Skip to content

Didgeridoo and music: Why is it so difficult?

By the way, I’m using this article to convey part of the way I see the didgeridoo and music. Being self-taught and not having had any formal musical training, I can provide my perspective without being restrained by current academic thought. Admittedly, I run the risk of sounding a bit eccentric on some points. That said, enjoy the article!

My latest album “L’ENVOL” (TAKEOFF) was released on December 13 consisting of 9 tracks centered on the didgeridoo ( (you can listen to it online by clicking here or show your support by ordering here).$
I’m more proud of this album by far than my previous work, and the streaming counts show me you feel the same way: I’m getting 5 times more listeners for this opus than for my first two albums put together!

But why did I wait twenty one years to release an album worthy of this name? You’ll suggest it takes some time to build up experience and wisdom… Perhaps… but looking more closely reveals other reasons.

I can see the same thing with many other didgeridoo albums: how can we explain the finesse required to properly integrate the didgeridoo with other instruments?

I’m going to try to tackle this subject with you in a series of articles, and I’m going to begin with what I think is THE reason for the difficulty of the didgeridoo to find its place in today’s music.

THE problem for the didgeridoo!

I’ve thought a lot about this question: how does our instrument fit into the musical space? Listening to albums that use the didgeridoo, I too often come away with the uneasy feeling that there was a didgeridoo, and there were the other instruments. Like two opposing groups rather than a tightly linked ensemble… How can I explain that? Or how can I explain compositions supposedly featuring the didgeridoo ending up sidelining it?

It took me many years to boil the situation down to a single phrase that sums up the problem of the didgeridoo in ensemble playing:

“The didgeridoo is a rhythm instrument that plays sustained notes.“

Let me explain.

There are two main families of instruments in music: melody instruments and rhythm instruments.

Sustained notes are usually the domain of the melody instruments: They were conceived to play a variety of notes, sustained or not, in service of a melody.

Whereas rhythm instruments, often called percussion instruments, typically make (almost) only short sounds, so short that you mostly can’t discern a pitch. The sounds combine in sequences to form rhythms. There are almost no sustained sounds among the percussion instruments.

With that in mind, where to we put the didgeridoo, an instrument that plays:

  • the sustained notes of melody instruments (though limited to one note)…
  • …all the while playing rhythms that can include sustained notes?

Are you starting to see the challenge involved? Today’s music isn’t really meant for this duality (yes, the bass guitar can approach the same duality, but I could do a whole article just on that because it doesn’t shine much light on the problem at hand).

Let’s do our best to peel away some of the layers of this onion.

The didgeridoo, a rhythm instrument

The didgeridoo’s rhythmic force…

You won’t be surprised to see me write that the didgeridoo belongs with the rhythm instruments of the two main families I mentioned.

If you aren’t so easily convinced, have a listen to the way the sound of the didgeridoo has evolved in just the last twenty years: the feeling is STRONLY rhythmic. I point to what’s coming out of the east from Ondrej Smeykal or Dubravko Lapaine. (listen to my podcast: Why Dubravko Lapaine can only play like Dubravko Lapaine), the drop octave technique (William Thorens), and beatboxing (Zalem), not to mention the wobble…

I don’t have anything against these techniques; on the contrary: I was part of the group of players who developed the wobble in the early 2000s. Nor do I have anything against any of these rhythmic techniques. I see them as part of our vocabulary that greatly enrich the sounds of the didgeridoo.

That said, we shouldn’t forget that rhythmic playing breaks up the drone, even to the point of obscuring it completely (read this article: 10 australien didgeridoo players you ought to know)).

Thinking about it, it’s not that so surprising. Remember: the didgeridoo is a rhythmic instrument that can play sustained notes…

But hold on, we’ve seen that rhythm instruments play short sounds!

Shortening the length of the drone to the extreme, we’ve nothing left but the attacks, the impacts, if you will. The duration of the sound shortens, and we start hearing the percussive part.

It’s common to hear a didgeridooist obviously inspired by the rhythms of a drum kit, beatbox, or other percussion, so why avoid it?!

In any case, even if I love arriving at a destination, I don’t think we’re there yet. Rather we’re at an intermediate point along the way of discovering the full potential of the didgeridoo. I think the “purely rhythmic“ approach has its limits…

… And those limits

If we want to compete with drum kits (or other percussion instruments) on their territory, we’ve lost before we even begin. I recognized it during a practice session with Kaophonic Tribu when Christophe the drummer started beating his drum kit: he’ll always be able to offer a stronger rhythm to undergird the other band members.

