leave anyone doing it with really wussy-sounding harmonies.
>I think basically you want to look for opportunities to diverge from typical
>"parallel" movement; that is, if the harmony voices are always moving at the
>same basic (parallel) intervals to the lead vocal, it will probably get stale.
> I have a tendency to move directly to those "parallel" harmonies (lots of
>thirds and fifths away from the lead vocal ;-) and while it almost always
>works, it also can get really boring and predictable.
It sounds really good on the kind of music on which it sounds real good.
For examples, consult your radio (or record collection). The Everlys
did parallel harmony on everything & they never stopped sounding great.
Everyone in the world should be so "boring & predictable", & also have songs
& voices that good.
Harmony styles, for musical traditions that do harmonize, are not only
characteristic of a particular music tradition but, I think, develop in
ways that complement the other characteristics of the tradition
(the form of melody, the rhythm, etc). You can try out Balkan-style
harmonies on South-African style melodies but it just might not work very
well. And even if you suceed with mix-&-match harmony & melody styles,
you might get yourself pegged as being purveyors of the kind of music the
harmony style is most closely associated with, even if your melodies come
from elsewhere; harmony styles have that strong association in some
people's minds. (A really strong rhythm from a different tradition
can have the same disorienting effect.)
>Something I haven't tried myself, but am considering, is to pickup one of
>those electronic "harmonizer" devices (Digitech Vocalist). I think they've
>come out with some fairly cheap models ($300-$400?), and I have a few friends
>who think these things are amazing. I think the low-end model lets you plug
>your mic right into it (you still need an amp to run the out to), and you just
>sing. It figures out the harmony for you. They set up all kinds of different
>"modes" and "scales" in the presets, so you can just goof around and maybe
>stumble onto something really cool.
Please tell me what groups are doing this so that I can avoid them in
advance. Not only is the "harmonizer" likely to go in for the
above-mentioned wussy-sounding European-classical-theory-based harmonies,
but unless the presets involve untempered tuning what it comes up with
will be off-tune as well, which is absolute death for harmony vocals.
And why on earth would anyone want a machine to figure out their harmonies
for them?
>Finally, the tried and true method is to just put the lead vocal on tape and
>start singing along to it, making all kinds of horrible-sounding mistakes (but
>hopefully no one else is listening ;-) until you hit on something that works.
>Or sitting at a keyboard and trying out different notes until you find
>interesting chords that work vocally.
Better if you do this with a live lead vocalist present & participating;
they have opinions too, you know.
>I think the more you do it, the more you develop an ear for it and can do it
>almost automatically. Like a lot of things, it's a practiced skill.
Its also an avocation; if someone hates the idea of harmonizing, I wonder
why they're attempting to do it in the 1st place. You can get better at
it by practise, but you can't create talent for this where there is none
in the 1st place.
Charles & Joan Park
three part harmony question on a folk music newsgroup.
Charles Park
PegBertsch
>And why on earth would anyone want a machine to figure out their harmonies
>for them?
Maybe to use it as a remedial aid, when you're looking to stimulate your own
ear and give it a place to start?
Technology does not have to be a bad thing; granted, in the hands of those who
*overuse* it, it makes things a lot worse. But it can also be used as a
stimulus to help someone enjoy making music, which in turn can help them
develop their own natural (but as yet untapped) talents. I wouldn't want to
rely on a machine all the time, of course, but in small doses, as a tool for
experimentation, I think it has its place. I think the same thing of pianists
using a metronome to help them keep time when they practice, or songwriters
using drum machines to help establish a "groove" to play along to when they are
composing a song.
Sorry to have offended your sensibilities so much with the rest of my post,
too. I thought we were just talking about trying to find ways to make
making music more enjoyable, while becoming better at some specific skills.
It would be great if we all had, say, Brian Wilson's knack for hearing harmony
parts in our head and were able to sing them the first time just the way we
heard them, but some of us were left off the "prodigy" line when those skills
were given out, and merely got the "has raw talent, but needs work" allotment
;-)
--peg
Laura
like...or even ones that you don't. Harmonies started getting easier and
easier for me once I started listening to a lot of a capella (the
BOBS...gotta love the BOBS) and other groups with more than just your
typical Andrew's Sisters harmonies (not to say that that kind of
harmonizing is easy - but it is more basic in structure than, say, Take
6). If you know some basic theory, and you have a good ear...just keep
listening to other groups and then sit down at a piano so you can see
where all the notes fit together. It's really something that I find gets
easier and easier with practice.
jim lawton
twelve) where other people know the parts and existing arrangements
helps to train your ear and your brain - at first you sort of huddle
and cling to the other members of your part, then you start to enjoy
singing against the other parts.
I geuss if you already have the facility to hold your part easily,
then this kind of activity will be doubly valuable, because you'll be
able to listen to what's going on around you without confusing
yourself.
