The Session >> Discussions >> Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Comments
Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
We may have various species of plonkers coming along now and again to fxck things up at the Blythe, but thankfully we are blessed with a paucity of guitars. So there is a kind of purity achieved in its finer moments.
Sessions with the 10 guitars syndrome are not for me. If at all, my taste would max at one, and tastefully played at that. Like good whistle playing, good guitar playing is an elusive butterfly to catch. Or any instrument playing for that matter, but guitars are under the microscope here. But each to their own, and that's my view anyhow.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Of course they're not necessary in a session - just as any particular instrument isn't necessary in a session. Having said that, depending on one's own tastes, some instruments may be desirable.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Well, it'd be an interesting session without instruments.... I meant to say that particular instruments would be more desirable, depending on one's taste.
Re: Dose anyone think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
They're probably as necessary as judges are, at a session, but as has been said here, and on other threads often enough, the function of the accompanist is often to render the music into a more listenable form for all the unfortunates out there who are'nt as talented as "we" are.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Given the choice of singing the odd song playing the same inversions over and over on a guitar in different tunings or playing the tunes on a tenor banjo I would rather lose the guitar as the tunes sound grand on their own without accompaniment. And I stand much better chance of staying awake too
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
a bunch of tune players.......great
Add a good guitarist......fantastic
Add another guitarist......Mmmm
Add another one.......run screaming for the door.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Only one is necessary, if it is used as accompaniment.
All others are superfluous, unless they are playing the tunes.
That is why I take my 'zouk to the sessions instead.
PS There's nothing wrong with the spelling of "necessary", thedon.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I can tell you that twelve guitars to one fiddle does not make a good session. Or perhaps I'm turning up at the wrong pub? Certainly twelve guitars with Thrash*tis does not add to the beauty of the music although it dose look quite funny!
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Not "necessary", and I am one.... but sometimes a steady backer or drummer can reel in (pardon pun) all those melody players who can't seem to play at the same speed. Also it can add a fullness to the sound. True, this music is about the melody though and if someone had to go, the choice is obvious if there are just two players. However, many patrons at sessions have commented they like it with a backing instrument better in places I have been. I don't mean yours truly either, just in general, it gives an added dimension.
I know melody players who, if given the command to pick ONE person to play a gig with them, would choose backing 100% of the time, if it's decent, over another melody player. It just fills things out they feel. These are not amateurs who need the cover-up either, they are well capable of playing solo.
Two or more conflicting guitar styles, ugh. but same goes for two fiddlers playing different settings of the same tune at different speeds. Are they ever asked to stop?
I think we all need to lighten up a bit, if it's an open session, stop being so critical about orchestrating things. I'm not for a run amok free for all where people are truly wrecking others' enjoyment of the music and evening, but cut us all a break, guitarists and melody players alike. A session is also a social event, we all make some mistakes. Have a gig if you are inclined to orchestrate, or a session by invite only.... and some of those are super, and it doesn't make you a snob. I had two of my favorite players over last night and we played for hours and really didn't want another sound in there. Open session, different story. Relax and enjoy it, if someone, guitar or melody wrecks it, have a polite word with them.
Maybe all guitarists should learn and carry a tin whistle just in case they find themselves suddenly unwelcome? I got to a session one time, a drummer, three guitars, that was it. So I went into DADGAD and played tunes.....interesting. One other sang a few. Would have preferred differently though. We had some fun anyway with the absurdity of it all. You have to laugh at what happens sometimes and lighten up.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I have to be careful about this one, because there are some *very* good guitarists around - OK, only one - in sessions near me, and I would rather not offend, or even put off, the good one that we have.
But, and it's a very big BUT, guitars are simply not necessary, or even desirable for the very best sessions. Before I get going, I ought to make it clear that I am definitely NOT talking about guitarists who play the tune. I've heard that on a number of occasions, and it's absolutely magical. So, the following refers entirely to guitars used as 'backing'.
I know bb has said something on another thread to the effect that if we haven't heard a good guitar in a session, then we're missing something. I've been in sessions with exceptionally good guitarists, but the fact that they're playing chords simply gets in the way of the tune. The music isn't based on chords, unlike either Western classical or pop pusic, both of which are. So any chords used will be a compromise at best and will definitely interfere with the melodic nature of the tunes.
I've been in some cracking sessions which have had guitarists playing backing, but the very best have been just like those ... only without the guitar.
There is another problem associated with this, however. I've noticed that otherwise mediocre sessions can actually be improved by guitar backing. Frustrating that ...
(btw, I used 'chords' above instead of saying harmony, even though it isn't really what I meant, because I got abused by Michael last time I tried to explain - I thought perfectly reasonably - what I meant.)
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Iris, you're dead right. In a gig, I would choose a guitar or other backer 100% of the time, even though I've done some very enjoyable gigs with just another melody instrument. But gigs are completely different from sessions. Frankly, I don't even try to make a trad sound at a gig. I just show off, because I've been trained by the audience over the years, in a sort of Pavlov's dog sort of way, that that's what they are more likely to respond to.
And, I've just realised that maybe part of the reason I enjoy our local guitarist's playing *quite* so much is that he only plays guitar on about 1/3 of the tunes. The rest of the time, he's a complete whiz on box and tin whistle.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Are fiddles necessary? Are whistles necessary? Are boxes necessary? You can have a good session if you take any of those three out. No, guitars aren't necessary, because the music is essentially melody-driven, but even if you self-righteous people see fit to get up on your soapboxes and rant about how people who do what I have spent the last several years pouring my heart into are a bunch of idiot 'plonkers' with no musical sensitivity, well-played accompaniment MAKES THE MUSIC SOUND BETTER. And while a guitarist is not necessary at a session, I'm thinking that having a good one around will make the session better tenfold. So will you smug, cocky melody players just lay off for once?