There’s nothing surprising about that! That’s why drums exist. After all, there’s nothing more effective than drums for drumming!

Once we recognize that, let’s add another more important piece to the puzzle: chasing rhythm has been at the expense of our beloved drone and its delicate harmonics. Just ask the former generation of people who started didgeridoo in the 90s what they liked about the didgeridoo. Most sigh nostalgically and mention the magic of the sound.

And with good reason. The didgeridoo’s uniquely modulated sound is a major distinguishing feature. It’s a sound that spreads out, fluctuates, and… keeps going! And we’re going to see that the latter is more strongly associated with melody instruments than rhythmic instruments.

Let’s get below the surface of that.

The didgeridoo, a rhythm instrument having a melodic side

The didgeridoo’s ability to play sustained notes puts it dangerously close to the family of melody instruments. But is it really melodic if it can only play one note?? There’s a disconnect!

Whether consciously or not, several enthusiasts have tried to resolve this “problem”: How can we play melodies on the didgeridoo? How can we make use of the didgeridoo’s ability to play sustained notes, a talent normally reserved for melody instruments?!

Let’s have a look at what others have tried over the years.

Playing multiple notes with a single didgeridoo

Note: trying to stay within the scope of this article, I’ll limit the discussion to building melodies by altering the pitch during play.

1. Slide didgeridoos and keyed didgeridoos

The first way is to complicate the didgeridoo itself to allow it to play more than a single note. And there are two ways to do that: add keys or make add a telescopic or slide mechanism.

Several makers have used a slide mechanism, including the WoodSlides, Walter Strasser’s line, the Phonodidges, and the Korn Bass. You only need to lengthen or shorten the didgeridoo to get a different pitch, the way a trombone works.

And what’s this about adding keys to a didgeridoo? Player Graham Wiggins did it way back in the 80s. The player pressing keys to close holes in the body of the instrument is how the clarinet and other woodwind instruments can play so many different notes, opening the way to playing melodies.

If you follow my work, you already know that I’m not a big fan of these schemes. They cause a loss of the charm and personality of the didgeridoo. Both require the bore to be machined smooth, and this hyper-smooth air column degrades the unique sound of the didgeridoo.

So for me, the price of changing the didgeridoo into a “real” instrument using these techniques is too high.

That being said, I understand completely how this type of instrument could please some didgeridoo players, and far be it from me to shoot down this approach. And by the way, if you like the idea of such instruments, I can wholeheartedly recommend the makers listed above.

2. Playing with toots and drop octaves

Another way to achieve a bit of melody is to change the drone pitch by altering lip tension. We call the higher-than-drone notes “toots” and the lower-than-drone notes “drop octaves.”

This approach yields other notes without altering the body of the didgeridoo. There are no keys, no slides, just a plain didgeridoo and a lot of practice in the two techniques. We can thank Dubravko Lapaine for advancing the art of toots and William Thorens for his drop octave work.

Personally, despite my admiration for my colleagues and their work, I think this approach also sacrifices the drone that I appreciate so much. And as a further dissuasion, performing these techniques well requires instruments specially designed and manufactured for those techniques. And the design constraints on the bore impede playing other techniques, such as harmonics, cheek effects, getting a round sound envelope…

So you see, I don’t agree with sacrificing the beautiful qualities of the drone on the alter of toots and drop octaves!

3. Using voice in the service of melody

In my opinion, this is the most promising way to approach melody. Ondrej Smeykal developed it over the years. He features the sound of his voice to a greater extent than the sound of his didgeridoo. That said, and admitting that I love hearing Ondrej in concert, his approach reduces the drone to a minimum. In fact, it would appear that the more the voice is developed, the more the drone is hidden. At the extreme, the didgeridoo becomes just a megaphone.

For me, the best approach would be to combine the beauty of the drone and its rich harmonics with the particular qualities of the voice. That’s why I particularly like the way Denra Dürr plays. It’s a sublimely delicate combination of voice and harmonics. However, this marriage of voice and harmonics still needs a lot more research before we can call it perfect, because it ought to be based both on rhythmic familiarity, harmonic precision, voice work, and the laws that govern didgeridoo playing. In short, I don’t think it’s quite ready for prime time yet.

