Ebay Classic organs

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A question on learning the organ

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Leisesturm
    replied
    Henrik. Some things are subjective and open to individual interpretation. Some things are not. Flute tone does NOT have a harmonic series. Flute tone is pure fundamental. Period. A chord is not a harmonic series. Harmonic series has only one meaning: the series of overtones above a Fundamental that identifies the instrument producing the sound. More complex sounds than Flute sounds will have a harmonic series present but no human, not even you hears more than the Fundamental as an actual pitch. The rest of the series (overtones) are what allow you to know that you are listening to a violin vs an oboe that are each playing 'Middle C'. You do not hear the individual pitches of the harmonic series of each instrument. I don't want to debate this.

    You have a very accommodating teacher. I'm not sure how hard I would work at changing the opinion of someone as set in their ways as yourself either. But eventually (maybe) you may find yourself in musical company not disposed to humoring your idiosyncratic way of looking at things. They call music "the Universal Language". It really is. I was puzzled when it was suggested that maybe Harmonic Analysis is different in your country than in the U.S. or the UK. Of course not. And you are incorrect. And your teacher is incorrect in calling A/E an Esus. But as long as the two of you keep your incorrect assumptions between the two of you who are we to criticize. But please, don't come here and try to get us to go along with incorrect facts. The terms and conventions of Music Notation and Harmony and Harmonic Analysis are what they are. If you don't like them that does not make them wrong. Seriously, you make this much harder than it needs to be.

    Leave a comment:


  • regeron
    replied
    Originally posted by henrik.hank View Post
    The harmonic series is the same in all countries. We have no special kind of psysics here. Sounds are the same here as in all countries.
    I repeat again. when you play the E note you will hear the harmonic series. If you really listen you can hear a suspension when you add the note A and C#. You guys need ear training! Even I understand this! It is kinda easy to understand!
    and the E/G# also have some suspension.
    Yes, the harmonic series is the same in all countries.
    Yes, if you play an E, then add an A and C#, you will hear an A chord. However, you were talking about playing an E, then adding an A and a B. That is different.

    Paul Hindemith, "Craft of Musical Composition" Part I, pg. 68 - "Interval Roots"... "Numerous experiments have convinced me that the feeling that one tone of an interval has more importance than the other is just as innate as the ability to judge intervals exactly -- everyone hears the lower tone of a fifth as the principal tone."

    He goes on to say that in the interval of a fourth, we hear the upper note as the root, based on the harmonic series.

    When you have an E with both an A and a B above, i.e. a fourth and a fifth, the fifth is the stronger interval; we hear E as the root and B as the fifth. That makes an E-A-B chord a modified E chord; we don't know if it's major or minor until we hear whether the G is natural or sharp. It is not an A chord.

    If you had an E with an A and some kind of C above and no B, the fourth (E-A) would be heard as the guiding interval to make A the root and E the fifth.

    The presence of the B precludes this chord being heard as an A chord.

    We are talking of a simple tune with simple chords. We are not talking jazz.

    Leave a comment:


  • afuller5
    replied
    Henrik,

    In reading the quote below, I may know what you are referring to and where the misunderstanding is coming from.

    Originally posted by henrik.hank View Post
    . . . . I repeat again. when you play the E note you will hear the harmonic series. If you really listen you can hear a suspension when you add the note A and C#. . . .
    Based on the quote above, you are referring to the fact that when an E note is played there are overtones (partials) that sound (at less volume). You are correct in saying that these partials "clash" with other notes in chord. In fact, these overtones depart from whole multiples of the fundamental frequency from the harmonic series. This "clashing" of tones in a chord is compounded by the fact the in equal temperament, the only pure intervals are octaves. (However, the fourth and fifth are almost pure.) I think that we may be using the same term "suspension" in different ways. This is probably due to a difference in terminology between your country/language and my country/language. You may be using the term suspension to refer to the clashing of the partials and other notes in the chord. In my country/language, the term that is used for this "clashing" of partials and other chord tones is inharmonicity. In my country/language, the term suspension is used to describe the suspended fourth (or second). We call it suspended because the resolution of the chord is suspended (or delayed).

