The terrible ascent of Kangchenjunga, towering peak of the Himalayas, has seen many a brash expedition retreat from its flanks in weary disarray. Year after year, the final exhalation of some brave but unlucky mountaineer takes him to eternity amongst its thin, frozen airs. The ice-bound slopes remain impassive, oblivious, unmoved and untouched by the suffering of the ant-people who crawl upon them; their only gift, a fusillade of plummeting boulders; their only music the dismal thunder of an avalanche.
Which brings me to some guitar players, and another terrible ascent: the Chords of Kangchenjunga. You know the situation, you are sitting there playing a nice cheery reel in D or another major key, and the guitarist starts doing this hideous climbing thing where he ascends the fret board a couple of frets at a time in a series of minor chords, or are they diminished. Whatever, most of them are wrong. It lasts for 4 to 8 bars and makes the tune sound awful and you spend the rest of the tune praying that he doesn't do it again. Ten or fifteen years ago I think it was regarded as a clever sort of progression with some sort of bogus reasoning that it was a jazzy thing to do, although you would never hear a genuine jazz musician play anything as inappropriate. Nowadays it is just boring because you hear it so often, and sick-making because as soon as it starts you know that you are probably in for several bars of duff minor chords that make a cheery major tune sound like a funeral dirge. My suspicion is that these guitarists have learned one of these hideous theoretical progressions for say D major reels, and then trot it out whenever a tune is in D major, no matter what is actually happening melodically in the tune that is being played. Believe me, I appreciate properly worked out jazzy chords as much as anyone, and could listen to Willie Johnston all day, but this churning out of the same ghastly ascent of the fret board whenever the tune is in the unfortunate key just seems lazy, robotic and unmusical.
Does anyone else detest the Chords of Kangchenjunga ? Can anybody explain their purpose ? Am I missing the inner beauty of these foul chords ?
Aye dafydd, you may not have recognised this word from Ron P, from him like bein' brung up proper like, with a silver spoon (but fortunately not a pair of them!) in his mouth! Perhaps mingin' & boufin' ring more of a bell though?
Sorry Ron P - I guess that's me buyin' all my own drink at this year's MOKMF then?
Aye Nick, must agree with you, & Ron P, on this. For many geetar players subtlety appears to be the enemy! As a friend once put it, after hearing a particularly obnoxious sounding one of those manic thrash, bang, crash, wallop, 'let's speed em up' geetar merchants - "If you can hear the Guitar, it's too loud"!
Isn't it simply delightful when all you can hear, almost, is the gentle clip of the plectrum & then the merest hint of a perception that the mood has changed a little as the guitar player changes chords?
Like Ron I LOVE the sound of a well played Guitar & have no choice really as my son is a Guitar & Bass player.
I just heard yesterday that he has ordered himself a custom made '8 STRING BASS'!
Just imagine one of those monsters being unleashed at your session!
I'm not saying they're large but, after all, you can almost land a light aircraft on the fingerboard!
Sometimes, simplicity is a virtue, especially when your job is to support the other instruments.
There are some accompanists who feel that this is modal music, and all accompaniment should reflect its modal nature, which tends to make a lot of it sound the same. In avoiding the old cliches, they have, instead of being fresh, created new cliches.
There is nothing wrong with being unabashedly major on a tune that calls for it, minor on a minor tune, and yes, modal on some tunes.
Done well, these climbs to the summit can sound wonderful, but it takes a good accompanist to know exactly where to start climbing, as not every tune in a particular key allows the climb to occur in a certain way. I have heard some guitarists do a beautiful job climing up the neck, while others tend to sound like they forgot their Sherpa guides down in the base camp.
Surely, played too often they are nearly as bad as those darned Bodhran players who constantly do ascending & descending scales on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on all night at a session - those dudes just do my head in!
This is Zazzaliss on Striving for Shameless's account...
Are you talking about a row of minors, or are you talking about playing, say, D-Em-F#m-G-A-Bm, heavy on the bass? I do that all the time, but it doesn't really give the tune a minor feel-instead, it sort of lets you put a driving, ascending bass run in a tune.
And I also hate it when people put major tunes in minor keys with their chords. Once in the tune can be good, for contrast, but playing minors throughout the tune ruins the happy feel.
But I still have to speak out against Ptarmy's "if you can hear the guitar, it's too loud". I think the guitar should be up-front, playing a sort of counter-melody with the chords. When the chords are wrong, the music can be killed, but when the chords are right, it's awesome.
I too disagree with Ptarmigan about loudness of a guitar, I like to hear a guitar when it's played well and would be frustrated it it were hardly audible. Unless of course he means it is perfectly audible, but you don't actually notice it because it is so flawlessly played. I would agree with that.
But back to the chords. Cannot really comment on your chord progression there Zazzaliss, but I worry about you "doing them all the time"; are they appropriate so often ?. However, you do have major chords there which looks promising, because the Chords of Kangchenjunga seem to have no major chords about them, just this miserable, dirge-like ascent in minor-sounding chords. Gad, it's depressing just imagining the things.
I also disagree with Ptarmi, I think guitar sounds really really annoying when all you can hear is the flapping of the pick against the strings, that kinda sound's drifting into shakey egg territory
I think a rising or falling bass line, or chord run, can sound really good and can be used to add tension or release to a tune (or arrangement). With regard to the jazz thing, minor 7th chords are the same as the relative major just with a different bass not, so have a less "focused" minor sound and aren't so "dirge-like". I'm not too sure about Zazzaliss' chords, I'm not sure if a part/4 bar phrase should end with the relative minor, probably just my own personal preference though, but I find that slightly too much tension for that situation.
Of course, a chord line which sounds awesome when played in a band situation might not be appropriate for a session situation.....discretion is the better part of valour after all
Aha! Now we are getting to the heart of the matter.
"a rising or falling...chord run...can be used to add tension or release to a tune"
Isn't this just another way of saying "I am going to make the tune sound horrible for a while, so that when I stop, you will all breathe a sigh of relief." If so, it certainly works for me, because when the ghastly run ceases, I am sincerely grateful that it is finished and hope never to suffer it again. To me, this is exactly the same as the old recommendation to bang your head off a brick wall, because it's nice when you stop. Why do people feel the need to "add tension" to a tune? It sounds like music-college codswallop to me.
"Unless of course he means it is perfectly audible, but you don't actually notice it because it is so flawlessly played. I would agree with that."
- yes that was the idea Nick.
"I think guitar sounds really really annoying when all you can hear is the flapping of the pick against the strings"
- yeah, well I was exaggerating slightly there Andy.
Obviously you need to hear the guitar or it might as well not be there, but for me there is an ideal level of volume & when that ideal threshold has been breached & then taken to extreme I have heard Guitars which have completely dictated the whole session, so that the melody instruments end up accompanying the guitar?!?!?!?!?!?!?
On occasion I have also heard that ultimate 'horror of horror' the guitarist actually speeding up the set as it progresses - now that for me is wrist slashing stuff altogether!