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Zazza Have some chocolate! I think most people are saying there are some very talented guitarists around who are a pleasure to listen to and add something positive to the session. I think the gripe here is about the less talented ones who just thrash root chords over the tunes. Those really bug us smug, cocky melody players who think about what we are playing and how it sounds.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
No, actually, Zazzaliss, I think that, except for not vey good sessions, guitars, even very well played, don't make the music sound better. I wouldn't call anyone a plonker for playing one, though, not least becuase, when not in a session context, I like really good accompaniment.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Iris - sessions by invite only. We've tried this and us smug, cocky melody players (USCMP from now on) had a f***ing great time. Let's look at it this way. If USCMP weren't there, there would be no session. If the guitarists aren't there (hopefully), the session still goes ahead.
Play guitar in a band if you like, be a fully integrated musician and use your skills and talent - great. But bands play gigs, and a session isn't a gig.
Re: Does anyone actually think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
That is how it should be spelt!!!
I wasn't asleep, just dosing.
Rhythm backers should be made to sit an exam - immediately after a set, starting with "what key did we finish in?". It is surprising how many backers don't know.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Necessary? Of coures not. Some sessions hold together better and sound better with accompaniment, depending on the (lack of) skill of the melody players. Some don't benefit from accompaniment. Some are dragged down by it. I'm mainly a guitar player, but I rarely indulge in accompaniment. If I'm not prepared to add some tasty spice to the soup, I'd rather just play melody or listen.
As much as I admire the folks who do it really well, I could do without guitar accompaniment altogether. I'd rather have Alec Finn on 'zouk any day.
Everybody seems to agree that one guitar is enough, if not too much. What about the other instruments? Two banjos? Is that too much? My favorite sound in all of ITMdom (after a great singer) is a single naked fiddle. I love to hear all the subtleties and eccentricities that a good fiddler can bring to a tune. Add another fiddle and the subtleties are smeared away. Now there's just the tune. Of course, if I'm one of the fiddlers, I'm still having fun, but from a listening point of view, something's lost.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I am lucky to have a guitar player at my local session who amongst other things
1 Never needs to ask the key
2 Plays some very good jigs and reels (melody)
3 Can play a light finger style accompanyment or a driving rythym, as required
4 Is able to go for a pint/chat/chill when six other guitarists turn up
5 Never seems to play the same chords each time, giving a fresh feel to the music
6 Can keep a room full of well lubricated spectators happy with all the "Athenry-Wild Rover" standards as well as contempory ballads, againn as required
7 Is able to spell does
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Whats wrong with playing root chords on the guitar anyway ? So long as their played perfectly in time and the volumes just right . . ?
I agree you only need 1 guitarist, more than that spoils the overall sound. When our guitarist stops playing to scratch his a**se, the music doesn't sound as good. Possibly because like some one said earlier that a good guitarist covers for mediorcre melody players.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
The answer is of course no, Guitars are not necessary in a session.
But then of course, no particular one instrument is actually necessary in a session, so you can have a great session without any one of the favourite instruments, yes even without a Fiddle.
But to have a session, let's agree first that you do need at least two instruments, so that can surely mean two melody, or indeed one melody & one accompany, so a good session could of course include one Guitar.
Of course, if the question was one of desirability, then that would be a different matter.
Sessions without accompanying strings can & do work well & I enjoy those, but I also enjoy, & if the truth be known, probably prefer the presence of a good guitar player.
So I think it boils down to this:
'Good musicians' are necessary for a good session, regardless of which instrument they play!
So I suppose what I'm saying is that I would rather have a good session with myself on Fiddle & three great Guitar players than meself & three crap melody players.
( However, to qualify that statement, I should point out that I am myself, a pretty crap Fiddle player!)
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
The ideal guitarist at a session is one who can accompany sensitively and knows when not to play. Just like all the other instruments there. I like to have a good guitar in the background because I feel it adds some depth to the music, I don't even mind if they make a bit of a hash of it while they are trying to learn a piece, afterall we do seem to be a bit more laid back than most of the sessions on this site. What I dislike is being overwhelmed by twelve guitars thrashing away so loudly and each in his own style of course, that I can't hear the tune. Then when it's a taking turns session it's overwhelmingly boring waiting for them all to have a turn, hence I sometimes fall asleep (just to link some threads here!) Humph!
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Let me just clarify why I have a problem with guitars. We used to have a really good session with a mix of songs and tunes and lots of different instruments and talented musicians. Then, gradually one by one more guitarists started to arrive. The result was that the melody players stopped coming and now most weeks we are down to two melody instruments and twelve guitars. I have heard of this happening in other sessions too. Once word gets round that the session is a sing around the instrumentalists stop coming.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
"I'm not a fan of them, although I think they're wonderful played sensitively as a solo instrument"
Excuse me, Mark Harmer, but what is that person doing at the front of your band? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2tj_zC_XX4
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Taking a guess here, are the people who don't like guitars from either the USA or London? If your problem is too many guitarists at your session who aren't very good then the problem is with the particular people who play instruments at your session. And clearly, it depends on the size of the session as to the number of guitars a session can hold (if there's 30 odd people playing you'll get away with more than one).
Benhall, I'm inclined to disagree that the music isn't chordal (presuming you don't mean chordal in the exact sense - ie 4 note chords). At the very least I think it's diadic - if you do much dancing you'll know that its easy to spot where-abouts you are in a dance based on the tune. And as all tunes don't have the same notes making up the final bar there must be something else there to tell you this - the changing harmonic patterns of the tune (cadences if you'll excuse the use of a classical term) which define the same "chord" (or diad/triad) changes - which can be outlined by a chordal instrument ie a guitar etc.
That said, I reserve everybody elses right to have a preference as to how tunes are arranged (be it in a session or band). I just don't agree that chordal instruments don't belong in trad. music on the grounds that the tunes aren't chordal.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
"30 odd people playing "
Well, that could be a bit of fun but hardly a serious musical experience. I've been in these situations often enough and enjoyed them for what they are but I'm sure most of us don't always wish to be in such large gatherings.