    Here is an example term suspension as we use it in my country. Look at the last measure of the first line of the hymn "Now Thank We All Our God." (The tune is NUN DANKET.) In that measure, the first chord is a Bb7sus, resolving to a Bb7, and the final chord in the first line is Eb.

    I hope this clarifies the issue.

    Wishing you the best in your study of the organ.

    Allen

    Leave a comment:


  • andijah
    replied
    Henrik, I've said it before and I'm saying it again: you seem to be happy with your teacher and the information you get from her/him. What's your motivation then to start a discussion like this and lash out at everyone who has a different opinion?
    This is not a rhetorical question. I really want to know.

    Leave a comment:


  • henrik.hank
    replied
    I am not arrogant!
    you were actuallu very rude when you told me that my understanding of music was wrong.
    I hate when people tell me I am wrong when in fact I am right.
    You say that calling a chord Sus like I did is wrong but my teacher who is really good at the organ also agrees with this. You were wrong to tell me I shouldn't call it a sus. People think of music different ways. This is why we missunderstood eachother. You refused to understand the harmonic series.

    Leave a comment:


  • andijah
    replied
    I understand the frustration that comes up when you feel no one understands you. However, reacting with potentially offensive comments won't help.

    It doesn't do to tell people they're stupid - and when you talk about ear training, this is something that has different aspects, too. A classically trained musician has other cues he/she reacts to than a jazz musician. Naming conventions are different, and even the "function" of a certain chord (call it Whatever-major-sus or what you like) can be perceived differently. It doesn't make one musician less able than the other. I'm classically trained but have made more than one detour to the jazz world. I've been a tutor for listening skills (ear training) at music college and I've seen students struggle with all kinds of problems in this respect. I wouldn't say "it's easy" and dismiss all these problems.

    So maybe we can come back to a decent discussion and listen to others before we type an answer.

    Leave a comment:


  • myorgan
    replied
    Originally posted by henrik.hank View Post
    You guys need ear training! Even I understand this! It is kinda easy to understand! and the E/G# also have some suspension.
    How arrogant! If you only knew the caliber of the musicians here who are offering you advice–yet you feel they need to be "schooled" by you. There is no place on this Forum for rudeness. Are you sure you're not trolling the Forum to waste people's valuable time? Perhaps it's time for you to take a break from the Forum.

    Please be aware of the Terms & Rules for the Forum: [5] Members should be treated with respect and courtesy. You need to be respectful of those offering you advice. To that end, I will ask Admin to take a look at your posts.

    Michael

    Leave a comment:


  • henrik.hank
    replied
    Originally posted by afuller5 View Post
    Henrik,

    We may both be right. It could be that the notation A/E means something different in your country that it does in my country (USA). When we see A/E in the U.S., it means an A chord with E as the lowest note; that is, the chord would be played as E-A-C#. If playing on organ, the E would be played in the pedal. This would make it just a plain A chord in second inversion.

    However, it may be that in your country, A/E means something different. If it means an E chord and an A chord, it would be an E6 chord with a suspended 2nd as long as the G# is not in the E chord. The notes in the chord would be E-A-B-C#. By the way, the notes E-A-B-C# could also be considered a A2 chord, which is an A chord with the second scale tone added.

    Later,
    Allen
    The harmonic series is the same in all countries. We have no special kind of psysics here. Sounds are the same here as in all countries.
    I repeat again. when you play the E note you will hear the harmonic series. If you really listen you can hear a suspension when you add the note A and C#. You guys need ear training! Even I understand this! It is kinda easy to understand!
    and the E/G# also have some suspension.

    Leave a comment:


  • afuller5
    replied
    Henrik,

    We may both be right. It could be that the notation A/E means something different in your country that it does in my country (USA). When we see A/E in the U.S., it means an A chord with E as the lowest note; that is, the chord would be played as E-A-C#. If playing on organ, the E would be played in the pedal. This would make it just a plain A chord in second inversion.

    However, it may be that in your country, A/E means something different. If it means an E chord and an A chord, it would be an E6 chord with a suspended 2nd as long as the G# is not in the E chord. The notes in the chord would be E-A-B-C#. By the way, the notes E-A-B-C# could also be considered a A2 chord, which is an A chord with the second scale tone added.