“In avoiding the old cliches, they have, instead of being fresh, created new cliches.”
This is sooooo true! Except I’d say the new cliches were mostly fresh when they first appeared, but they were such a novel departure from the older styles that repeating them can sound like copycat.
It’s true, though, that we’ve reached an age where one of the branches of the tree features a strong rhythm section that’s almost equal to the melody intruments in creating the sound. The rhythm section doesn’t play the melody, so exploiting this new space in the spotlight means regularly coming up with fresh ideas that serve the accompaniment purpose while justifying that piece of the spotlight. That’s a tall order. I’m not sure where I was going with this, so I’ll just stop here.
Let me just make it clear, I am not against all ascending or descending chord runs. The right ones do sound good when used selectively and tastefully. But they have to be calculated to fit the tune. The right ascending and descending bass runs also sound good when used selectively and tastefully. I am against the hideous Chords of Kangchenjunga, plastered willy-nilly over any major tune. Why is it done when it sounds so bad ? Come-on you people, Confess !! Why do you do it ? Is it because it was once upon a time your greatest technical achievement ? Is it because you want to torture us all and then wallow in the self-satisfaction when you eventually bestow the soothing balm of a lovely, correct chord ? Or are you simply not listening and just churning out something you hope might fit when the tune eventually comes round to match it ?
“Why do people feel the need to "add tension" to a tune? It sounds like music-college codswallop to me.”
Well, Nick, music would be very dull without the constant seesawing of tension and release. In fact, it would be a single tone. But I suspect what you’re complaining about is the over-conscious over-use (or ignorant use) of tension. If the tension lasts long enough to be perceived as tension, then it’s too much.
This discussion is making me tense. Somebody play a nice clean major chord.
Nick, with regard to the "adding tension" comment, most tunes (i.e. in the melody) have a I - V, IV - V, or V - I cadance at the end of each 4 bar phrase (if you don't understand these terms, I would advise learning some basic music theory), and in the case of the first two are creating musical "tension", and the last one musical "resolution". So, to stay with the tune, the chords must exhibit these changes (explicitly or implicitly), thus following the tension and resolution of the tune.
These progressions within the melody give the tune it's structure, which are vital for dancers, as most dance "moves" tend to occur for 4 bar sections, and it is advisable to the dancers to be able to tell where they are in the tune so they know when to change to the next one.
Ptarmi, I have heard guitarists in sessions effectively playing shakey egg, and I would grant that it is at least unobtrusive. It all rather boils down to a matter of musicianship and session ettiquette, all instruments can be played out of time or too loud.
"It all rather boils down to a matter of musicianship and session ettiquette...." - I'll 2nd that Andy!
I only mentioned the Guitar here Andy because that's what Nick is asking us about here. You are quite correct though, in that many other instruments are quite capable of inflicting similar damage to a session .....but I'll refrain from listing them all .....see, I can be tactful, when I try..
Well it certainly sounds like you know what you are talking about Andy. The question is, would these theories of cadences, tension and release, allow you to justify the use of the Chords of Kangchenjunga on theoretical grounds, even though they sounded grim up alongisde the tune ? In which case, would you not be adopting a sort of intellectual musicality in which the theoretical acceptability of chords is used to excuse their musical inappropriateness ?
"In which case, would you not be adopting a sort of intellectual musicality in which the theoretical acceptability of chords is used to excuse their musical inappropriateness?"
I wish the paladins of all that is tasteful and right in traditional Irish music would take up the guitar and show the world how it's to be done. And if the answer is that those paladins only like it without guitar, well, then I wish they'd get together with like-minded folks and exclude all others so they then can quit complaining.
I'm still trying to figure out exactly is meant by "this hideous climbing thing" of minor or diminished chords. I may well be, once it's explained to me, I won't like it either. Or maybe I'll like it a lot. I like to think there's room for something such as subjectivity in music, and those that don't like matters of taste to rule supreme should take up, say, chemistry or engineering.
Nick, can't say I necessarily agree with everything you've said, but plaudits to you for saying it -- and in such a creative way. You realize, of course, that "The Chords of Kangchenjunga" deserves to have a tune written for it. Now, as for the accompaniment...
I believe music theory is (at least, should be) descriptive, not prescriptive. Don’t do it because it’s theoretically correct; do it because it sounds right or avoid it because it sounds wrong.
A branch of The Music has enthusiastically accepted the rock aesthetic, which includes guitar prominence and a lot of up-front, in-your-face strumming that doesn’t have to justify itself as accompaniment. It’s cool stuff, on its own terms, but I think it would be unwise for a guitarist who plays that way to bring it into a traditional tune session without first coming to an understanding with the other players.
But, like cuchulain54, I'm not sure what the essence of the original complaint is. Moving chords have been around for a good long while. Even Peerie Willie uses them. With the right touch and sensitivity, lots of things can work.
Yes, Bob himself, I agree with that.
The rock aesthetic, the jazz aesthetic, the afro-celt stuff -- it's a big, wide world out there. The traditional session of traditional-minded musicians is and should remain the majority, and forcing jazz or rock aesthetics into that setting is not a fair thing to try to do. But to treat your position in the majority as the ivory tower from whence to proclaim who is or is not worthy seems a bit arrogant.
I'm still a wee bit vauge as to what the chords of Kangchenjunga actually are, but I'd say no anyhow. I look at music theory as the why of accompaniment, not the how (to paraphrase Wilt), and it can be used to give ideas about how to accompany, or progressions that might work, in the end even if it works on paper but if it doesn't work to the ear it's not justified. Although frequently the reason why it works on paper but not to the ear is because some aspect of the theory has been overlooked
Any tricky little run or phrase or chord pattern, done too often, gets old. You need a lot of tools in your tool kit to be an interesting accompanist, and you need to know where they fit. And when in doubt, be unobtrusive in a way that keeps the rhythm going. Know the tunes, and where possible, fit the specific tune with what it needs.
I must admit, in the interest of full disclosure, is that this is what I strive for, not necessarily what I have attained. in working to be a good accompanist.
"I think it would be unwise for a guitarist who plays that way to bring it into a traditional tune session without first coming to an understanding with the other players." I thought the idea of a session was to give anybody a chance to enjoy folk music. This comment seems to be excluding people who haven't had any experience in traditional music, but how else are these rock and jazz guitarists supposed to get involved? But i certainly agree about chords other than the basic I, IV, V chords sounding interesting. Plus, it's much more interesting for the guitarist to be able to try different things and sessions are a good chance to experiment and find out whether certain chord progressions work or not.
Who said we wanted to make it easy for rock and jazz guitarists to get involved? Many would say that we have enough trouble with the strummers that are already part of the ITM scene.
"’I think it would be unwise for a guitarist who plays that way to bring it into a traditional tune session without first coming to an understanding with the other players.’ I thought the idea of a session was to give anybody a chance to enjoy folk music.”