Cheers Jim
ang...@chinamail.com
jla...@tabbytail.freeserve.co.ukNOSPAM (jim lawton) wrote:
>And, what I've found is that singing in slightly larger groups (around
>twelve) where other people know the parts and existing arrangements
>helps to train your ear and your brain - at first you sort of huddle
>and cling to the other members of your part, then you start to enjoy
>singing against the other parts.
I agree. I've been practicing.....and it isn't all that difficult when
doing a 'blend' with others. I enjoy trying out different
ranges....stretching a bit at times, but the brain does seem to work
well with the ear.
******************************************************
Yo.....John Prine fans---a new CD 'Lucky 13'
and a movie .......
have you checked out:
******************************************************
ghost
>>
I (jmf) had said:
>>And why on earth would anyone want a machine to figure out their harmonies
>>for them?
>Maybe to use it as a remedial aid, when you're looking to stimulate your own
>ear and give it a place to start?
But the stimulus to your own ears should be harmonies you've heard
or are trying to copy, or an unharmonized song you can sing along with
in ways of your own devising, which might be modeled on harmonies you've
already heard, or might be a new invention.
If you're shy to sing with other people, singing along with the radio
or CD player, whether in harmony or unison, is great training both
for your ears & your voice.
>Technology does not have to be a bad thing; granted, in the hands of those who
>*overuse* it, it makes things a lot worse. But it can also be used as a
>stimulus to help someone enjoy making music, which in turn can help them
>develop their own natural (but as yet untapped) talents.
I like the "get a multi-track recording machine & try out different
combinations" kind of application of technology. (You can do this the
lonely way, with yourself on all tracks, or you can bring friends along.)
I do not like counting on a machine programmed along very narrow
specifications, & probably out-of-tune as well, to cough up possible harmonies
for someone. There are people out there just dying to make up & sing harmonies;
it shouldn't be too hard to find them.
>I wouldn't want to
>rely on a machine all the time, of course, but in small doses, as a tool for
>experimentation, I think it has its place. I think the same thing of pianists
>using a metronome to help them keep time when they practice, or songwriters
>using drum machines to help establish a "groove" to play along to when they are
>composing a song.
I think metronomes are terrible things. People should develop their timing
based on good timing they've heard. The rhythm of any kind of piece
should have a little slack in it, at least theoretically, that can be
applied wherever the players think it needs it.
The more people get dependent on pre-programmed mechanical devices the
more mechanical the music they produce gets.
>Sorry to have offended your sensibilities so much with the rest of my post,
>too. I thought we were just talking about trying to find ways to make
>making music more enjoyable, while becoming better at some specific skills.
>It would be great if we all had, say, Brian Wilson's knack for hearing harmony
>parts in our head and were able to sing them the first time just the way we
>heard them, but some of us were left off the "prodigy" line when those skills
>were given out, and merely got the "has raw talent, but needs work" allotment
>;-)
Brian Wilson probably wasn't perfect the 1st time out either.
One of the valuable things about all those "complete recording sessions" sets
(which I can't afford & buy single CDs & food too, but which I sometimes
hear parts of on the radio) is the goof-ups that the public gets let in on.
"Hear Paul McCartney mess up his part several times!"; that sort of thing.
(I don't know if any recordings of Wilson's complete studio time have
hit the market yet.) You have to realize that these people were in the
studio already, usually under terrible pressure but recording songs they'd
played thousands of times, & they still goof up many things, including the
harmony. And this isn't even being recorded back when they worked *out*
the harmony.
I think its more instructive for someone who feels they need instruction
to go to those harmony workshops at festivals that actually wind up being
*workshops* instead of solely singalongs & get information about how
particular groups work out their harmonies than to send a person &/or
group to have their haromonies dictated for them by some machine.
PAULSBANJO
Actually Pete's always been pretty aproachable, if you do it in a civil
way. (and of course at reasonable times)
Paul
PegBertsch
>to go to those harmony workshops at festivals that actually wind up being
>*workshops* instead of solely singalongs & get information about how
>particular groups work out their harmonies than to send a person &/or
>group to have their haromonies dictated for them by some machine.
Again, I wasn't suggesting the machine "dictate" anything. And I certainly
wasn't suggesting it's always the preferred way to learn -- I think I referred
to the old "tried and true" method of just trying things out (singing along to
yourself on tape, or if you're lucky enough, to other people in the same room)
as the one we all most often learn by.
Just trying to present different options, as the poster asked for.
--peg
jim lawton
>In article <19981217104332...@ng19.aol.com> pegbe...@aol.com (PegBertsch) writes:
>>Something I haven't tried myself, but am considering, is to pickup one of
>>those electronic "harmonizer" devices (Digitech Vocalist). I think they've
>And why on earth would anyone want a machine to figure out their harmonies
>for them?
>
I saw Tom Robinson use one (as I now realise) on stage for *one* jokey
Doo-Wop number. He did lead vocal into one mike, and then turned his
head to do the backing in a second mike - brought the house down.