Actually, there's no problem with more than one guitar or even bodhran at a session providing there's enough space. As long as they don't all play at the same time.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Well Don... I know two tunes pretty well on the whistle thus far!
I semi-agree, sometimes in a session with some real hot shot melody players I just want to sit back at times and listen to it unaccompanied, it's super. Then what do you do when they ASK you to play? LOL.
I get it though... I don't think we're technically necessary, which is what the question was, it is all about the melody. I'd just not play if twelve others were playing too. Or even one, where our styles conflict badly. I play fingerstyle and do not chord much at all to tell the truth, and try to be at least semi-melodic, pick up parts of the melody where the mood hits, so am often abale to play with another who is hitting chords. If you have one doing those jazz chords and another playing straight up though.... ugh...disaster!!!
Re: Does anyone actually think guitars are really necessary in a session?
Mark Harmers' answer at the top, and the video of his band on youtube are in complete contradiction to one another.
For those of you who have missed the video - 6-piece band, fiddler plays the tune, all else are playing chords/rhythmn; guitar, bouzouki ( which Mark calls a guitar - Mark, that guy on your right is playing a bouzouki ! ), bass guitar, bodrhan, Mark furiously arpeggio'ing on his harp. I wonder what happens if the fiddler needs a night off when they have a gig ? Much like some of the sessions we've been hearing about, I fear.
On the other hand, I'm sure the band pleases a lot of the punters out there ( chaps at Oxford or Cambridge in straw boaters ).
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
In contrast, check the band on this tune http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRhHyH0te2I
Presumably if the fiddler/piper takes a night off, the guitarist will switch to flute.
Did I forget to mention that on the whole, and unrelated to the *session* question, I love Mark's band?
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Firstly, in defence of Mark, as I said before, sessions and gigs are completely different. I cannot see why Mark can't have a completely different opinion as to what's appropriate for a gigging band as to what's appropriate for a session - I certainly do, and I *like* guitars in bands and, except where they're mainly melodic, I just think they're superfluous at best in sessions (although I admit that our local guy is damn good, doesn't play guitar all the time and I still want him to do it for the about 1/3 of the tunes that he *does* play guitar on).
Next, addressed to andy_newcastle, yep, it IS easy to tell where you are in a dance tune, normally. That's because the melody is framed that way. It's built in 8-bar phrases, with two 4-bar phrases answering each other, which are again subdivided at the bar and at the half bar. Of *course* it's easy, based solely on the tune. These tunes are based on melodies based around modes. Generally, the 'harmonic progressions' that a lot of modern people, especially guitarists, imagine they hear are just that - imagination. Sadly, it's becoming what we all 'hear' when we think of the tunes, because it's now so prevalent.
In fact, thinking about it, given that the dance music itself, according to some sources, apparently owes its origins to music that made its way to England and Wales and then Ireland with the fiddle or its immediate precursor around the 10th century, how exactly does that fit in with needing a chord instrument like a guitar? (As before, I'm not talking about guitars where they are used for melodic purposes.)
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Benhall.1, you missed my point (I think). Certainly in your final paragraph you do - I have and will never argue guitar as a traditional instrument - nor will I claim chords are required. That said, there are tunes where the final two chords of a tune could never be disputed. And it's the same change - V to I. And there's enough tunes that do this for it not to be conincidental. So therefore, even if the chords aren't explicitly there (and I agree, they aren't) it strikes me as improabable it could be a coincidence that this change occurs often in the final bar of a tune (or part) for it not to exist in the music.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
A good musician brings to any gathering their taste and talents, regardless of what instrument they play. I know guitarists and backers who have more taste, talent, understanding and love of the music than some tune noodling instrumentalists (myself included).
These thinly veiled instrument bashing threads are certainly giving me a dose...
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Ripthecalico.
I'll tell what is claptrap - that's the way you've twisted my words. I never suggested having a bunch of backers or bodhrans thrashing away together - a session doesn't neccessarily need any accompaniment at all.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I don't think in the past few years of being on this site I have read such ignorance and stupidity from some knuckle-scraping snobbish morons. (Is that overstating it?)
Of course guitars are not essential in a session and an all guitar session is not going to have many good tunes in it but a session is a session and you will get whatever walks through the door. As some have already alluded to you can get melody instrument players in a session that can not play to save their lives and yet we find the conversation aimed at the guitarists again!!
If you listen to a good session in full swing (and I mean a really good session - which I have had the fortune to attend more than I probably have the right to) and there is a good guitarist playing away and s/he suddenly stops playing mid-set you listen to the sound levels and energy drop right out of that set and you try to work out why.
A good guitar accompaniment adds so much to a session because the music is, like all music, fundamentally chordal. A tune can sound completely different depending on the backing it recieves and the choice of chords used. Good backing highlights all the different levels that are in the music rather than hampering it.
Why is the situation different with a band that all of a sudden loads of accompaniment is fine (such as Mark's video). Frankly a session is an open environment where people play together for fun. It is in a band situation that you have to worry more about the sound dynamics and the balance of instruments. It is when you have a paying audience and you are being paid to perform that you ask whether the mix is right. Not in a session.
This question, and others like it come around again and again, and again and again the same tired drivle gets spouted. Please move on.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Hey Greenwiggle, it's all meant to be a bit of mindless fun to relieve the boredom. I mean, who really gives a toss who likes what instrument, or who doesn't, or who likes this player because they are so much more trad/hip/etc etc. Or how many ferrets you can fit down your trousers (oops, sorry, wrong blog site) It's all crap. I mean, who cares?