    Later,
    Allen

    Originally posted by henrik.hank View Post

    . . . . Btw, A/E is some kinda E Sus chord. . . .
    Last edited by myorgan; 12-07-2019, 07:35 PM. Reason: Fix quote.

    Leave a comment:


  • henrik.hank
    replied
    Originally posted by jbird604 View Post
    Actually, a hymnal all by itself can be a profitable learning tool for a near-beginner, once the basics of music reading are understood. I started out on piano at age 8 and of course the teacher took me through the simple little books that are used to teach a child about the staff, the notes, note values, rests, dynamics, and all the other nuts and bolts of playing. After the first year, I wanted to try playing from my church's hymnal, and my teacher kindly showed me how to do that, though of course I didn't do it very well at first.

    After the teacher's brief introduction, I started teaching myself to play hymns using common-sense "baby steps" until I was able to read and play a four-part score of the kind used in most hymnals. I would try playing only the soprano part by itself, which was relatively easy for me, since I would already know the "tune" of the hymn. This forced me to learn to obey the key signature (which notes were to be sharp or flat) and the time signature and note values.

    Once I could play the melody without trouble, I'd add a second part. At first I would just add the alto, since it was also on the treble staff and I didn't have to make my eyes follow two staffs at the same time. But later on, I found it easier and more helpful to learn the bass line next, then slowly learn to play the bass and the soprano at the same time. This taught me the ability to see both staffs at the same time, and to coordinate eyes and hands. Then to add alto and tenor notes in turn.

    Before too long, my brain began to instinctively understand that many of the hymns were in fact made up of "chords" -- the four parts that went with each syllable of each word in the lyric were in fact some kind of chord. If not a recognizable major or minor chord, they were a diminished or augmented or suspended chord of some kind or inversion. And of course there would be "passing tones" going on as well. But it did help me to analyze and try to name the chord structure that went with each syllable, though one needs to go beyond that in order to play hymns fluidly.

    I played piano for church services off and on from the time I was about 12 until I was 25 or 26, then got interested in the organ after I got a part-time job working in an organ/piano store. That job led to my first paying position as a church organist, though I was certainly no more than a make-shift player, and that job only lasted a year or two.

    I was 41 years old when I started playing in church every service every Sunday, and really had to learn to play better. Still concentrated on hymns, and picking up simple hymn arrangements from "easy" to "moderate" publications and periodicals. Twenty-six years later, and now in a paying organ job, I still don't play a great deal of literature other than simple arrangements and lots of "improvising" that I do during communion and postludes.

    But it all started with the hymnal!
    That sounds like an amazing way of using the hymnal. One thing I really like is singing the voices (at least soprano and tenor). Why the tenor? If I join a choir I will sing the tenor line.
    We seem to have two methods: making up your own arrangement or playing from already written out arrangement. I am like the creative kid who want to make up things myself. I find both methods to be of value.
    I guess people can look at a hymnal and say: how on earth can I learn this?!
    you have given me something to think about.

    Leave a comment:


  • henrik.hank
    replied
    Originally posted by regeron View Post
    You say you are interested in the fundamentals and that the other added stuff is details. Well, the fundamentals do include at least some of those details. And no wise housebuilder stops building once the foundation has been laid and calls it a house.

    If you are happy with your 'fundamentals', the "bare minimum", and your three chords, why do you continue to "study different music" to learn more "about the fundamentals of music"?

    You seem happy with your teacher but quite unhappy with the thoughts presented here by others. I should say that if that continues, you may become like others on this forum who have done similar things in the past. You will be ignored. People will stop helping you because you seem ready to dismiss what other musicians with different levels of training and experience have to say. You have asked for help, help has been provided, but you seem dissatisfied with it.

    As you said, you already "have too many tools". If that's the case, you don't need a teacher and you don't need our thoughts.
    Actually, we are discussing personal things. It is hard to be personal online. Music is very personal. It is easy to missunderstand people online.

    Leave a comment:


  • myorgan
    commented on 's reply
    Originally posted by regeron
    I should say that if that continues, you may become like others on this forum who have done similar things in the past. You will be ignored.
    Sorry to say, I already have. I'm far too busy to provide insight to those who regularly & repeatedly ignore the valuable advice given by others.

