Composing more harmonies for a single melody...

[ecsmix]

Hi guys, I hope you can help me or point me in the right direction as far as books I need to read.

Imagine you have a melody and you already have a 1st harmony made with a piano part.
However you need more parts/instruments to finish the song.
So you will include strings,pads,a guitar,bass,synth, whatever instruments you want/need.
I was wondering when 2 or more different instruments play together chords(diferent ones), how do you avoid clashing and how do you harmonize them?
How do you compose for them sit well playing together harmonically?
What is the theory behind composing for more instruments, more harmonies for the same melody.
When is not ok having a piano chord in major and a polyphonic synth or strings in minor.Playing at the same time.
Besides the diferent octaves technic and omiting the 3rds. What other approaches are the best for this,specially when you have diferent instruments playing diferent chords at the same time?

Thanks.

[buckshead]

If you join the Garritan forum at northernsounds.com you will have access to two online books on harmony and orchestration, one by Rimsky-Korsakov on the orchestra and another on jazz. Much of what you need is there but its a lot of hard work

[Aroused by JarJar]

Another vote for the Korsakov book (you can get it printed as well), as well as a book on counterpoint. Gradus Ad Parnassum by Fux is still the best introduction I think- it's like pushups and squats for a dancer. Worked for Mozart and countless others, because the fundamental principles are acoustically and conceptually rock solid.

Or you could get Walter Piston, both Harmony+Counterpoint and Orchestration, maybe better for most people, being less archaically written.

Those are Olde Schoole combinations but there's a reason they're still around.

[VicDiesel]

I was wondering when 2 or more different instruments play together chords(diferent ones), how do you avoid clashing and how do you harmonize them? [...]
When is not ok having a piano chord in major and a polyphonic synth or strings in minor.

I think it is always not ok.

If two instruments are playing together, they have to play the same chord. There can be some small changes, for instance one instrument is allowed to add a 6 or a 7 to the chord, but you can not have two instruments, one add the 6 and the other the 7.

The way you make instruments play nice with each other is by a combination of
- having them play different rhythms: one plays on the beat, the other between. Or one plays a riff that starts at the end of a measure and runs into the next, while the other instrument plays around the backbeats. Or one sustains and the other is staccato.
- using different tone colours: a Strat & a Les Paul. Or a grand piano against a Hammond organ.
- panning or EQ'ing or other mix techniques.

Victor.

[TankEyes]

Yeah, instead of thinking about it as "different chords", think about it as "the same chord, but different voicings and extensions".

[jcrisman]

If you join the Garritan forum at northernsounds.com you will have access to two online books on harmony and orchestration, one by Rimsky-Korsakov on the orchestra and another on jazz. Much of what you need is there but its a lot of hard work

Garritan Libraries: Principles of Orchestration (Rimsky-Korsakov)
http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/for ... y.php?f=77

Arg! Northern Sounds bars Yahoo email accounts from registering on their site--another reason to hate spammers.

[ecsmix]

Yeah, instead of thinking about it as "different chords", think about it as "the same chord, but different voicings and extensions".

If you mean with inversions on different octaves, use a major in one instrument and the other a major7 or 9 in different octave, or something that together they create a major or minor 7 or 9 or 11 is good but I already know those things I am looking for different approaches and what to avoid.
When using major in a piano and minor or dim on a pad or synth, playing together. How to know that is gonna clash or not?

Hey guys I already read some of the books mentioned but it's too classical, acoustic instruments only.
What's more, those books rely on what great classical composers did so you need to read the music and then understand how he put everything together.
That's good, only one problem, I can't read music for now.
So I was looking for simple tips to avoid clashing and make things work together.
@Vicdiesel good stuff there but I am looking tips to make it work when I want to put 2 or 3 instruments playing together when I want to compose something different, more complex.Before panning and mixing.

I would like to know the theory on that but in layman's terms.
Thanks for all your answers.