No, the idea of a session is for a group of musicians to get together and play in a particular tradition and style that they agree on. It would not be wise for someone to jump in and play in a different style without agreement from the others, who may or may not be interested in having an accompanist change the style of their music.
“This comment seems to be excluding people who haven't had any experience in traditional music, but how else are these rock and jazz guitarists supposed to get involved?”
They get involved in the same way the others got involved. They learn how to play the music and then they join the session.
"Many would say that we have enough trouble with the strummers that are already part of the ITM scene."
Not to mention fiddlers who execute a roll on every dotted quarter note in a piece with eye-rollingly robotic predictability. Would it hurt to play the tune straight EVEN ONCE without your tiresome "artistic" choices of out of time ornamentations and supernatural thirds and sevenths? Believe it or not, Irish music does have keys, and most listeners don't comprehend your "authenticity" - they just think you're playing badly.
Well, I'm an accompaniest, but I'm on the side of the melody players. However, I'll keep my head low now, as I expect tin hats are now required, and I'm a peaceful sort of a person...
Re the jazz thing - if you actually are a good jazzer, you'll know what the chords are, and use them.
I once heard a jazz piano-player talk fondly of the high musicianship of a group he had worked in; he said, " I once played a complex chord with five notes in it, and in the next two bars the soloist had included all those five notes."
The more colors you have in your pallet the more you can create musically. This is true on all instruments, especially those that create the rythmic wings for the melodies to soar.
Nothing is good or bad if done tastefully and in moderation.
So what's the purpose of this thread? Are some "whines" more valuable than others to this community?
To complain about anything is always to leave oneself open to attacks on the basis of being whining, arrogant, elitist etcetera. However, the opposite stance is to have no markers of style or tradition whatsoever is it not ? So bring on the electric guitars yes son that's fine, just plug in over there in the corner next to the flute players, aye play any chords ye like, it's all just a big experiment in the session here, aye it's D major son, but no go ahead don't be shy, play a big string of minor chords over the top if that's what ye feel like, no it doesn't matter if they don't fit the tune, aye there's hundreds of minor tunes in the repertoire son but don't bother yerself waiting for them to come up if ye've got a favourite wee sequence, it's fine son don't worry, nobody will mind, ach no it's just traditional music so ye can play it any way ye like......
The purpose of the thread is to have a moan about what some guitar players do habitually which does not, in my opinion and obviously in the opinion of some others, enhance the music of tunes in major keys. I hope that such players will read this thread, question whether they are trotting out the Chords of Kangchenjunga, and if they are, ask themselves whether it really does any good. I am not having a go at learners in sessions, and I am not having a go a those of limited ability, God knows we all have our limits, I am having a go at those who are familiar with the music, who know plenty of chords, and who could play something much more fitting and musical but don't because they seem to have got into a habit of doing this other thing automatically.
Are people really arguing that the whole business of accompaniment is subjective and a matter of individual taste, so basically you can do whatever takes your fancy ? There's a tradition of having tunes in major keys, let's keep them sounding like that.
Nick, You may be a newcomer to the "Yellow Board," but you really got my attention with this thread. I don't think I will ever hear a grandious pile of inappropriate chord changes again without thinking of it as "The Chords of Kangchenjunga." Although come to think of it, over time, my food-oriented mind might mutate that phrase to "The Chords of Chimichanga," since the latter is one of my favorite Mexican dishes.
“Are people really arguing that the whole business of accompaniment is subjective and a matter of individual taste, so basically you can do whatever takes your fancy?”
I don’t think it’s that simple, but that “whatever takes your fancy” attitude has certainly transformed what’s accepted or rejected as appropriate accompaniment. I think the results of that experimenting have mostly been good, but as somebody said earlier, it’s also added some new cliches for us to moan about.
“There's a tradition of having tunes in major keys, let's keep them sounding like that.”
Well, a major key contains minor chords and, to my ear, using them doesn’t make the tune sound minor. They just provide harmonic movement. But I guess your complaint is that some backers add too much harmonic movement. Playing a counter-melody with chords is one of those things that can be interesting or can detract too much from the tune.
With regard to the Lunasa example, it's a Donald Shaw tune called McLeod's Farewell (for some reason it isn't up in the tunes section). Although it's in Dmaj, whenever I've heard it on CD a or at a gig the A part tends to be played with a Bminor-y feel to it, usually at the start of in the middle of a set. I think it might be one of those tunes which is the exception of Nick's rule!
What I mean is: You're in a session and they're playing The Maid Behind the Bar and in the second part the guitarist plays an ascending sequence D Em F#m G A D/Bm instead of the old 3 chord trick. Is that the chords of Kangchenjunga, or are they something else entirely? I'm still confused.
“Are people really arguing that the whole business of accompaniment is subjective and a matter of individual taste, so basically you can do whatever takes your fancy?”
Comment: Within reason, yes. Lead players and accompanists should work in service to the tune, and should make knowledgeable choices in their ornamentations/progressions based on listening to the playing of those around them.
“There's a tradition of having tunes in major keys, let's keep them sounding like that.”
A major key has more dark notes than bright.
OK, here (for example) are the chords of D major
I….II…..III…..IV…V………VI….VII
D…em…f#m…G…A Dom…bm…c# dim
And the theory
Playing a D or its relative minor (bm in this case) over a tonic D “change” is OK
Playing a G or its relative minor (em in this case) over a subdominant G “change” is OK
Playing an A Dominant or its relative minor (f#m in this case) over a dominant A “change” is OK
Play a 7th as a leading chord to the tonic (I or vi).
So are you telling use em, f#m, bm, and c# dim are not part of the key of D Major?
And yes, the use of relative minors can bring out different and appealing harmonies when played across the major harmonic changes of a tune with the added bonus of not restricting the accompanist’s range to the clichéd and inexorable I – I – IV – V. Do lead players like to play tunes with only 3 notes and play them all night? Didn’t think so.
As for the 70,000 annual accompanist bashing threads on this board and others, have any of you fine players taken your accompanist to the bar, bought him a round and made a helpful suggestion like “That ascending bit you did with Maid Behind the Bar didn’t really work for me. Can we go out on the patio and work out something cleaner?” Or is the web someplace you go to vent about issues you’re too gutless/courteous to address? After all, you can say something at the pub and perhaps slag your accompanist in front of a dozen people, or you can talk smack about him on-line where thousands of similarly-disposed lead players can chime in “Oh yes, you’re right” without ever hearing the progression in question.
Well, I don't know the history of accompanist-bashing on The Session, being new to it, although I see that some accompanists are obviously capable of dishing it out. You are right that all the chords you mention are part of D major, and I would not expect any accompanist to play interestingly without them. What I am saying is why spend 8 bars playing nothing but minor subs under a major tune ? Or what I have been moaning about, playing some pre-determined sequence of minors and minor subs that resolves itself after 8 bars, but doesn't relate to what is happening in the tune meanwhile. I don't think that is accompanying a tune. As for consulting with "my" accompanist, of course I do that, and we agree what sounds good. He uses a bunch of jazzy chords and they sound great, but of course he bothers to fit them to the tune. We lead players appreciate exactly how important accompanists are, maybe it's some of you guys who don't appreciate your own importance.