Reminds me of a story that I think was about Tony Trishka, the great American 5 string banjo player. Someone was raving on and on about bluegrass and he replied " We shouldn't take all this too seriuosly, because at the end of the day, it's only a banjo"
And no, before anyone starts, I am not having a go at the banjo.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Apparently Crap is way less offensive than b****cks - which is just stupid - same as this thread. I agree greenwiggle - I know some backers (two in particular) who have more talent and passion in their little fingers than loads and loads of crap tune players put together. snooooorrrrreeeee
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
no more than two generally but i think they're essential. but if they're good players then it doesn't matter how many of them there are. hasn't anyone seen the national ukelele orchestra? brilliant.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Hi Oldstrings, the person at the front of our band on the YouTube link is thrashing away - but then that's not a session, it's a recorded gig. Having said that I don't particularly like his playing on that particular number!
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
oops, and I've just seen your reply a few comments down, about "Crossing the bridge" - we're lucky I guess to have a guitarist who can do other stuff...
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I dunno...I think that "necessary" is the wrong word to use regarding any instrument in a session. No matter which ones are taken away, there always will be others to continue to play. Granted, if there aren't any passable melody players, it could be potentially problematic. However, as long as there are people to play who enjoy the music, and have a relatively tight grasp on what they're doing, then it should be a fun session to attend. The great thing about guitar is that it can add multiple elements to a tune. It is percussive, contributes to the melody, and should compliment the other instruments. No; not essential...but very welcome in my book.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I don't think I did miss you point, andy_newcastle. I've just opened O'Neill's at random - the page I'm looking at goes from 477 The Mourne Mountains to 489 The New Mail-Coach - and, in those 13 reels, only one of them could conceivably be 'harmonised' V - I for any of their parts, and even then it wouldn't be right. (OK - I've found one more which could be, but still not right.)
But all 13 of them are based on 8-bar melodic phrases containing ansering 4-bar sub-phrases, which are subdivided again at the 2-bar, 1-bar and 1/2 bar levels. That's how the dancers know where they are at ALL points in the tune.
My point was simply that an argument that dancers know where they are in the music is not a good one for 'proving' that the music is harmonic rather than melodic in nature. In fact, it tends to prove the opposite.
I hope that, whilst I have said that I have found that the very best sessions do not have some sort of harmonic accompaniment, I do in fact like guitars played well. All of that is my opinion. I find it disappointing that having a different opinion to some, for instance, apparently, to No Cause For Alarm, means that I am open to being called ignorant, stupid, knuckle-scraping, snobbish and moronic. If we were to descend to that level of intellectual debate here, then, frankly, I'd be off. Thankfully, there are some here who have a greater regard for others.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Wonder why so many great melody players have nearly always liked to have a guitar or bouzouki backer. Or a Piano.
Even going back to the old 78's. I know this isn't relevant to the specific topic of it being necessary at a session, it's just that apparently many listeners, maybe most prefer the sound, which can apply to sessions too.
Are we done yet? This seems to be degenerating into nonsense and insults.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Oldstrings, if you weren't having a bit of fun, or perhaps misread GP's post, and for the benefit of those outside the UK, the word was "boaters", an English colloquialism for a straw hat.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I think..though English Martin Carthy makes Dave Swarbrick sound 10 times better, I thought Daithi Sproule with Tommy Peoples, who could handle it solo sounds better, as does James Kelly... adds some depth is all. Donal Clancy with Danu really revs things up (I know not a session, but have been at sessions with them) Paul DeGrae to Jackie Daly, on and on.... you'll say they are all performers.... but come to the Catskills this summer and hear them in session, some of these great guitar players.
Don't knock us, we love you guys, and just want to bring out the sound sometimes, session or gig. If we're messing you up, just tell us, we're happy for polite advice, we really do love the music in case you were wondering. I feel certain many could have been great melody players with a different choice, we choose this for a reason, we like it, and seems many others do as well.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I think a well played guitar is a lovely thing.
I also think most guitar players wouldnt be able to play the melody on thier instrument, up to speed, with ornaments, triplets, rolls, variations, and built in harmonies.
I think those things are critical, someone shouldnt play guitar if he dosent know the melody, and I dont mean "having heard a G tune before" I mean, being able to intimately reproduce the whole melody, the same way the melody players in the session can.
Guitar players get away with not knowing the music because "they just play rythm" and I think thats the problem. Its a whole complete music, and If I brought a fiddle to "just play the rythm" I'd get booted instantly. Its a melody music, and it does have a chord structure, but you cant understand how that structure works, in context, without being able to play the melody up to speed. Thats my take on it. When you can do that, you are qualified to understand -why- the accompiniment works the way it does.
And James Kelly's recordings were destroyed by all the guitar players he played with. A crying shame. Depth? I dont think so.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
But what about people who back but play other melody instruments....they may not be able to play the tune on the guitar though.
Anyhow - thats complete crap - I know loads of deadly backers in Ireland who dont do anything else but back. And they know exactly what they are doing. Just the same way as I can tell a good backer from a bad backer even though I cant back myself.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I think another_p's thoughts on backing are the melody players version of when punters ask melody players why they play the same tune all night. When you don't understand the distinct, subtle forms of the different parts of the music, you over-generalise and think that YOU 'get-it' and THEY never will...
in my opinion James Kelly ruined a lot of good guitar work on those albums
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
piper.... I know likely hundreds of the tunes in my head real well, and can add melody in where I feel like it, sometimes will play the whole tune if it's one I have worked out, and can do it up to speed, a moderate but danceable tempo...maybe not ceili speed as a fingerstyle player, but a flatpicker could go ceili speed if good at it. We're not all bashers. I play a pretty understated, melodic fingerstyle, and love backing....not interfering with or fighting the music though. I am aware of the fact that some don't like backing and some do, some like how I play others don't, and If I thought most at a session didn't want it or backing in general, fine, I don't need to go there. One thing for sure... the melody is king.... not the backer, and backers who don't remember that will get in trouble if they try to push themselves out front and over the melody.