>
>>I think the more you do it, the more you develop an ear for it and can do it
>>almost automatically. Like a lot of things, it's a practiced skill.
>
>Its also an avocation; if someone hates the idea of harmonizing, I wonder
>why they're attempting to do it in the 1st place. You can get better at
>it by practise, but you can't create talent for this where there is none
>in the 1st place.
Don't see anything in this thread that says anyone *hates* the idea.
If you've never done it, and you don't try it, you don't know if
you've got a talent for it. And there are all sorts of levels of
competence. I've come on by leaps and bounds in the year I've been
trying, but I've still got miles to go.
Cheers Jim
Dan Homan
This has been a delightful thread! I have no idea how well I do at it
(since I'm too shy to try other than in the two places I'm about to mention),
but I sound pretty good to myself, sometimes, when I sing along with the tape
player in the car - most often The Incredible String Band. When I try it
while singing in the congregation at church, though, I'm not so sure I do so
well - but nobody's turned around yet (with or without quizzical expressions)
(at least, not that I've noticed). I enjoy trying anyway.
Thanks to all of the wonderful contributors to this thread. There've
been more than a few real gems that could hang framed in cross-stitch above
the fireplace.
. . . Dan
John Tubbs
> said to be singing parallel harmony, extreme exponents were the Everly
> Brothers, and in the folk genre I would recommend The Voice Squad's CD
> 'Many's the Foolish Youth'.
Weren't there only *two* Everly Brothers? :-)
3-part harmony done beautifully: Peter, Paul & Mary
John
Faith Myers
John Tubbs wrote in message <36A52559...@mbay.net>...
>> 5. If you all sing on thirds & fifths all the time then you can be
>> said to be singing parallel harmony, extreme exponents were the Everly
>> Brothers, and in the folk genre I would recommend The Voice Squad's CD
>> 'Many's the Foolish Youth'.
>3-part harmony done beautifully: Peter, Paul & Mary
Or how about Coope, Boyes & Simpson, or Jinks' Stack. The latter are no
longer extant but do have a superb CD entitled "Second Time Around". CBS
have several which are v.v.good as well, but I can't remember the names
off-hand, E-mail me if you want more info. Also Artisan - third sort of
three-part harmony, also exceptionally good, ditto for further info. BTW
they are all English!
Alternatively, take three "good" voices, and sing together on different
notes and see if it works. I strongly suspect that this is what really
happens. And any way, you want to be different - sing it like you feel it,
never mind what anyone else says!
Lotsa
Faith
Julius Caesar: Act 4; Scene 2; Line 22 (or 24)
>
>
>John
Joe Kesselman, yclept Keshlam
call me and say "I need to learn how to sing harmony, you're good at
faking it, can you help?" -- and while I've got no idea how to actually
_teach_ something I do by guess and by golly, these discussions
have given me a few possible approaches.
------------------------------------------------------
Joe Kesselman, http://www.lovesong.com/people/keshlam/
February 13th at Walkabout Clearwater: TOM PAXTON.
http://www.lovesong.com/walkabout/coffeehouse.html
Kevin Sheils
>
> John Tubbs wrote in message <36A52559...@mbay.net>...
> >> 5. If you all sing on thirds & fifths all the time then you can be
> >> said to be singing parallel harmony, extreme exponents were the Everly
> >> Brothers, and in the folk genre I would recommend The Voice Squad's CD
> >> 'Many's the Foolish Youth'.
>
> >3-part harmony done beautifully: Peter, Paul & Mary
>
> Or how about Coope, Boyes & Simpson, or Jinks' Stack. The latter are no
> longer extant but do have a superb CD entitled "Second Time Around". CBS
> have several which are v.v.good as well, but I can't remember the names
> off-hand
Funny Old World
Falling Slowly
Hindsight
A Garland of Carols
plus 2 collaborations with Belgian musicians as part of the annual
Paschendale concerts:
A Concert Party in Paschendale
Paschendale Suite
--
Kevin Sheils
http://www.mrscasey.co.uk/ For Sidmouth/Towersey Festivals etc
http://www.btinternet.com/~haleend For Waltham Forest Folk Events
ghost
>>> 5. If you all sing on thirds & fifths all the time then you can be
>>> said to be singing parallel harmony, extreme exponents were the Everly
>>> Brothers
Everlys were usually singing parallel 4ths. On the rockier songs they
were singing more parallel 3rds, but stuff like "Dream" is mostly parallel 4ths.
They rarely if ever sang parallel 5ths.
John Tubbs
>
> >>> 5. If you all sing on thirds & fifths all the time then you can be
> >>> said to be singing parallel harmony, extreme exponents were the Everly
> >>> Brothers
>
> Everlys were usually singing parallel 4ths. On the rockier songs they
> were singing more parallel 3rds, but stuff like "Dream" is mostly parallel 4ths.
> They rarely if ever sang parallel 5ths.
OK, but I didn't write #5. . . .
John