I'm pretty sure the progresion goes D, Em D/F# G A, And it drives me totally demented when played all the time. Chord substitution should be treated as a spice, not the whole flavour. A pinch of this and that can make a dish taste wonderful, but too much makes it revolting. And I have to say that most culprits seem to be DADGAD players. Bung the capo on and do the whole blasted thing in G, or A. Yuck. It mainly comes down to not bothering to learn the tune. One size fits all chord progressions. It's totally disrespectful to both the tradition and the players around you. After all, the melody players have spent time learning the tunes, and so should the Rhythm players. And I'm not saying this to bag guitarists. I am one, but I'm also a fiddler, and if I'm playing the guitar and don't know the tune, I don't play untill I've heard it through and worked out the chord progression in my head. Then maybe I'll play. But isn't it nice to have a break in the set were the guitar stops for a tune, then comes in with a bang on the next tune(as long as they know the bloody thing). It can really give the music a lift.
I don't think C# dim isn't terribly applicable, most trad tunes I know don't imply that chord, so to get it in there requires rather a lot of forcing. Triads (in D) like the 1st inversion of Emaj, G#dim, A#dim tend to be more relavent as passing tones. At the end of the day though, for session playing, not going off on chromatic runs, playing 5 note chords, harmonizing the tune etc is probably for the best. If you want to do that, get some mates together (who agree on what they like for their accompaniment) and start a band, in a session there's a fair chance someone won't like with what you're playing (frequently, no matter what you are playing someone will be willing to disagree )
"mild mannered acoustic guitarist" KC Gross steps into phone booth, removes tie and glasses, and emerges as Superstrummer. The Caped Crusader hurls himself into the nearest gang of fiddling bullies and teaches them to show a little respect for accompanists in general and the ITM Way in particular. Sock! Biff! Kapow!
Nick, that makes sense -- I don't think too many accompaniests would disagree with any of that.
You know, one of the things that makes this hard is that the tunes themselves are ambiguous, with their gapped scale and passing note kind of structure. Look for example at the first measure of Anderson's reel, posted on this site. I suppose there aren't too many backers who would choose to play anything other than a D chord there, but the string of 8 notes in that measure contain three notes that aren't part of a D chord, notes that I suppose can be said to clash with the notes of a D chord. I hate to supply fodder for those who argue that that's why trad is best unbacked, but 3 out of 8 is kind of a big percentage, and it happens all the time. But I think that's why some jazzy chords work -- those dissonances are there anyway.
I hardly ever use the 7th myself, just because DIMs are a pain to hit at the speed that my sesh travels. If I do a run, I do it in two string 5th chords because their easy to hit.
Nick - as for a a whole 8 bar run of minor subs - I would agree with your comment. Minor subs are to add flavor and diversity to the comping. I would no sooner do such a run myself any more than I would eat a bowl full of basil - great for seasoning, not a main course.
Cuch - I'll have a look at Andersons and opine later, but most of the tunes played in any session I've been to have been pretty straight majors with occasional minors and rarer Dorians and Mixolydians.
Cuch - the notes in the first measure stack up to Bm7 & Bm9.
The stack of thirds in the first 4 notes starts on the B (note 2) and many guitarists would interpret this stack as a first inversion Bm7.
That stack of thirds in the second 4 notes (notes 6,7 & 8) is another Bm triad. This quartet of notes starts out on the 9th (an E note).
Because the emphasis notes (1 and 5) in this piece form an A5, the first bar has a cheery feel.
The recurring "A"s at the beginning of bars (all 4 bars of the A section), would lead me to experiment with an A Mixolydian accompaniement to reconcile the cheery feel of the tune with the presence of those stacks of Bms.
The obvious answer isn't always the right one. Chris Smith's book has a nice suggestion here. If you hear something that doesn't seem right, drone on a note till you find the right one. I would add "Do this at home before you go to the sesh and torque off the lead players, and if you're conflicted don't play."
The Chords of Kangchenjunga
The Chords of Kangchenjunga
The terrible ascent of Kangchenjunga, towering peak of the Himalayas, has seen many a brash expedition retreat from its flanks in weary disarray. Year after year, the final exhalation of some brave but unlucky mountaineer takes him to eternity amongst its thin, frozen airs. The ice-bound slopes remain impassive, oblivious, unmoved and untouched by the suffering of the ant-people who crawl upon them; their only gift, a fusillade of plummeting boulders; their only music the dismal thunder of an avalanche.
Which brings me to some guitar players, and another terrible ascent: the Chords of Kangchenjunga. You know the situation, you are sitting there playing a nice cheery reel in D or another major key, and the guitarist starts doing this hideous climbing thing where he ascends the fret board a couple of frets at a time in a series of minor chords, or are they diminished. Whatever, most of them are wrong. It lasts for 4 to 8 bars and makes the tune sound awful and you spend the rest of the tune praying that he doesn't do it again. Ten or fifteen years ago I think it was regarded as a clever sort of progression with some sort of bogus reasoning that it was a jazzy thing to do, although you would never hear a genuine jazz musician play anything as inappropriate. Nowadays it is just boring because you hear it so often, and sick-making because as soon as it starts you know that you are probably in for several bars of duff minor chords that make a cheery major tune sound like a funeral dirge. My suspicion is that these guitarists have learned one of these hideous theoretical progressions for say D major reels, and then trot it out whenever a tune is in D major, no matter what is actually happening melodically in the tune that is being played. Believe me, I appreciate properly worked out jazzy chords as much as anyone, and could listen to Willie Johnston all day, but this churning out of the same ghastly ascent of the fret board whenever the tune is in the unfortunate key just seems lazy, robotic and unmusical.
Does anyone else detest the Chords of Kangchenjunga ? Can anybody explain their purpose ? Am I missing the inner beauty of these foul chords ?
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Nick Spencer
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Well said - these types of progressions are boufing!
I also hear a lot of keyboard players doing these same wishy-washy progressions on a lot of Scottish traditional music recordings. Why?
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by On Sabbatical
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Boufing?
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by dafydd
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Boufing is an Aberdonian expression for minging (although not in the sense of being drunk.....). Now, before you ask, minging means.....
Well, both can mean utter sh*te, basically.
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by On Sabbatical
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Aye dafydd, you may not have recognised this word from Ron P, from him like bein' brung up proper like, with a silver spoon (but fortunately not a pair of them!) in his mouth! Perhaps mingin' & boufin' ring more of a bell though?
Sorry Ron P - I guess that's me buyin' all my own drink at this year's MOKMF then?
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
That's ok Dick, as long as you play thon penguin cafe orchestra tune you were slaggin' off
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by On Sabbatical
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Aye Nick, must agree with you, & Ron P, on this. For many geetar players subtlety appears to be the enemy! As a friend once put it, after hearing a particularly obnoxious sounding one of those manic thrash, bang, crash, wallop, 'let's speed em up' geetar merchants - "If you can hear the Guitar, it's too loud"!