    Michael

    P.S. Andrea, Regeron, John, Quantum, Tim, Allen, & Leisesturm–You are all far more patient than I. Thank you for being part of the Forum!

  • regeron
    replied
    Originally posted by henrik.hank View Post
    I wonder if this could actually be my problem.
    I have too many tools I can use. All that is needed is understanding the basics.
    ...
    My playing of music is a search for the fundamentals, the bare minimun). All the other stuff are details added to the foundation. And the more I study different music the more I learn about the fyndamentals of music.
    ...
    I do have an organ teacher who is an amazing teacher but I would still be interested in your thougths.
    You say you are interested in the fundamentals and that the other added stuff is details. Well, the fundamentals do include at least some of those details. And no wise housebuilder stops building once the foundation has been laid and calls it a house.

    If you are happy with your 'fundamentals', the "bare minimum", and your three chords, why do you continue to "study different music" to learn more "about the fundamentals of music"?

    You seem happy with your teacher but quite unhappy with the thoughts presented here by others. I should say that if that continues, you may become like others on this forum who have done similar things in the past. You will be ignored. People will stop helping you because you seem ready to dismiss what other musicians with different levels of training and experience have to say. You have asked for help, help has been provided, but you seem dissatisfied with it.

    As you said, you already "have too many tools". If that's the case, you don't need a teacher and you don't need our thoughts.
    Last edited by regeron; 12-07-2019, 09:36 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • jbird604
    replied
    Actually, a hymnal all by itself can be a profitable learning tool for a near-beginner, once the basics of music reading are understood. I started out on piano at age 8 and of course the teacher took me through the simple little books that are used to teach a child about the staff, the notes, note values, rests, dynamics, and all the other nuts and bolts of playing. After the first year, I wanted to try playing from my church's hymnal, and my teacher kindly showed me how to do that, though of course I didn't do it very well at first.

    After the teacher's brief introduction, I started teaching myself to play hymns using common-sense "baby steps" until I was able to read and play a four-part score of the kind used in most hymnals. I would try playing only the soprano part by itself, which was relatively easy for me, since I would already know the "tune" of the hymn. This forced me to learn to obey the key signature (which notes were to be sharp or flat) and the time signature and note values.

    Once I could play the melody without trouble, I'd add a second part. At first I would just add the alto, since it was also on the treble staff and I didn't have to make my eyes follow two staffs at the same time. But later on, I found it easier and more helpful to learn the bass line next, then slowly learn to play the bass and the soprano at the same time. This taught me the ability to see both staffs at the same time, and to coordinate eyes and hands. Then to add alto and tenor notes in turn.

    Before too long, my brain began to instinctively understand that many of the hymns were in fact made up of "chords" -- the four parts that went with each syllable of each word in the lyric were in fact some kind of chord. If not a recognizable major or minor chord, they were a diminished or augmented or suspended chord of some kind or inversion. And of course there would be "passing tones" going on as well. But it did help me to analyze and try to name the chord structure that went with each syllable, though one needs to go beyond that in order to play hymns fluidly.

    I played piano for church services off and on from the time I was about 12 until I was 25 or 26, then got interested in the organ after I got a part-time job working in an organ/piano store. That job led to my first paying position as a church organist, though I was certainly no more than a make-shift player, and that job only lasted a year or two.

    I was 41 years old when I started playing in church every service every Sunday, and really had to learn to play better. Still concentrated on hymns, and picking up simple hymn arrangements from "easy" to "moderate" publications and periodicals. Twenty-six years later, and now in a paying organ job, I still don't play a great deal of literature other than simple arrangements and lots of "improvising" that I do during communion and postludes.

    But it all started with the hymnal!

    Leave a comment:


  • regeron
    replied
    Hymns vary in difficulty. It is incorrect to lump them all together. Some are very easy - some can be quite challenging.

    The drone is an accompaniment option, but it is not a harmonization. While holding a drone, it IS possible to add a harmony note to the melody. Bagpipe bands often do this. The drone note(s) might or might not be part of the harmony. That is the nature of a drone. It may provide a tonal framework in that we know what the tonic is, but the drone is not necessarily part of the harmony implied by the melody and a second, accompanying part.

    A study of organ pedal points will reveal similar situations.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X