Let’s move aside the as yet unfulfilled promise of the voice for the moment…

In its place, I’d rather show why I think that creating melody while sacrificing the drone is a dead end.

The erroneous thinking behind the search for melody on the didgeridoo…

I’ll cut to the chase. I think the didgeridoo is just not meant to play melodies like a melody instrument. If you want to play melodies, get yourself a melody instrument that was created for that reason!

Understand that my love for the richness of the drone is what defines my thinking on this. Far be it from me to attack anyone for what they are playing. I’m happy to see the variety of musical expression, techniques (often impressive), ideas, and innovative manufacturing centered on our beloved instrument.

But looking at all costs to change the note of the didgeridoo in order to be able to create melodies stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the didgeridoo, that is has a “fault,” that it is somehow incomplete or immature as it is, that it needs to be changed to better conform to our western music.

An aphorism falsely attributed to Albert Einstein reminds us of something essential:

« Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid ».

No! Our didgeridoo does not have a “problem” to be “solved” (or at least not a problem in the sense we’ve been discussing)!

So we can relax, right?

Now that we know:

  • that the didgeridoo isn’t really meant to be able to play a variety of notes (without sacrificing the drone)
  • nor is it as effective as a percussion instrument at playing rhythms (and nothing but rhythms)
  • and none of that is a problem!

So what does it bring to our music? And what is its unique contribution (and not its problem)?

Any guesses?

I’ll give you a hint about how to think about it…

A first step to understanding: an extraordinary range of tone colors

Our didgeridoo may be monotonic, but that doesn’t mean it can’t make a lot of different sounds!

If we compare the didgeridoo’s range of tone colors with that of a drum kit (the most popular percussion instrument in the world, demonstrating the soft power of American culture — another subject!), you quickly see our beloved sticks don’t have anything to be embarrassed about.

Here’s a short list of the basic sounds made by the two instruments:

Drum kit (5 sounds):

  • Kick
  • Snare
  • Hi-hat
  • Cymbal
  • Tom-toms

Didgeridoo (19 sounds)

  • Harmonics (ah ay ee oh oo)
  • Breaths (circular breathing): WON, wa, WAH, WI, ON
  • Overtone (Toots): 1st and 2nd
  • Attacks: T, K, P, throat, Kouf (and others)
  • Voice: low, medium, and falsetto

The most attentive among you will have noticed I’ve drastically limited the list of sounds a didgeridoo can make. As just one example, including playing with loose or tight cheeks doubles the list. And ye, I’m quite aware of the greater variety of sounds that drummers can make on their drum kits.

But in the interest of brevity, we can just say the didgeridoo certainly holds it own in terms of tonal variety, and not just against a drum kit.

Wow! We had to get to nearly the end of the article to finally discover our old friend’s biggest asset. It’s about time!

I hear you thinking, “Is that all you have, Gauthier?”

My answer: Yes, and that’s already a lot!

In fact, if you start to understand that the didgeridoo is a rhythm instrument that can also play melodically, and that its strength is in the richness of the sound of its drone and the other sounds stemming from it, you start to see things more clearly.

Also, completely logical, the desire to make it purely a rhythm instrument is something to be challenged — just like the idea of transforming it into a purely melody instrument.

And with good reason: the didgeridoo is neither one. And once again: there’s nothing at all wrong with that!

At this point, we’ve made a big stride forward:

  1. We’ve stopped looking for a problem.
  2. We’re starting to see things in context.
  3. This little thought experiment frees us from the false problem of needing to alter the didgeridoo.

But let’s not forget that our goal was to understand the difficulty of combining the didgeridoo with other instruments to make music.

And now that we’ve cast aside the “false problems,” it’s time to ask some “good” questions.

But that’s where things get complicated.

To conclude: a lot of questions are still hanging…

Here are some questions that come to mind haphazardly: How do we create a rich sound with a didgeridoo? How do we teach a neophyte to hear this richness? How do we make this odd instrument “interesting”? How do we turn its uniqueness into a musical strength? How should we combine the rich sound with its rich spectrum of rhythmic possibilities? And moreover, what are the laws that govern didgeridoo playing? And when we’ve understood that, how do we mix that into today’s music? And how do we compose on the didgeridoo? And once we have a composition, how do we mix the sounds of the didgeridoo with the other instruments? Lastly, why are we doing all that, and what is the artistic angle?

