OK, technically they aren't "triads" but 3-note chords voiced with doubled (and tripled) roots and fifths. Harmonically and conceptually, there still isn't anything else than root, major third and fifth in there and I thought that was inferrable from the context, but in any case that was not the part of the sentence meant to take emphasis. It may be a linguistic limit on my side, but what I meant was not that "even taken out of context, it sounds like a chord", but rather that ONLY taken out of context it can, in certain very specific circumstances only, sound like a (major, or any) chord.anotherscott wrote:No, Hlaalu, even out of context, a single note of all drawbars out won't sound exactly like a major triad on a single note, but if you pull out ONLY drawbars 6, 7, and 8, then yes, that's exactly what you get. So FZielgler, the statement of yours that you said was "definitely wrong" is actually not wrong.
And here comes the point about voicings. I absolutely agree that different registrations require different voicings, as I said, but again that's not, in my view, because they create "harmonic" implications in the chord sense, but simply because of the difference in timbre created by the different registrations (and possibly in EQ, but let's not split hairs over the fact that EQ in itself affects or is a part of timbre...). A muddy and woofy sound goes well with certain voicings, whereas a thin and clear sound with others -- any instrument has its own peculiarities about voicings, dictated by its timbre and range. Now if you call the difference between "fuller" and "thinner" a harmonic difference, then of course we are saying the same thing with different names...
If that's the case, you should agree the point I was making becomes rather obvious, namely that drawbars registrations don't interfere with the harmony of the tune, or specific chords you're playing, in the sense that you would never choose which voicings to use over a certain chord based on which drawbar harmonic would conflict with which note of that chord.
For example, it's not that if you are playing over a dominant chord and have the second drawbar pulled out, you are not going to play the major third of that chord just because its fifth would become the major seventh of the chord you are playing over, which would clash with the minor seventh already part of it. That would require a computer-like thinking while playing, but the reason nobody actually plays like that is not just because it would be extraordinarily difficult, but because, as I said, that's NOT the way things mix in, harmonically.
On the other hand, if you really meant "harmonic" not in the purely acoustic sense but really in the "Harmony" sense that I just made an example about, then I have a hard time entertaining all the practical implications that that stance would have. That would make the Hammond nearly impossible to play, because there's always going to be some note in there that would conflict with some note of the chords you are playing over.
Either way, you said it would be a difficult task to come up with general guidance on how to voice chords on the organ precisely because of all the above. Well, I agree it's more difficult than a fixed-timbre instrument to do, and I think that's the reason why this kind knowledge isn't as vast and as structured as on the piano, but some general principles do exist already, at least for registrations that have become common (in jazz at least). I guess building from there as selftaught is up to each organist... Which is exciting and daunting at the same time somehow. I stand by what I said that in my humble opinion it's a very young and unexplored instrument full of possibilities.
I am aware that not all "natural" harmonics aren't even and squared, but to be honest, this simple fact doesn't seem to me like an argument for or against any claim of harmonic implications that a sound may have. They way you put it, "since acoustic instruments have a different, "out of tune" harmonic content, therefore they can't sound like a chord, whereas an organ, with harmonics of perfect fifths and thirds only, can", seems something that would need quite a bit of backup as a statement, acoustically speaking. Based on that one could easily argue the opposite, that some instruments, precisely because of their uneven harmonic content, could sound like a (dissonant) chord in certain contexts. Other than that, the only safe drawable conclusion I see here is that "different set of harmonics create different timbres". Again, this is about acoustic rather than harmony.anotherscott wrote: What you're missing here is that, while timbres of acoustic instruments are indeed determined by their harmonic content, the harmonics are completely different from the harmonics of the drawbars. On "real" instruments, the harmonics are "out of tune" -- they are almost all sharp or flat relative to the true pitch of our western scale. On the organ, they are all perfectly pitched. [...] the drawbar harmonics don't have the exact same pitches as the harmonics the real acoustic instruments do. Which also helps explain why an organ note in isolation can sound like a chord, but a violin note or whatever cannot.
Yes it wasn't a black and white statement, and I am aware of that technique too (and like it as well!). But that's why I specified I was referring to traditional jazz players (Jimmy Smith, the abovementioned Melvin Rhyne, Groove Holmes, and more recent Barbara Dennerlein, Rhoda Scott and Tony Monaco, the list is long... luckily!). They generally have some drawbar combinations that sculpt their sound and that is preserved in their music. They don't mess with drawbars the way that a synth player would mess with filters and effects.anotherscott wrote: It depends on someone's style of playing. I've seen some videos of great gospel players frequently coloring their sound by moving bunches of drawbars in and out as they play, whether a couple at a time, or grabbing and shaping them by the fistful. It's not uncommon. And it can sound great!
I think it's worth noticing that, depending on the way the OP is splitting his keyboard and assigning octaves to it, he might be experiencing an exaggerated foldback effect where the octave below is an exact replica of the octave above, even when 88 8000 000-like registrations are used -- on a real Hammond, you'd hear that only with a 80 0000 000 registration, because if you use 80 8000 000, only the 16' folds back but not the 8', so you'd hear a different timbre in the first and second octave from the left.anotherscott wrote: Traditionally, "proper" organ bass is done with the foot pedals. If you play LH bass on the keys, you'll be playing with lower manual sounds, which may or may not exhibit foldback depending on the implementation, giving you more or less fullness to your bass sound, but I don't think people alter their playing for it.
I agree about that, but to be fair that's another conversation. The comparison wasn't about playing piano on waterfall keys, but about the difference in challenge between piano playing on piano keys and organ playing on organ keys, and how much crossover there is and there isn't, depending on the style. Personally, from what's my experience is worth, I agree that organ playing tends to be less forgiving and that it forces you to actually "mean" each note you play in a way that's not the case for piano. Then of course nothing is black and white, except for the keyboard keys!anotherscott wrote: But one of the challenges of playing piano on a waterfall or other organ-oriented action is that keys trigger SO easily. The combination of less resistance and rounded edges means that if you just "brush by" a wrong note while reaching for the right one will trigger it... and on organ, that usually sounds great, and on piano, it usually sounds terrible! On an organ, the "constant volume" (if you're not using percussion) means that the wrong note kind of merges into the right one, similar to how a singer may quickly slide into a note that wasn't exactly where he first hit it. On a piano, the very distinct attack of each note prevents that, seeming more like a singer singing the wrong note before singing the right one. "Sloppy" organ playing can sound great, "sloppy" piano playing usually sounds awful! Of course grace notes can be effective on piano, but "unintentional" ones are rarely so.
As you say, it's true that palm smears on organ sound good and palm smears with a piano patch on organ-like waterfall keys sound awful. This is only a fraction of the whole picture though, and a fraction that would only happen trying to play one instrument on the keys of the other. I'll add that in general, I find this conversation about the crossover between two very similar yet very different instruments very interesting and stimulating. I am aware it's not something one would strictly need to have in order to play any of them...