@jcrisman,Aroused by JarJar,Buckhead in case you guys already read those books and want to explain without notation will be very appreciated.
I think the proper name is Tutti.


Thanks for all your answers.

[jcrisman]

I would like to know the theory on that but in layman's terms.
Thanks for all your answers.

@jcrisman,Aroused by JarJar,Buckhead in case you guys already read those books and want to explain without notation will be very appreciated.
I think the proper name is Tutti.


Thanks for all your answers.

A more layman version:
Theory and Harmony - Gig Bag Series (Gig Bag Books) (Plastic Comb) by Joe Dineen
ISBN 0825617014

Or a Wikipedia Entry: Consonance and Dissonance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consonance_and_dissonance

In a nutshell, the best way to avoid clashing is to make sure that there aren't notes that are a half-step interval apart playing at the same time (i.e. C3 & C#3 will be dissonant). Also: unisons, octaves, perfect fourths, and perfect fifths are the most consonant harmonies, followed by major 3rd/minor 6th and minor 3rd/major 6th.

As far as playing a major and a minor chord at the same time, think of the Hendrix chord E7#9 (E major and E minor are both within this chord, though the minor third is played as an augmented 9th).

[TankEyes]

Well put Jcrisman.

To put it even more simpler. You could use this as a "cheat".

Make sure both (triad) chords share two notes, and make sure there is no note within a semitonal difference between them.

It's quite shakey tho.

[Aroused by JarJar]

Well, the books mentioned are much less use without reading music. And the laws of physics don't change according to musical idiom, so the basic study of orchestration is the same for classical or pop or whatever, and applies to any kinds of instruments or sounds. "Good mixing" of electronic sounds is in fact a kind of orchestration, and I've read advice here on things like "making tarnce basses" that would be exactly "correct" for an orchestra two hundred years ago as well.

The general "rules": first, voicings are generally based on how the harmonic series happens. When you sing or bow a string at C, the fundamental and the overtones will always be in this proportion: C, c (8ve higher), G (8ve and a half, in frequency, above the fundamental, c (yet an 8ve higher than previous c), E (1.25x the frequency of the previous c), g (8ve above the previous G, 1.333...x the freq. of previous overtone), Bb (minor third above the G, 1.1666... its freq.), and so on, theoretically forever, ever smaller proportions between successive overtones.

The ratio of the 9th harmonic partial to the 8th, 9:8, is already a tone, 10:9 a minor whole tone, 11:10 between a whole tone and a semitone... the proportions keep shrinking, fast.

The overtones start out widely spaced and get closer and closer together as they go up (as notes, that is, frequency ratios).

This is the foundation of voicing, for acoustic and psychoacoustic reasons. Wide at the bottom, narrowing to the top. That's the general rule, and it is coming straight out of observation of the physics of the world around us.

If you violate this "rule", you get usually get mud, or very specific stylistic, expressionistic, etc. effects. Play a close-voiced triad in your left hand and an open octave diad in your right, that is, backwards of the usual, and you'll hear- it's muddy, or special in some way (for better or worse). One thing about voicings that aren't layed out in the general pyramid way is that it is physically more difficult to figure out the root note of a chord.

As far as avoiding minor seconds in harmony, this is acoustically sound in the bass and midrange. Of course a music may deliberately break this "rule". However, it is not an acoustically sound "rule" in the upper range, for at the 13th harmonic partial for example you'll find that this chord, for example, occurs in "nature": C, E, G, Ab (C add b6). When the G and Ab are voiced together up high, you're reinforcing harmonics of the fundamental- it can only sound "wrong" for stylistic reasons, not acoustic reasons. (Not counting the mistuning of equal temperament of course, but in orchestras, jazz bands, string quartets, choirs, singers etc. the pitch moves around and adjusts according to both acoustics and style).