I agree, to back well you need to know the melody, and the basic melodic structure of the music, which often has repetitive patterns, however, is never boring.....but even if a tune comes along you haven't heard, you can remember it by second time through usually, you can listen first go round if you are immersed in the music and know it well and usually get it, and not two chord bashing either.
Surely others must not agree about James Kelly's recordings being destroyed by guitar players...including James Kelly himself one would assume, otherwise why would he have kept them on? He he could have dumped their tracks if he disliked them, but if you hate it, you hate it. Nothing wrong with that and you are not alone, this we know.
To assume all or most backers don't know the music is a mistaken generality. I know many who know the tunes real well, especially in their heads, even if they don't have them all worked out note for note as tunes, the point is that they could if they wanted to if they know their instrument well enough. Personally I like a blend of noting and some chording, the chording being used momentarily to stress a note or two or three, not to stay on it very long at all... like a fiddler holding a long note sometimes, while the tune goes on with other players...if that makes any sense.
Rhythm bashing doesn't sound so hot to my ears to tell the truth either. The instrument has all those frets and strings to make lots of sounds and notes, they are there for a reason. Rhythm bashing, if that's what you are used to hearing.... that fights the music as far as I am concerned, especially when they hit on the offbeat and try to fill the spaces between notes that should remain open. Just personal opinion here though.
BB... I could never wrap my brain around backing "theory"... I play by ear and try to stay with the melody player real closely, and that is my only "theory". I think each tune demands a different "theory" in a sinse, not some generalized textbook theory formula applied to all music. Though maybe it is useful in getting to know the instrument, that I don't know and can't judge, being musically illiterate and only an ear player.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I decided awhile back that instead of branching out I should stick to the fiddle and try and get as good as I can. That should keep me occupied until I die. Which will be soon if you guys dont stop bitching about backing just because either you cant do it yourselves or (as Ive said before) you have no taste. Please a new thread - any thread. Anything - god, please, please.....pretty please.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
As often before, Iris, I think you've hit the nail firmly on the head. And more than once in your above post:
"Personally I like a blend of noting and some chording, the chording being used momentarily to stress a note or two or three, not to stay on it very long at all..."
Spot on! That's more than "backing", that's genuinely being part of the music and if all guitarist backers did that, I for one would have no beef at all. But lots of them don't - they flat pick incessant chords and superimpose a homogenous mush over everything.
"Rhythm bashing doesn't sound so hot to my ears to tell the truth either."
Absolutely. When that happens, you can get the rhythmic equivalent from one guitar of a 5-bodhran session, at which point I tend to go home.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I get the impression of alot of melody players are being incredibly self righteous - doesnt matter if they are sh*te musicians - they can bitch and bitch about this and that because even if they are total hacks - at least they arent backers....rubbish!
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Another_piper says:
“I also think most guitar players wouldnt be able to play the melody on thier instrument, up to speed, with ornaments, triplets, rolls, variations, and built in harmonies……
And James Kelly's recordings were destroyed by all the guitar players he played with. A crying shame.
Depth? I dont think so.”
Zan McLeod who plays Bouzouki and guitar on James Kelly Ring sessions can certainly play the ,melody
up to speed with ornaments triplets etc….is he one of the guitarists who destroys James Kelly’s playing ?.
Anyway to answer the question ..are guitars necessary – of course they’re not !
I like them though, so that’s good enough for me.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Mark, with all due respect (and I've put up my own youtube clip, so you know I'm not trying to speak from any great position of authority), and also with the preface that what I've seen of your harping looks good: that band is celtic thrash trash of the sort that gets the genre a bad name. You can do better than that!
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I'd agree - I think I prefer the quieter things we do to the "thrashy" stuff (but it keeps the punters dancing). I do do other stuff too, but the harp world is generally a bit conservative and I'm not sure I like the extremes of "delicate" solo harp playing either.
Anyway, good to have these opinions - apart from that gobsh*ite Striving for Shameless. He can go stick his head down the bog!
Re: Does anyone actually think guitars are necessary in a session?
I think what it amounts to is that the tune is only an bare-bones abstract collection of notes on a piece of paper. It only becomes something worth discussing when the tune meets an instrument. And when that happens, even if its being played on only one instrument, how it sounds depends on the arrangement of the tune. Some arrangements (like some from Lunasa, for example) are incredibly complex, some are impromtu (ie a session) and some are simple (for example a solo fiddler playing a tune 3 times through with no variations).
The matter of instrumentation is simply a matter of personal preference, and the point is that we all have different opinions which I don't think we should try to "standardise". At the end of the day, it doesn't hurt to say "well, I don't really like such-and-such, but nonetheless I can appreciate the skill involved and accept their right to do it".
I doubt Iris would describe Ian Carr (for example) as a rhythm basher in a way that shows quite such contempt for that style of playing. It all seems rather pathetic and insecure to me to try to use condesension to belittle a particular set of opinions that disagree with yours as underdeveloped and immature.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
there is too much bashing of all kinds on this site, not just rhythm either!!
Sometimes, just like you get tired of your own cooking and want to eat out, I like to go hear a band with a more driving rhythm player than I could ever be, being a pretty low key melodic player...like Lunasa, or Danu. I love Donal Clancy's backing. He is also a great player of tunes, both flatpicking and fingerstyle, which not many knew until he did some CDs apart from the bands he was with. I think Randal Bays when he backed was brilliant, as well as a great tune player. Nice fiddler too!!
I will never be a flatpicker... the things seem alien to me, don't know what to do with them. I use a thumbick and can use it for the odd strum as a flatpick, but you wouldn't want to flatpick the whole night with one of these. I don't want to be one either, not out of *condescension*, but it's not the path I am on. There's something new to learn everyday, everytime you play, just within your own style. As Ben says, though about fiddle, it will take a whole lifetime to get everything out of this guitar playing, whether backing or tunes.