Isn't it simply delightful when all you can hear, almost, is the gentle clip of the plectrum & then the merest hint of a perception that the mood has changed a little as the guitar player changes chords?
Like Ron I LOVE the sound of a well played Guitar & have no choice really as my son is a Guitar & Bass player.
I just heard yesterday that he has ordered himself a custom made '8 STRING BASS'!
Just imagine one of those monsters being unleashed at your session!
I'm not saying they're large but, after all, you can almost land a light aircraft on the fingerboard!
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Well OK then - as long as I don't have to dress up like a PENGUIN to play it!
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
No, Penguin suit not required.
8 strings - holy sh*t!!! How's it tuned Dick?
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by On Sabbatical
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Sometimes, simplicity is a virtue, especially when your job is to support the other instruments.
There are some accompanists who feel that this is modal music, and all accompaniment should reflect its modal nature, which tends to make a lot of it sound the same. In avoiding the old cliches, they have, instead of being fresh, created new cliches.
There is nothing wrong with being unabashedly major on a tune that calls for it, minor on a minor tune, and yes, modal on some tunes.
Done well, these climbs to the summit can sound wonderful, but it takes a good accompanist to know exactly where to start climbing, as not every tune in a particular key allows the climb to occur in a certain way. I have heard some guitarists do a beautiful job climing up the neck, while others tend to sound like they forgot their Sherpa guides down in the base camp.
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by AlBrown
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Ron P, he reckons he will have all of a Bass & all the notes of a Guitar except the top 8 notes on the top string
These guys are making it for him:
http://www.overwater.co.uk/
You can also check out '8' & '9' String Basses here:
http://www.conklinguitars.com/index.html
If your interested, there are a couple of links to Kevin’s playing from the ‘Bands’ page on his website:
http://www.kevinglasgow.com/
Think I'll just stick to 4 on the Fiddle - although my Dulcimer does have 52 strings!
Ooops, shouldn't mention the HD - it'll just set Dow off again, although we're probably safe enough - he's probably still looking for those trousers!
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Fair enough Al, but ALL NIGHT LONG?
Surely, played too often they are nearly as bad as those darned Bodhran players who constantly do ascending & descending scales on & on & on & on & on & on & on & on all night at a session - those dudes just do my head in!
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
This is Zazzaliss on Striving for Shameless's account...
Are you talking about a row of minors, or are you talking about playing, say, D-Em-F#m-G-A-Bm, heavy on the bass? I do that all the time, but it doesn't really give the tune a minor feel-instead, it sort of lets you put a driving, ascending bass run in a tune.
And I also hate it when people put major tunes in minor keys with their chords. Once in the tune can be good, for contrast, but playing minors throughout the tune ruins the happy feel.
But I still have to speak out against Ptarmy's "if you can hear the guitar, it's too loud". I think the guitar should be up-front, playing a sort of counter-melody with the chords. When the chords are wrong, the music can be killed, but when the chords are right, it's awesome.
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by AEisenheim
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
I too disagree with Ptarmigan about loudness of a guitar, I like to hear a guitar when it's played well and would be frustrated it it were hardly audible. Unless of course he means it is perfectly audible, but you don't actually notice it because it is so flawlessly played. I would agree with that.
But back to the chords. Cannot really comment on your chord progression there Zazzaliss, but I worry about you "doing them all the time"; are they appropriate so often ?. However, you do have major chords there which looks promising, because the Chords of Kangchenjunga seem to have no major chords about them, just this miserable, dirge-like ascent in minor-sounding chords. Gad, it's depressing just imagining the things.
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Nick Spencer
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
I also disagree with Ptarmi, I think guitar sounds really really annoying when all you can hear is the flapping of the pick against the strings, that kinda sound's drifting into shakey egg territory
I think a rising or falling bass line, or chord run, can sound really good and can be used to add tension or release to a tune (or arrangement). With regard to the jazz thing, minor 7th chords are the same as the relative major just with a different bass not, so have a less "focused" minor sound and aren't so "dirge-like". I'm not too sure about Zazzaliss' chords, I'm not sure if a part/4 bar phrase should end with the relative minor, probably just my own personal preference though, but I find that slightly too much tension for that situation.
Of course, a chord line which sounds awesome when played in a band situation might not be appropriate for a session situation.....discretion is the better part of valour after all
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Andy V
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Aha! Now we are getting to the heart of the matter.
"a rising or falling...chord run...can be used to add tension or release to a tune"
Isn't this just another way of saying "I am going to make the tune sound horrible for a while, so that when I stop, you will all breathe a sigh of relief." If so, it certainly works for me, because when the ghastly run ceases, I am sincerely grateful that it is finished and hope never to suffer it again. To me, this is exactly the same as the old recommendation to bang your head off a brick wall, because it's nice when you stop. Why do people feel the need to "add tension" to a tune? It sounds like music-college codswallop to me.
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Nick Spencer
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Nick, great thread. You don't have a cousin..now moved to Edinburgh, by any chance?
He goes by the name of Llig Leahcim.
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by John J.
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
"Unless of course he means it is perfectly audible, but you don't actually notice it because it is so flawlessly played. I would agree with that."
- yes that was the idea Nick.
"I think guitar sounds really really annoying when all you can hear is the flapping of the pick against the strings"
- yeah, well I was exaggerating slightly there Andy.
Obviously you need to hear the guitar or it might as well not be there, but for me there is an ideal level of volume & when that ideal threshold has been breached & then taken to extreme I have heard Guitars which have completely dictated the whole session, so that the melody instruments end up accompanying the guitar?!?!?!?!?!?!?
On occasion I have also heard that ultimate 'horror of horror' the guitarist actually speeding up the set as it progresses - now that for me is wrist slashing stuff altogether!
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
“In avoiding the old cliches, they have, instead of being fresh, created new cliches.”
This is sooooo true! Except I’d say the new cliches were mostly fresh when they first appeared, but they were such a novel departure from the older styles that repeating them can sound like copycat.
It’s true, though, that we’ve reached an age where one of the branches of the tree features a strong rhythm section that’s almost equal to the melody intruments in creating the sound. The rhythm section doesn’t play the melody, so exploiting this new space in the spotlight means regularly coming up with fresh ideas that serve the accompaniment purpose while justifying that piece of the spotlight. That’s a tall order. I’m not sure where I was going with this, so I’ll just stop here.
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Bob himself
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Let me just make it clear, I am not against all ascending or descending chord runs. The right ones do sound good when used selectively and tastefully. But they have to be calculated to fit the tune. The right ascending and descending bass runs also sound good when used selectively and tastefully. I am against the hideous Chords of Kangchenjunga, plastered willy-nilly over any major tune. Why is it done when it sounds so bad ? Come-on you people, Confess !! Why do you do it ? Is it because it was once upon a time your greatest technical achievement ? Is it because you want to torture us all and then wallow in the self-satisfaction when you eventually bestow the soothing balm of a lovely, correct chord ? Or are you simply not listening and just churning out something you hope might fit when the tune eventually comes round to match it ?