So those are the questions I’ve been asking myself since I began playing didgeridoo on Christmas Day 2001 (no, I haven’t led a relaxed life!). I was frustrated during much of that time, even doubtful, asking myself why I couldn’t create music I was proud of using my instrument… When the other players seemed to be able to do that effortlessly.

But now that I’ve begun to sketch some of the answers (that can be found in concrete form on my last album), now that I’ve begun to decode the laws that govern didgeridoo playing (I extend my thanks to my students at Wakademy), and now that I’ve caught a glimpse of how the didgeridoo playing needs to be centered around rhythm, all of that with the goal of making music, I’m starting to think that I haven’t been wasting my time.

Also, you will have understood these words are only an introduction to this subject that is worth developing further. So, let’s make a date for the near future to further unravel the subject in later articles… and try to solve this puzzle whose complexity is on the order of the famous Rubik’s cube!

Meanwhile I’ll leave you to enjoy my latest album. Let me know what you think!

See you soon!

Free course

Circular breathing in just a few days

Explanations that are clear, practical (!) and progressive. You’ll be surprised to see it’s simpler than it looks!

  • 7 videos in 4 steps
Learn circular breathing

5/5225 Google reviews

9953members

Read next

4 responses to “Didgeridoo and music: Why is it so difficult?”

  1. Apache.bzh Avatar
    Apache.bzh

    When you talk about long sounds, you must be referring to the sound produced by wind instruments, (of which the didgeridoo and jaw harp are part). Moreover, these 2 instruments will never be percussion instruments, because by their very nature they are wind instruments.

    Moreover, other instruments that are not wind instruments can produce long sounds (for example, bowed strings (violin…). Instruments are classified into specific categories (wind, strings, or percussion).

    Almost all instruments make rhythms, and not just the didgeridoo. By nature, the didgeridoo is a melodic instrument. It can make a drone and some overtones. The boundary between melodies and rhythms is thin. The instrument that resembles it most is the Alpine horn, which can make simple melodies with natural harmonics. Unlike the didgeridoo, the Alpine horn is well-tuned. On the other hand, its sound is less rich than the didgeridoo, it has no drone.

    The harmonics of the didgeridoo are not tuned according to natural harmonies and are few in number. It’s almost impossible to make a real melody (with equal temperament) with overtones. This is what gives it such a rich and generous sound. It has no valve to change harmonics and create melodies. It is melodically poor.

    The didgeridoo is not a harmonic instrument even though it has harmonics. We speak of a harmonic instrument to designate an instrument that can make chords clearly identifiable as the guitar, the piano, the accordion.

    The didgeridoo has a somewhat special place in music. It’s a melodic instrument with a non-tempered scale. Yet all our current music plays tempered scales. A tempered scale is a scale divided into 12 semitones, represented by 12 frets of the guitar, or the 12 keys of the piano for example. Also, our music is harmonic, built around chains of chords.

    Unfortunately, the didgeridoo, because of its drone, cannot follow a harmonic grid. It is therefore by its very nature a melodic instrument that cannot follow the melodies of current music. That’s why it’s hard to associate it with other instruments. The didgeridoo has a great richness of sounds, and a very broad spectrum of sounds, from low to high frequencies. Unlike many instruments like the flute, whose amplitude is very low. It plays on frequencies, can alternate low and high sounds.

    It can be sufficient on its own.

    Word of a multi-instrumentalist.
    Apache.bzh
    http://www.apachebzh.fr

    Automatically translated from French · See the original

    Quand tu parles de sons longs, tu dois faire allusion au son produit par les instruments à vent, (dont fait partie le didgeridoo et la guimbarde). D’ailleurs ces 2 instruments ne seront jamais des instruments à percussions, puisque par essence même ils sont des instruments à vent.

    D’ailleurs d’autres instruments qui ne sont pas des vent peuvent produire des sons longs (par exemple, les cordes frottées (violon …). Les instruments sont classés dans des catégories bien spécifiques (à vent, à cordes, ou à percussions).

    Quasiment tous les instruments font des rythmes, et pas que le didgeridoo. Par essence, le didgeridoo est un instrument mélodique. Il peut faire un bourdon et qqs sur vibrations. La frontière entre mélodies et rythmes est faible. L’instrument qui lui ressemble le plus est le cor des Alpes, qui peut faire des mélodies simples avec des harmoniques naturelles. Contrairement au didgeridoo, le cor des Alpes est bien accordé. Par contre, son son est moins riche que le didgeridoo, il n’a pas de bourdon.