Backing is not a generic formula, it can be different all the time, you can vary things, you can play strong and steady (and yes a fingerpicker can get very good volume when needed for a stress note or chord if they know how, the proper attack at the proper time is critical) and then melt back.... even just drone quietly, near silently, for a measure while the melody goes at it full blast, then fade back in... this is why I love backing more than melody, you can feel what the player needs, what the tune needs at each moment, you can feel the soul of each tune, and each needs a different treatment. If your melody player likes backing that is! If not, well, I'll listen.
I used to play out at gigs a whole lot, with some of the best players of the time, late 70s-early 80's, was always working, for a stretch was doing five gigs a week on only three nights. My WELL spent youth!! Then came grown-up time, child-rearing, moved too far away from NYC to be able to go out much, especially the coming back at 4:00AM was out of the question. So I holed up for a few decades and played tunes, in isolation for the most part. Isolation is a good tool for develoment in ways too, if it suits the music that is, but you develop your own touches that way, so this was a musically lonely period, with just the odd house session, but it was satisfying in its way too.
Andy.... Ben... I missed backing terribly though. I know there are some who think it has no place in the music. Fair enough, let them play without it. Like I said... sometimes I am so amazed by a few melody players going at it who are great, I just want to sit and take it in and not play. I felt my right arm was missing though. Backing really gets my blood flowing, and the melody players I play with regularly (who like backing!) say it gets them flowing. I will never be an aggressive flatpicker, don't know how. The best hard driving rhythm players (not the bashers) they know how to lay back behind the melody.
That's the key thing... it's called backing or accompanying, because it should be underneath or behind the melody. Again, no it is NOT necessary, but many like it there. I see too many of the bashers acting like they want to be rock stars, like they want to be the one noticed.... there often is something else going on there, some other motivation, not love of the music as the main motivation. If you love this music and are backing, you WANT to stay in the background, provide the red carpet for the melody to march down upon like grand royalty.
OK... I need to shut up now!!! Need to go do some work!!
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I want to be backed by you, Iris!
Actually, even better, I want to be in a session and NOT PLAY so I can *listen* to you backing. I think you must have been *born* to hit nails on the head.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Looks like this thread's really struck a chord (no pun intended). But don't any other SMPs, knuckle brained morons, etc., often feel they're "fighting" backers (not just guitarists, certainly), which distracts you from the tune, when it's the last thing you want. Let's face it, these hours we spend playing, for those of us who have day jobs, are precious, aren't they - you might have to travel long distances, it's not often on, etc., it's IMPORTANT and we don't want it ruined. Yes, Carthy accompanied Swarbrick brilliantly, but they were a gigging duo, not a session, up on stage, tickets, etc.
Fair enough?
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Max... I fight many backers too, and sure some of them fight me, LOL. If there's a jazz chorder or a basher, I will back off. Let them be thrown to the melody players, they'll fix them.
Carthy and Swarbrick, sure a gig duo, but bet the first time they met (maybe a session?) they hit it off and sounded like they had played together for years. A backer who knows the music is speaking the same language, pretty fluently, as the melody players, and can walk into a new place with players they never met and sit in and fit in really well, provided backing is desired at all.... and I sure wouldn't do that without asking if they minded if I played a few. I have done gigs, emergency calls when their usual didn't show, dead cold, with players I never met before, or never played with before, with no rehearsal time, or maybe 15 minutes to cover any especially "curly" (thanks donough!) tunes and changes, and we played together quite well because we speak the same language, and with barely any stage fright.
Day jobs... yes, they make our playing time more precious, no one wants it ruined. With an open session you run the risk though, and what can you do. If a person is really wrecking it the lucky session host should have a chat with them. They may be a melody player too. In fact one problem with many melody players is they start playing at different speeds, they have different settings, many fiddlers' intonation is off.... it's not just backers who can ruin things. In fact a good backer with a strong attack and steady droning, can often tie them all back into the same pace, sometimes we actually hold things together and can make an otherwise untogether session sound halfway decent.
Ben... well if you are ever in New Jersey.... or go to E.Durham, we'll catch a few tunes. You may not like my style though. Some think backing should be flatpicked. My heaviest influences were Carthy and Renbourne... yes, I know, two English players. Very melodic though, not as stacatto as Carthy, though I have the Carthy "thumb" all right, but maybe more of the Renbourne gentle touch.... and sigh.... I aspire to be as good as both of them someday! two geniuses. Let's not even get started on Tony McManus... who, may I slip in, we have coming to IAANJ for a concert with Meave Donnelly 3/30. I cannot wait to meet him! I will post it to events closer to the date, otherwise it gets lost in the mist by not being near the top.
Don't know about hitting nails on the head Ben, sometimes on the fingernail, which bleeds and turns black.... i just really love backing, and am fairly opinionated as to what its place in the music should be. And I don't mean that people should play like me, any style done well and tastefully should be respected. Except as a rule I don't like a lot of jazz or 7th chords tossed in. it sounds too modern for this music to me, too space-age or something. Sounds like it fights the tune to my ear anyway. Sounds Dischordant! pardon pun.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Well, since I started this thread, half in jest, after a swipe was taken at whistle players on that other thread, I suppose I better say something to round it off (if indeed it is prepared to lay down and die quietly.)
Firstly, I've played many sessions where guitars, or even just one guitar, have been present. I wouldn't stand up and walk out if I saw a guitar case making an entrance. I used to do paid sessions with, along with a couple of other players, a guitarist. I've always tried to make sure I got a guitarist booked if I was doing a gig. There are a number of very fine guitarists on this site that I've had the pleasure to sit in with. I will even go as far as reneging on my initial statement by saying I'd max out at 2 guitars per session. Like the elusive butterfly I alluded to above, beautiful guitar accompaniment is a treat to behold, but hard to catch.