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Nick Spencer
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
“Why do people feel the need to "add tension" to a tune? It sounds like music-college codswallop to me.”
Well, Nick, music would be very dull without the constant seesawing of tension and release. In fact, it would be a single tone. But I suspect what you’re complaining about is the over-conscious over-use (or ignorant use) of tension. If the tension lasts long enough to be perceived as tension, then it’s too much.
This discussion is making me tense. Somebody play a nice clean major chord.
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Bob himself
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Nick, with regard to the "adding tension" comment, most tunes (i.e. in the melody) have a I - V, IV - V, or V - I cadance at the end of each 4 bar phrase (if you don't understand these terms, I would advise learning some basic music theory), and in the case of the first two are creating musical "tension", and the last one musical "resolution". So, to stay with the tune, the chords must exhibit these changes (explicitly or implicitly), thus following the tension and resolution of the tune.
These progressions within the melody give the tune it's structure, which are vital for dancers, as most dance "moves" tend to occur for 4 bar sections, and it is advisable to the dancers to be able to tell where they are in the tune so they know when to change to the next one.
Ptarmi, I have heard guitarists in sessions effectively playing shakey egg, and I would grant that it is at least unobtrusive. It all rather boils down to a matter of musicianship and session ettiquette, all instruments can be played out of time or too loud.
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Andy V
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
"It all rather boils down to a matter of musicianship and session ettiquette...." - I'll 2nd that Andy!
I only mentioned the Guitar here Andy because that's what Nick is asking us about here. You are quite correct though, in that many other instruments are quite capable of inflicting similar damage to a session .....but I'll refrain from listing them all .....see, I can be tactful, when I try..
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Well it certainly sounds like you know what you are talking about Andy. The question is, would these theories of cadences, tension and release, allow you to justify the use of the Chords of Kangchenjunga on theoretical grounds, even though they sounded grim up alongisde the tune ? In which case, would you not be adopting a sort of intellectual musicality in which the theoretical acceptability of chords is used to excuse their musical inappropriateness ?
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Nick Spencer
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
"In which case, would you not be adopting a sort of intellectual musicality in which the theoretical acceptability of chords is used to excuse their musical inappropriateness?"
E.g., jazz.
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
"E.g., jazz."
LOL!
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Bob himself
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
"The Chords of Kangchenjunga are better than they sound."
...Mark Twain
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by grego
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
I wish the paladins of all that is tasteful and right in traditional Irish music would take up the guitar and show the world how it's to be done. And if the answer is that those paladins only like it without guitar, well, then I wish they'd get together with like-minded folks and exclude all others so they then can quit complaining.
I'm still trying to figure out exactly is meant by "this hideous climbing thing" of minor or diminished chords. I may well be, once it's explained to me, I won't like it either. Or maybe I'll like it a lot. I like to think there's room for something such as subjectivity in music, and those that don't like matters of taste to rule supreme should take up, say, chemistry or engineering.
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by cuchulain54
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Nick, can't say I necessarily agree with everything you've said, but plaudits to you for saying it -- and in such a creative way. You realize, of course, that "The Chords of Kangchenjunga" deserves to have a tune written for it. Now, as for the accompaniment...
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by sts
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
I believe music theory is (at least, should be) descriptive, not prescriptive. Don’t do it because it’s theoretically correct; do it because it sounds right or avoid it because it sounds wrong.
A branch of The Music has enthusiastically accepted the rock aesthetic, which includes guitar prominence and a lot of up-front, in-your-face strumming that doesn’t have to justify itself as accompaniment. It’s cool stuff, on its own terms, but I think it would be unwise for a guitarist who plays that way to bring it into a traditional tune session without first coming to an understanding with the other players.
But, like cuchulain54, I'm not sure what the essence of the original complaint is. Moving chords have been around for a good long while. Even Peerie Willie uses them. With the right touch and sensitivity, lots of things can work.
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Bob himself
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Yes, Bob himself, I agree with that.
The rock aesthetic, the jazz aesthetic, the afro-celt stuff -- it's a big, wide world out there. The traditional session of traditional-minded musicians is and should remain the majority, and forcing jazz or rock aesthetics into that setting is not a fair thing to try to do. But to treat your position in the majority as the ivory tower from whence to proclaim who is or is not worthy seems a bit arrogant.
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by cuchulain54
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
I'm still a wee bit vauge as to what the chords of Kangchenjunga actually are, but I'd say no anyhow. I look at music theory as the why of accompaniment, not the how (to paraphrase Wilt), and it can be used to give ideas about how to accompany, or progressions that might work, in the end even if it works on paper but if it doesn't work to the ear it's not justified. Although frequently the reason why it works on paper but not to the ear is because some aspect of the theory has been overlooked
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Andy V
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Any tricky little run or phrase or chord pattern, done too often, gets old. You need a lot of tools in your tool kit to be an interesting accompanist, and you need to know where they fit. And when in doubt, be unobtrusive in a way that keeps the rhythm going. Know the tunes, and where possible, fit the specific tune with what it needs.
I must admit, in the interest of full disclosure, is that this is what I strive for, not necessarily what I have attained. in working to be a good accompanist.
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by AlBrown
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
"I think it would be unwise for a guitarist who plays that way to bring it into a traditional tune session without first coming to an understanding with the other players." I thought the idea of a session was to give anybody a chance to enjoy folk music. This comment seems to be excluding people who haven't had any experience in traditional music, but how else are these rock and jazz guitarists supposed to get involved? But i certainly agree about chords other than the basic I, IV, V chords sounding interesting. Plus, it's much more interesting for the guitarist to be able to try different things and sessions are a good chance to experiment and find out whether certain chord progressions work or not.
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by djones257
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Who said we wanted to make it easy for rock and jazz guitarists to get involved? Many would say that we have enough trouble with the strummers that are already part of the ITM scene.
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by AlBrown
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
"’I think it would be unwise for a guitarist who plays that way to bring it into a traditional tune session without first coming to an understanding with the other players.’ I thought the idea of a session was to give anybody a chance to enjoy folk music.”
No, the idea of a session is for a group of musicians to get together and play in a particular tradition and style that they agree on. It would not be wise for someone to jump in and play in a different style without agreement from the others, who may or may not be interested in having an accompanist change the style of their music.
“This comment seems to be excluding people who haven't had any experience in traditional music, but how else are these rock and jazz guitarists supposed to get involved?”
They get involved in the same way the others got involved. They learn how to play the music and then they join the session.
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Bob himself
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
"Many would say that we have enough trouble with the strummers that are already part of the ITM scene."