    Les harmoniques du didgeridoo ne sont pas accordées selon les harmonies naturelles et sont peu nombreuses. C’est quasiment impossible de faire une vraie mélodie (avec gamme tempérée) avec les sur-vibrations. C’est cela qui lui confère un son si riche et si généreux. Il n’a pas de piston pour changer les harmoniques et créent des mélodies. Il est mélodiquement pauvre.

    Le didgeridoo n’est pas un instrument harmonique même s’il a des harmoniques. On parle d’instrument harmonique pour désigner un instrument qui peut faire des accords clairement identifiables comme la guitare, le piano, l’accordéon.

    Le didgeridoo a une place un peu à part dans la musique. C’est un instrument mélodique à gamme non tempérée. Or toutes nos musiques actuelles jouent des gammes tempérées. Une gamme tempérée est une gamme découpée en 12 demi-tons, représentées par 12 cases de la guitare, ou les 12 touches du piano par exemple. Aussi, nos musiques sont harmonique , construites autour d’accords qui s’enchaînent.

    Malheureusement le didgeridoo de par son bourdon ne peut pas suivre une grille harmonique. C’est donc par essence même un instrument mélodique qui ne peut pas suivre les mélodies de la musique actuelle. C’est pour cela qu’il est dur de l’associer à d’autres instruments. Le didgeridoo a une grande richesse de sons, et un spectre de sons très étendu, des fréquences basses aux fréquences aigues. Contrairement, à beaucoup d’instruments comme la flûte dont l’amplitude est très faible. Il joue sur les fréquences, peu alterner des sons graves et aigües.

    Il peut se suffire à lui-même.

    Parole de multi-instrumentiste.
    Apache.bzh
    http://www.apachebzh.fr

    1. bigdrum01 Avatar
      bigdrum01

      “Also, our music is harmonic, built around chords that chain together. Unfortunately, the didgeridoo, due to its drone, cannot follow a harmonic grid. It is therefore by its very nature a melodic instrument that cannot follow the melodies of current music.”

      Hi, you forget to mention modal music that was in vogue in the Middle Ages, which is not tonal and therefore not structured according to a chord progression. Wikipedia says:
      “In secular music, monody was sometimes accompanied rhythmically or supported by a drone (fixed note held). The refinement can be just as complex as in tonal music, but will exist through nuances of inflection of pitches, through games of ornaments, or through very long rhythmic sequences, whereas in tonal music it is the chaining of chords creating harmony (or the weaving of voices creating a strict counterpoint) that differentiates complexity.”

      Indian music and ragas are modal with the tampura in the background playing the drone of the fundamental, the SA.

      So the didgeridoo can perhaps be that instrument to play modal music.

      For me it is so rich and so complete that it reveals itself with one or two instruments, no more. And its drone full of harmonics highlights the harmonics of the melodic instruments that accompany it and there lies its strength and its interest.

      And finally, the didge connects to a very ancient state of consciousness because it is one of the oldest instruments in the world. And it was used to access altered states of consciousness towards the dreamtime.

      It is an instrument for trance.

      Have a good day

      Automatically translated from French · See the original

      “Aussi, nos musiques sont harmoniques , construites autour d accords qui s enchainent .Malheureusement le didgeridoo de par son bourdon ne peut pas suivre une grille harmonique.C’est donc par essence même un instrument mélodique qui ne peut pas suivre les mélodies de la musique actuelle.”

      Salut tu oublies de mentionner la musique modale en vogue au moyen age qui n’est pas tonale et n’est donc pas structuré selon une progression d’accord. Wikipedia dit:
      Dans la musique profane, la monodie était parfois accompagnée rythmiquement ou soutenue par un bourdon (note fixe tenue). Le raffinement peut être tout aussi complexe qu’en musique tonale, mais existera par des nuances d’inflexion des hauteurs, par des jeux d’ornements, ou par des séquences rythmiques très longues, alors qu’en musique tonale c’est l’enchaînement des accords créant l’harmonie (ou bien encore le tissage des voix créant un contrepoint) qui différencie la complexité.

