Re: Hungarian/Romanian

[Paul M. Gifford <PGIFFORD...>]

Ari Davidow <ari (at) ivritype(dot)com> wrote:
> 
> Hmmm. I believe that Josh Horowitz makes a point similar to Sherry's
> in the liner notes to the Budowitz album. His comments are online at
>    http://members.styria.com/budowitz/interview.html
> (or you can search for "horowitz" on my klez shack and follow the links).
> In a question on harmonization, he says, "This music is non-harmonic by 
> nature...." and goes on into quite a lengthy discussion of natural
> dissonances in Jewish music and the difference between melody and
> harmony.

As it happens, I'm having an exchange with Josh right now, but the
problem I have with this statement is that I feel that Jews introduced
the tsimbl to Eastern Europe and it was a part of most ensembles from
the 17th to 19th centuries.  The musical function of the instrument
was to provide harmony----it took the place of the harpsichord in
dance ensembles.  So the harmonic role was important as early as
1629, when Abus Cymbalista was one of 13 klezmorim granted rights in
Lvov.  In Hungary, Gypsies started using diminished chords a lot,
and they will argue over chords, but that is relatively recent.  In
Romania, once the tsambal took over the cobza part, harmony became
important, though not as important as in the Hungarian tradition.  

Paul Gifford