Not to mention fiddlers who execute a roll on every dotted quarter note in a piece with eye-rollingly robotic predictability. Would it hurt to play the tune straight EVEN ONCE without your tiresome "artistic" choices of out of time ornamentations and supernatural thirds and sevenths? Believe it or not, Irish music does have keys, and most listeners don't comprehend your "authenticity" - they just think you're playing badly.
;) ;)
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by KC Gross
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
It’s the melody vs accompaniment war! To arms, to arms!
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Bob himself
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Well, I'm an accompaniest, but I'm on the side of the melody players. However, I'll keep my head low now, as I expect tin hats are now required, and I'm a peaceful sort of a person...
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by On Sabbatical
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Here's a photo I took of Ron P last summer, just as the age old battle between Melody player & Accompaniest was about to start:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xadrian/150890135/
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Hey Dick, that's not me - I gave up smoking 20 years ago!
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by On Sabbatical
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Guitar players are big stinky poop piles! Nyah, nyah, nyah!
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Bob himself
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
And so are fiddlers!
And don't get me started on box players!
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Bob himself
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Re the jazz thing - if you actually are a good jazzer, you'll know what the chords are, and use them.
I once heard a jazz piano-player talk fondly of the high musicianship of a group he had worked in; he said, " I once played a complex chord with five notes in it, and in the next two bars the soloist had included all those five notes."
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Guernsey Pete
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Oh well, my mistake Ron, sorry. Although I could have sworn I saw you wearing an identical T Shirt last Summer!
# Posted on June 7th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
The more colors you have in your pallet the more you can create musically. This is true on all instruments, especially those that create the rythmic wings for the melodies to soar.
Nothing is good or bad if done tastefully and in moderation.
So what's the purpose of this thread? Are some "whines" more valuable than others to this community?
# Posted on June 8th 2006 by Eliot
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Brings new significance to the casual statement
"I brought my axe".
# Posted on June 8th 2006 by oldstrings
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
I can't believe how lovely the weather has turned out. 'Flaming June' for once, and it's supposed to get even warmer by the weekend.
That'll be nice.
# Posted on June 8th 2006 by Ottery
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
28 degrees today apparently... phew.
# Posted on June 8th 2006 by Conán McDonnell
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
It's still cold at the top of Kangchenjunga !
# Posted on June 8th 2006 by Nick Spencer
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
To respond to a few points:
To complain about anything is always to leave oneself open to attacks on the basis of being whining, arrogant, elitist etcetera. However, the opposite stance is to have no markers of style or tradition whatsoever is it not ? So bring on the electric guitars yes son that's fine, just plug in over there in the corner next to the flute players, aye play any chords ye like, it's all just a big experiment in the session here, aye it's D major son, but no go ahead don't be shy, play a big string of minor chords over the top if that's what ye feel like, no it doesn't matter if they don't fit the tune, aye there's hundreds of minor tunes in the repertoire son but don't bother yerself waiting for them to come up if ye've got a favourite wee sequence, it's fine son don't worry, nobody will mind, ach no it's just traditional music so ye can play it any way ye like......
The purpose of the thread is to have a moan about what some guitar players do habitually which does not, in my opinion and obviously in the opinion of some others, enhance the music of tunes in major keys. I hope that such players will read this thread, question whether they are trotting out the Chords of Kangchenjunga, and if they are, ask themselves whether it really does any good. I am not having a go at learners in sessions, and I am not having a go a those of limited ability, God knows we all have our limits, I am having a go at those who are familiar with the music, who know plenty of chords, and who could play something much more fitting and musical but don't because they seem to have got into a habit of doing this other thing automatically.
Are people really arguing that the whole business of accompaniment is subjective and a matter of individual taste, so basically you can do whatever takes your fancy ? There's a tradition of having tunes in major keys, let's keep them sounding like that.
J'accuse...j'accuse....
# Posted on June 8th 2006 by Nick Spencer
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Nick, You may be a newcomer to the "Yellow Board," but you really got my attention with this thread. I don't think I will ever hear a grandious pile of inappropriate chord changes again without thinking of it as "The Chords of Kangchenjunga." Although come to think of it, over time, my food-oriented mind might mutate that phrase to "The Chords of Chimichanga," since the latter is one of my favorite Mexican dishes.
# Posted on June 8th 2006 by AlBrown
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
I'm still not sure what these chords are. Can you give us some chord diagrams or maybe a podcast?
Is it the sequence that, for example, Lunasa use on Morning Nightcap (http://mfile3.akamai.com/14123/wm2/muze.download.akamai.com/2890/us/uswm2/_!/875/417875_1_11.asx?auth=daEbXb6aocdatbMbDcxdtcXcKcIcjaFaaam-beIdmj-Ci-jeibg&aifp=1234&obj=v10602), which is I think what Zazzaliss was asking about?
# Posted on June 8th 2006 by JerryH
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
If a guitarist, or any other accompanist for that matter, isn't hearing the melody clearly then they're playing too loud. What's difficult about that?
# Posted on June 8th 2006 by Trevor Jennings
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
“Are people really arguing that the whole business of accompaniment is subjective and a matter of individual taste, so basically you can do whatever takes your fancy?”
I don’t think it’s that simple, but that “whatever takes your fancy” attitude has certainly transformed what’s accepted or rejected as appropriate accompaniment. I think the results of that experimenting have mostly been good, but as somebody said earlier, it’s also added some new cliches for us to moan about.
“There's a tradition of having tunes in major keys, let's keep them sounding like that.”
Well, a major key contains minor chords and, to my ear, using them doesn’t make the tune sound minor. They just provide harmonic movement. But I guess your complaint is that some backers add too much harmonic movement. Playing a counter-melody with chords is one of those things that can be interesting or can detract too much from the tune.
# Posted on June 8th 2006 by Bob himself
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
With regard to the Lunasa example, it's a Donald Shaw tune called McLeod's Farewell (for some reason it isn't up in the tunes section). Although it's in Dmaj, whenever I've heard it on CD a or at a gig the A part tends to be played with a Bminor-y feel to it, usually at the start of in the middle of a set. I think it might be one of those tunes which is the exception of Nick's rule!
# Posted on June 8th 2006 by Andy V
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
What I mean is: You're in a session and they're playing The Maid Behind the Bar and in the second part the guitarist plays an ascending sequence D Em F#m G A D/Bm instead of the old 3 chord trick. Is that the chords of Kangchenjunga, or are they something else entirely? I'm still confused.
# Posted on June 8th 2006 by JerryH
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
No Jerry, they're the Chords of Sagarmatha.... Get with it!
# Posted on June 8th 2006 by Ottery
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
I'm just really confused now.
I expect the answer lies in what you get if you type Sagarmatha into Google and hit "I'm feeling lucky".
# Posted on June 8th 2006 by JerryH
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
I got
"Marijuana seeds of the highest quality"
Is that why you're feeling confused?
# Posted on June 8th 2006 by Ottery
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Don't Bogart this topic, man.
# Posted on June 8th 2006 by Bob himself
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
OK – some replies to specific points…
“Are people really arguing that the whole business of accompaniment is subjective and a matter of individual taste, so basically you can do whatever takes your fancy?”