      La musique Indienne et les ragas est modal avec la tampura en fond qui sonne le bourdon de la fondamental, du SA.

      Du coup le didgeridoo peut est être cet instrument pour jouer de la musique modale.

      Il est pour moi si riche et si complet qu’il se révèle avec un ou deux instruments pas plus. Et son bourdons pleins d’harmoniques met en valeur les harmoniques des instruments mélodiques qui l’accompagnent et là réside sa force et son intérêt.

      Et pour finir le didge connecte à un état de conscience très ancien car il est un des plus vieux instruments du monde. Et it était utilisé pour accéder à des états modifié de conscience vers le dreamtime.

      C’est un instrument pour la transe.

      Bonne journée

      1. Gauthier Aubé Avatar
        Gauthier Aubé

        Thanks for your comment that adds to the

        Automatically translated from French · See the original

        Merci pour ton commentaire qui vient enrichir le “débat” bigdrum01 !

        Je tenais juste à préciser que pour les “états modifié de conscience vers le dreamtime“, nous n’avons pas à ma connaissance les éléments qui permettent de l’affirmer. Sujet très complexe !

        Si jamais ça intéresse du monde, on a fait une série de 10 podcasts avec Greg de didgeridoo passion sur la culture Aborigène et leur vision du didgeridoo.
        Le permet épisode est ici :
        https://www.wakademy.online/blog/podcast/podcast-les-aborigenes-daustralie-avant-larrivee-des-colons/

    2. Gauthier Aubé Avatar
      Gauthier Aubé

      Thank you for your comment Apache!

      I’ll try to address a few of your points:

      Regarding the classification of instruments, I’m well aware that the didgeridoo is a wind instrument in the brass family. However, and that’s precisely why I didn’t mention it in the article, it doesn’t get us very far! Because as you say further down, once you’ve said that, you haven’t said much… Comparing it to the Alpine horn unfortunately doesn’t bring any new insights either. For these reasons (and all the ones you bring up), I don’t think the current classification is simply suitable for the didgeridoo. In my opinion, it just doesn’t fit into these boxes. That’s just my opinion, and questioning instrumental classification can certainly seem presumptuous, but after all these years of practice my conclusion is that it doesn’t work. :-/ Regarding the harmonic instrument aspect, thank you for that clarification. I simply repeated what I’ve heard since I started playing didgeridoo. People said that the jaw harp, the didgeridoo, and overtone singing were harmonic instruments. After searching the internet, I found nothing to support that. Thanks for the correction!

      As for the tonal/modal differences, as I mentioned in my email, I’m seriously lacking knowledge in that area. I’ve heard about both of course, but I’ll leave Bigdrum to answer that one. Regarding the richness of the didgeridoo’s drone, I’ll come back to that point in the following articles…

      Automatically translated from French · See the original

      Je te remercie pour ton commentaire Apache !

      Je vais tenter de répondre à quelques arguments :

      Pour la classification des instruments, j’ai bien en tête que le didgeridoo est un instrument à vent de la famille des cuivres. Cependant, et c’est pour cette raison que je ne l’ai pas mentionné dans l’article, ça nous avance peu ! Car comme tu le dis plus loin, une fois que l’on a dit ça, on n’a pas dit grand chose… Le comparer au cors des alpes n’apporte malheureusment pas non plus de nouvelles pistes. Pour ces raisons (et toutes celles que tu évoques), je ne trouve pas que le classement actuel convienne toute simplement au didgeridoo. À mon avis, il ne rentre tout simplement pas dans ces cases. Ça ne reste que mon avis, et remettre en question la classification instrumentale peu très certainement paraitre prétentieux, mais après toutes ces années de pratique ma conclusion est que ne fonctionne pas. :-/Pour le côté instrument harmonique, je te remercie pour cette précision. J’ai simplement répété ce que j’ai entendu depuis que j’ai commencé le didgeridoo. On disait que la guimbarde le didgeridoo et le chant diphonique étaient des instruments harmoniques. Après une recherche sur internet, je n’ai rien trouvé dans ce sens. Merci donc pour la correction !Pour les différences tonales/modales, comme je te disais par mail, je manque cruellement de connaissance dans ce domaine. J’ai entendu parlé des deux bien sûr mais je laisse Bigdrum pour la réponse.Pour la richesse du bourdon du didgeridoo, je viendrais sur ce point mais dans la suite des articles…

Leave a Reply