But that's it. 2 maximum. More than that and it gets cacophanous. In that way it is like 2+ bodhrans. And that is unlike 2+ flutes or 2+ fiddles. We all know that Irish music is based on dance music so it has inherent rhythmicity anyway. So although 1 possibly 2 guitars may augment the overall fullness and add to the rhythm, they are in fact, in essence, unnecessary. In a session anyway. This is purely my view. But if you are trying to please the pub guvenor or his punters, then maybe you may think guitars are neccessary. But then that type of session may have "performance" elements in it. This discussion could go for over a thousand posts if we went on to define all that again. Carry on if you want.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Key... I am tired of it! Ready to stop! Whew!! The patrons at a pub do look on it as a gig, they don't often realize the nature of it. I have gotten up for a while and stopped playing sometimes and a patron asks WHY, aren't you SUPPOSED to be there, why'd you walk away for so long (10 minutes?).
Whatever.... !! Interesting discussion, why not.... for those of us who work at home ALONE, this is interesting diversion sometimes and a welcome break!!
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
re: "If there's a jazz chorder or a basher, I will back off. Let them be thrown to the melody players, they'll fix them."
I would actually seethe, but it'd be wasted effort; this is most likely pointless but I'll say it again. People will always like different arrangement style. Don't try to "standardise" them to your tastes. It's 1) assuming you know more than the other person so your point is more valid than theirs and 2) going to leave you bloody bored if you actually do get your own way. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how many years of experience you have, your opinion in matters of taste is no more valid than someone who has very little experience.
If that doesn't make sense, re-read my previous two posts. I don't want to repeat myself.
Apologies for that, I just felt it had to be said even if its not an accurate representation of the true opinions of anyone. As it has been said - "Sir, I may not agree with you but I'll defend to the death your right to disagree with me".
As for whether a guitar is needed - no. No one instrument is needed. Provided there's a different one. The sessions where no instruments turn up are boring as hell. I like some kind of rhythm (dancing, guitar, bodhran etc etc) though, and I like playing for dancing. Because I enjoy dancing, and making people want to dance. If I can't do that then I see absolutely no point in playing (people don't actually have to dance, just want to). It is dance music after all.
I should have made it clearer, the reason I don't want to repeat myself is cos otherwise it'll just make for boring posts. And we don't want that, do we?!?
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Oh Dear oh Dear. I started the whistle thread as a joke because of the constant guitar bashing on previous posts. Whoops.
And BB admitted that she doesn't really hate tin whistles, She was just fed up with the same thing.
Still, it's been quite entertaining and helped me take breaks from the job I'm in the middle of trying to complete. Five "Dose" threads, all of which have brought out the best and worst in human nature. Some real gems amoungst all the drivel.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Andy....I wasn't knocking the use of the jazz chords due to thinking I know better, I just don't like them, they grate on me is all.... some people do them real well and I respect their talent, though still am not real fond of that style, just a taste thing, not a superiority thing or knowing better thing. I don't like chocolate ice cream either, it's on that level the comments were meant.
I mean a basher ,and one particularly doing jazz chords... esp. when used where they seem to not fit, like doing them every third chord all through or something just because it's time to toss it in.
Lately I have seen some melody players seething at one basher at a session I go to. I just stopped playing until they stopped., which was a good while.. we conflicted badly and I didn't want to have a musical battle with the person and ruin the sound further, though was still polite and never said an unkind word, or any word at all actually, didn't even grimace. It was an open session after all. Two of the melody players decided next time there would be something said. That's what I meant...leave it to the melody players.... I don't want to tell people how to play. Surely this person must have hated how I play too, LOL! Very different!!
But boy, have I heard fiddle players knock each other at times over style too, same thing isn't it? People play how they play because it's what they like and think sounds best, usually they are not trying to change people to their style, if they try, that's pretty silly and a waste of time.
Andy... I sure do want to dance, bad as I am at it.... I leave our session circle to jump around in the set or two they do... broke my toe though, but going to get back to it ASAP. So keep on playing and making people dance!! That's great....
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Yes Don... great work breaks, this stuff, but I've had it!! Have to stop thinking about playing now, and just play. it's been a good discussion though, and I do agree guitar players are not necessary, the music would go on without them. That was the question.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Don - I was aware the whistle thread was done tongue in cheek. This one was started in much the same spirit. I think we have witnessed wide ranging examples of the rich tapestry of human taste, even within the relative confines of the restricted area that is Irish Traditional Music.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Yes my friend, it's been very interesting. Good fun all round.
I think people confuse sessions with recordings, or gigs, and they are very different beasts. From my own experience, being a fiddle/ guitar player, I can well understand the frustration of people who have tunes wrecked by bad backing. And I stress the word bad. I spent many years as a back up player, and it is by far the hardest thing I have ever done. Good tune playing should provide all the rhythm needed to dance or tap the foot. Good back-up should enhance it.
I think the problem comes from backup players who think that they are providing the rhythm. This is a common mistake. The tune, if played properly, provides all that. Traditionally, you had a traveling fiddler/piper etc who worked with a dancing master, or was one himself, and they provided all the music for the dance. Just one instrument. The back up player is meant to enhance what is already there. So no, the back up is not necessary at all, or shouldn't be if the melody is being played properly.
The great backup players lock in with what is already being stated by the melody players, and add to it. The bad ones try to impose a pulse, and miss the point. Mind you, I've
played some sessions where the melody players had no idea what they were doing and couldn't have provided a beat to save themselves. Total sh*te. Just bad playing.
However, when you find a good back-up player, cherrish them, because they are as rare as rocking horse sh*t. And the good ones love the music as much as the melody players, and are just as knowledgable about it as committed, and I stress the word committed, melody players.
Over the years, as my knowledge increased, I have been drawn to solo instrumental recordings. This is, I believe, perfectly normal if you are going to get into the heart of what you are striving to perfect.