Comment: Within reason, yes. Lead players and accompanists should work in service to the tune, and should make knowledgeable choices in their ornamentations/progressions based on listening to the playing of those around them.
“There's a tradition of having tunes in major keys, let's keep them sounding like that.”
A major key has more dark notes than bright.
OK, here (for example) are the chords of D major
I….II…..III…..IV…V………VI….VII
D…em…f#m…G…A Dom…bm…c# dim
And the theory
Playing a D or its relative minor (bm in this case) over a tonic D “change” is OK
Playing a G or its relative minor (em in this case) over a subdominant G “change” is OK
Playing an A Dominant or its relative minor (f#m in this case) over a dominant A “change” is OK
Play a 7th as a leading chord to the tonic (I or vi).
So are you telling use em, f#m, bm, and c# dim are not part of the key of D Major?
And yes, the use of relative minors can bring out different and appealing harmonies when played across the major harmonic changes of a tune with the added bonus of not restricting the accompanist’s range to the clichéd and inexorable I – I – IV – V. Do lead players like to play tunes with only 3 notes and play them all night? Didn’t think so.
As for the 70,000 annual accompanist bashing threads on this board and others, have any of you fine players taken your accompanist to the bar, bought him a round and made a helpful suggestion like “That ascending bit you did with Maid Behind the Bar didn’t really work for me. Can we go out on the patio and work out something cleaner?” Or is the web someplace you go to vent about issues you’re too gutless/courteous to address? After all, you can say something at the pub and perhaps slag your accompanist in front of a dozen people, or you can talk smack about him on-line where thousands of similarly-disposed lead players can chime in “Oh yes, you’re right” without ever hearing the progression in question.
# Posted on June 8th 2006 by KC Gross
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Well, I don't know the history of accompanist-bashing on The Session, being new to it, although I see that some accompanists are obviously capable of dishing it out. You are right that all the chords you mention are part of D major, and I would not expect any accompanist to play interestingly without them. What I am saying is why spend 8 bars playing nothing but minor subs under a major tune ? Or what I have been moaning about, playing some pre-determined sequence of minors and minor subs that resolves itself after 8 bars, but doesn't relate to what is happening in the tune meanwhile. I don't think that is accompanying a tune. As for consulting with "my" accompanist, of course I do that, and we agree what sounds good. He uses a bunch of jazzy chords and they sound great, but of course he bothers to fit them to the tune. We lead players appreciate exactly how important accompanists are, maybe it's some of you guys who don't appreciate your own importance.
# Posted on June 8th 2006 by Nick Spencer
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
I'm pretty sure the progresion goes D, Em D/F# G A, And it drives me totally demented when played all the time. Chord substitution should be treated as a spice, not the whole flavour. A pinch of this and that can make a dish taste wonderful, but too much makes it revolting. And I have to say that most culprits seem to be DADGAD players. Bung the capo on and do the whole blasted thing in G, or A. Yuck. It mainly comes down to not bothering to learn the tune. One size fits all chord progressions. It's totally disrespectful to both the tradition and the players around you. After all, the melody players have spent time learning the tunes, and so should the Rhythm players. And I'm not saying this to bag guitarists. I am one, but I'm also a fiddler, and if I'm playing the guitar and don't know the tune, I don't play untill I've heard it through and worked out the chord progression in my head. Then maybe I'll play. But isn't it nice to have a break in the set were the guitar stops for a tune, then comes in with a bang on the next tune(as long as they know the bloody thing). It can really give the music a lift.
# Posted on June 9th 2006 by woops
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
I don't think C# dim isn't terribly applicable, most trad tunes I know don't imply that chord, so to get it in there requires rather a lot of forcing. Triads (in D) like the 1st inversion of Emaj, G#dim, A#dim tend to be more relavent as passing tones. At the end of the day though, for session playing, not going off on chromatic runs, playing 5 note chords, harmonizing the tune etc is probably for the best. If you want to do that, get some mates together (who agree on what they like for their accompaniment) and start a band, in a session there's a fair chance someone won't like with what you're playing (frequently, no matter what you are playing someone will be willing to disagree
)
# Posted on June 9th 2006 by Andy V
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
So much for proof reading it first!! Should have read "I don't think C#dim is terribly applicable...."
# Posted on June 9th 2006 by Andy V
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
"mild mannered acoustic guitarist" KC Gross steps into phone booth, removes tie and glasses, and emerges as Superstrummer. The Caped Crusader hurls himself into the nearest gang of fiddling bullies and teaches them to show a little respect for accompanists in general and the ITM Way in particular. Sock! Biff! Kapow!
# Posted on June 9th 2006 by oldstrings
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Nick, that makes sense -- I don't think too many accompaniests would disagree with any of that.
You know, one of the things that makes this hard is that the tunes themselves are ambiguous, with their gapped scale and passing note kind of structure. Look for example at the first measure of Anderson's reel, posted on this site. I suppose there aren't too many backers who would choose to play anything other than a D chord there, but the string of 8 notes in that measure contain three notes that aren't part of a D chord, notes that I suppose can be said to clash with the notes of a D chord. I hate to supply fodder for those who argue that that's why trad is best unbacked, but 3 out of 8 is kind of a big percentage, and it happens all the time. But I think that's why some jazzy chords work -- those dissonances are there anyway.
# Posted on June 9th 2006 by cuchulain54
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
I hardly ever use the 7th myself, just because DIMs are a pain to hit at the speed that my sesh travels. If I do a run, I do it in two string 5th chords because their easy to hit.
Nick - as for a a whole 8 bar run of minor subs - I would agree with your comment. Minor subs are to add flavor and diversity to the comping. I would no sooner do such a run myself any more than I would eat a bowl full of basil - great for seasoning, not a main course.
Cuch - I'll have a look at Andersons and opine later, but most of the tunes played in any session I've been to have been pretty straight majors with occasional minors and rarer Dorians and Mixolydians.
# Posted on June 12th 2006 by KC Gross
Re: The Chords of Kangchenjunga
Cuch - the notes in the first measure stack up to Bm7 & Bm9.
The stack of thirds in the first 4 notes starts on the B (note 2) and many guitarists would interpret this stack as a first inversion Bm7.
That stack of thirds in the second 4 notes (notes 6,7 & 8) is another Bm triad. This quartet of notes starts out on the 9th (an E note).
Because the emphasis notes (1 and 5) in this piece form an A5, the first bar has a cheery feel.
The recurring "A"s at the beginning of bars (all 4 bars of the A section), would lead me to experiment with an A Mixolydian accompaniement to reconcile the cheery feel of the tune with the presence of those stacks of Bms.
The obvious answer isn't always the right one. Chris Smith's book has a nice suggestion here. If you hear something that doesn't seem right, drone on a note till you find the right one. I would add "Do this at home before you go to the sesh and torque off the lead players, and if you're conflicted don't play."
# Posted on June 12th 2006 by KC Gross