In addition, there are a number of instruments whose timbre (spectra over time) lends itself to voicing the tighter proportions of the higher harmonics down lower, without sounding boldly "expressive" (or "wrong", "scary", etc.). These are generally timbres which tend towards either or both "metallic" or "round". Piano, Rhodes, some guitar tones, brass, saxophone, and synths with more or less similar tones.

As far as the original question about a major chord in one polyphonic instrument and a minor in another: why not?

Most likely you've split or are overlapping a tall chord, what are your notes? C,E,G in one instrument and E,G,B in another for example is very groovy. As jcrisman pointed out, you'd probably want to avoid clashing of the C and B. But, if you voiced a C and B together very high, it might sound very good (you'd simply be reinforcing what's going on at the 15th and 16th harmonic partials, acoustically rock solid).

Or simultaneous parallel M/m (like the Hendrix chord) or... anything. It can be done with some thought and trial and error. Depending on style of course.

[TankEyes]

Linking harmonic theory with theory of harmony nice one ABJJ.

[xh3rv]

Theory is better than my suggestion, but I've also gotten quite a bit out of just meandering through chord or scale charts and playing things. I find having some tactile and muscle sense about these things really makes them easier to process.

[Aroused by JarJar]

Linking harmonic theory with theory of harmony nice one ABJJ.

It's Yee Olde Schoole. It's amazing reading centuries old texts from the times when the tech was stuff like monochords and natural horns, those guys where sharp. Remember that Fourier was living in the 18th century. Plus of course acoustic ensembles were the norm, so any theories were continually run through the gauntlet of actual practice.

[wrench45us]

TankEyes wrote:
Yeah, instead of thinking about it as "different chords", think about it as "the same chord, but different voicings and extensions".


If you mean with inversions on different octaves, use a major in one instrument and the other a major7 or 9 in different octave, or something that together they create a major or minor 7 or 9 or 11 is good but I already know those things I am looking for different approaches and what to avoid.
When using major in a piano and minor or dim on a pad or synth, playing together. How to know that is gonna clash or not?

well there are a number of texts that attempt to explain the relationship of scales/modes with chords. Mark Levine's 'The Jazz Theory Book' is the best and most modern with historical perspective I've found on this topic.
At one time players/arrangers worked from chords with additional passing notes and eventually (30's/40's) extensions, at some point in the 50's/60's that switched over to modal and some modes/scales work really well with a certain chordal base.

Generally a dim or minor chord is not going to work against a major.
What is possible and is fairly simple is to derive a bass line from the chord root and the basic chord intervals. Set some pads with using other inversions of the same chord in higher (or lower) frequency space) and that's where some extensions can come in -- a nice change is setting a related chord a fifth above -- it can be considerd that way or as extending the original chord. Pretty simple stuff that has served me for a few years. with sufficient changes in attack and texture it can go a long way.

A whole 'nother approach that isn't arranging is re-harmonizingthe original chord progression -- almost any theory book will have a section on re-harmonization, backfilling, tritone substitution etc etc.

[jcrisman]

Well put Jcrisman.

To put it even more simpler. You could use this as a "cheat".

Make sure both (triad) chords share two notes, and make sure there is no note within a semitonal difference between them.

It's quite shakey tho.

That would work too.

Or even having the different instruments using different inversions of the same triad (e.g., one chord being C-E-G, another E-C-G, another G-C-E) will give a piece motion while still keeping the general harmonic structure the same. Even simple riff-rockers, AC/DC, would typically have Malcolm and Angus playing the same power chord using a different interval voicing.

If you want to jazz it up a bit, suspended triads (sus2, sus4) stacked against a major or minor triad can make an interesting harmonic texture, though you'll want to be careful with the 2nd or 4th in relation to the major or minor third. If you're playing the chords at different octaves, then there is seldom a problem with harsh dissonance.

Also, don't be too afraid of clashing as sometimes the clashing can build needed tension. For example the dissonant piano in the Beatles' "I Want to Tell You" is wonderfully used, and proves dissonance can work well even in a simple upbeat pop song.