Re: Why lay out?

[Bill Long <LONGWJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Fri, 02 Sep 1994 11:17:05 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Norbert Brunhuber <brun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Why lay out?
>
>  This topic is a tangent to the one that has been very big recently on
>this list.  I agree that the harp does need restraint to sound well in a
>band situation.  However, the bass guitar is playing throughout the
>song.  The rhythm guitar plays throughout the song.  Even during the
>vocal parts.  Why is this so?  I mean, what is it about these instruments
>that they play all the time whereas the harp does not seem suited to this.

Well, these are traditionally what are known as "rhythm instruments", drums, 
bass, piano, guitar.  What makes the guitar and piano suited for this type 
of constant use is the fact that they can play chords which provide the 
framework upon which the soloist or singer will build their melodies.  
Drums and bass provide sort of a foundation for the whole thing.  Now, if 
you lay back (as opposed to lay out) and play chords at a volume that 
blends in with the rhythm section then the harp can be used as a rhythm 
instrument as well.

The harp, like trumpet, saxaphone, and lead guitar is commonly treated as a
solo instrument.  To get an interesting variety in the way the music sounds 
usually these instruments play a couple of verses and then give way to a 
different soloist of perhaps a vocalist...even the vocalist dosen't sing 
every verse of the song.

>  Have people try to tackle this problem?  I hate being told the harp
>must only be a "call and response" or solo instrument.

I think it's a two-fold problem.  The first part is perceptual.  When folks 
listen to music that has a noticable harp part to it they are probably 
hearing either a solo harp or a harpist playing responses to the vocalist's 
phrases.  If a harp is playing chords in the background it is much less 
noticable and many people might not even recognize the fact that a harp is 
in there at all.  But (paradoxically) the other part of the problem is
textural.  The harp is like a few other intruments I can think of...like
bagpipes and banjos, that have a distinctive timbre.  You have to really use
your ear and play with skill if you're trying to make this sound blend in with
other instruments.  Volume and attack are critical...if you can match your 
attacks to what the other rhythm instruments are playing and get your volume
down so that the harp timbre isn't the dominant sound then you can get away
with playing through the tune...and get that variety of sound by increasing
your volume when it comes time to take a solo.

>I've been experimenting with ways to integrate the harp into the music more
>completely.  Some people love the punch a harp solo can provide a song, but
>doesn't that just degenerate the instrument to the equivalent of being put on
>a pedestal?

Try the suggestion above.  The harp is no more on a pedestal than any other 
solo instrument...and it has the added ability of being able to play chords 
as well.  It's a different type of playing...holding back as opposed to 
belting out a riff, but if you try it you might find that the musicians 
you're playing with start being a little more flexible with their attitudes 
about the harp.  Good Luck.

Billong  >--StarGazer