Re: Hungarian/Romanian

[maurice altman <maurice...>]

Re Budowitz article:
there is also an interview them as part of a wider range of interviews in
the current issue of the Jewish Quarterly (UK) extracts of the article are
appearing at the Klezmer On-Line site at http://www.klezmer.co.uk. The
Jewish Quarterly can be e-mailed at jewish(dot)quarterly (at) ort(dot)org(dot)

At 15:13 18/02/98 -0800, you wrote:
>
>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
>
>Ari and Paul,
>
>Stop! You're both right! Seriously, I've always experienced harmony as
>VERY important in klezmer music, yet Sherry is perfectly right, at least
>for the great majority of pieces in the klezmer repertoire, that 
>"over-harmonization robs the melody of its tension and thus of its
>power." In other words, what's at issue is the approach to harmonization,
>not harmonization itself. I believe the musicological term is "harmonic
>density", i.e. the frequency and variety of chord changes. Hungarian and
>Slovak Gypsy music tends to have very high harmonic density -- that's
>part of the style -- whereas traditional klezmer has a spare harmonic
>density. 
>
>I don't think it's in the klezmer style to go to the other extreme and
>eliminate harmony altogether. Doubling a melodic line, BRIEFLY, for
>emphasis, on the tsimbal is appropriate, when accompanying a melody
>instrument or voice, but the tsimbal is such a great chord/rhythm 
>instrument for klezmer that, if the doubling goes on long enough for
>the beat and harmony to fall away, I don't think it sounds like klezmer -
>but rather like Middle Eastern music.
>
>Paul Gifford writes:
>
>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.
>
>This is very interesting, but we cannot assume the approach to harmonization
>was the same as now - especially if it took the place of the harpsichord,
>in Lvov in 1629 it it might have been a lot more like Polish Baroque music.
>
>Itzik-Leyb
>
>