But we should never forget that at it's heart, it is community music. It is not about selfish indulgent tosserism. We are providing something for the community that we are part of. Fellow musicians, and interested listeners. We are not seperate, but a part of a larger community. Music provides many things to both players and listeners, and we should never forget it. Otherwise, what the hell is the point of tradition?
Tradition means passing on things, and providing for the community that we are part of. So we play for the weddings and parties and wakes, and then that community lets us be a bit self indulgent and play in sessions. But you have to give to receive, and it is also a given that you should teach as well as play. And I don't mean teaching as in formal lessons.
Teaching as in incouraging people to learn this tradition. Help them and welcome them. Sessions are a wonderful way of passing on the tradition. Don't jump down somebodies throat if they don't immediatly understand it. Educate them. If they still don't get it, then maybe you are a bad comunicator, rather than they are bad learners. after all, they are coming into your scene, not you theirs.
So we strive in our own little cocoon to improve our playing, and we come out into the real world and play, imagining that it will all be perfect. And guess what? Three guitars turn up, and the whistle player next to you blasts unrhythmical sh*te in your ear, and, horror of horrors, there are two bodhran players and a spoons player all wanting to contribute. All with huge hopeful smiles on their faces wanting to be a part of this magical thing. So, we grit our teeth and bare it, hopeing that one of them will get it, and dream of that great session where everything was just magical.
We are all, as musicians, forever looking for that bit of magic that inspired us. Guess what, it only happens very rarely. The reason we all keep on going is that we are all just like junkies, forever searching for that illusive hit of pure magic. But we all forget our responibility to our community as traditional musicians. Traditional music comes from community, and we have, as traditional musicians, a responsibility to give back to that community. That community will give back to us just as much, and more , as we give to it.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Aaaaahhhh. Sorry, just me falling off my soap box.
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
And why does this web site turn w ankerism into t osserism? I'm Australian and we don't use the word tosser. we use w anker. PC is all very well, but it's the world wide web, not the EU home page. It did the same with b ollocks. changed it to crap, which in Australia, means totally different things.
Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
We may have various species of plonkers coming along now and again to fxck things up at the Blythe, but thankfully we are blessed with a paucity of guitars. So there is a kind of purity achieved in its finer moments.
Sessions with the 10 guitars syndrome are not for me. If at all, my taste would max at one, and tastefully played at that. Like good whistle playing, good guitar playing is an elusive butterfly to catch. Or any instrument playing for that matter, but guitars are under the microscope here. But each to their own, and that's my view anyhow.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I think they're absolutely essential if you like thrashing chords which are always in root position - so I take it, that's a "no" for you!
I'm not a fan of them although I think they're wonderful played sensitively as a solo instrument.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by Mark Harmer
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Of course they're not necessary in a session - just as any particular instrument isn't necessary in a session. Having said that, depending on one's own tastes, some instruments may be desirable.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by Ron P
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Well, it'd be an interesting session without instruments.... I meant to say that particular instruments would be more desirable, depending on one's taste.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by Ron P
Re: Dose anyone think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
They're probably as necessary as judges are, at a session, but as has been said here, and on other threads often enough, the function of the accompanist is often to render the music into a more listenable form for all the unfortunates out there who are'nt as talented as "we" are.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by Backer
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Backer, I think even the guitarists wouldn't agree with you on that last part!!
Max
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by maxF
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Given the choice of singing the odd song playing the same inversions over and over on a guitar in different tunings or playing the tunes on a tenor banjo I would rather lose the guitar as the tunes sound grand on their own without accompaniment. And I stand much better chance of staying awake too
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by Ripthecalico
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Ron p that is claptrap of course some instruments are neccesary at a trad irish session "the melody ones"
If 3 bodhran players, a tuneless bouzouki player and 2 songless guitarists turn up what kind of session would that be ?
If a button box player, banjo, flute, fiddle and piper turn up what you will get is a cracking session
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by Ripthecalico
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I refuz too hav anythink two doo wiv somthink that haz sutch aye badd spelink miztake inn thee title. Itz stupit.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by woops
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
jog on then, you still here
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by Ripthecalico
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
a bunch of tune players.......great
Add a good guitarist......fantastic
Add another guitarist......Mmmm
Add another one.......run screaming for the door.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by woops
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Only one is necessary, if it is used as accompaniment.
All others are superfluous, unless they are playing the tunes.
That is why I take my 'zouk to the sessions instead.
PS There's nothing wrong with the spelling of "necessary", thedon.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by Guernsey Pete
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
and ripthecalico please keep up.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by woops
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
sorry about that. you are so right Pete
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by woops
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I can tell you that twelve guitars to one fiddle does not make a good session. Or perhaps I'm turning up at the wrong pub? Certainly twelve guitars with Thrash*tis does not add to the beauty of the music although it dose look quite funny!
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by bowburner
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Not "necessary", and I am one.... but sometimes a steady backer or drummer can reel in (pardon pun) all those melody players who can't seem to play at the same speed. Also it can add a fullness to the sound. True, this music is about the melody though and if someone had to go, the choice is obvious if there are just two players. However, many patrons at sessions have commented they like it with a backing instrument better in places I have been. I don't mean yours truly either, just in general, it gives an added dimension.
I know melody players who, if given the command to pick ONE person to play a gig with them, would choose backing 100% of the time, if it's decent, over another melody player. It just fills things out they feel. These are not amateurs who need the cover-up either, they are well capable of playing solo.
Two or more conflicting guitar styles, ugh. but same goes for two fiddlers playing different settings of the same tune at different speeds. Are they ever asked to stop?
I think we all need to lighten up a bit, if it's an open session, stop being so critical about orchestrating things. I'm not for a run amok free for all where people are truly wrecking others' enjoyment of the music and evening, but cut us all a break, guitarists and melody players alike. A session is also a social event, we all make some mistakes. Have a gig if you are inclined to orchestrate, or a session by invite only.... and some of those are super, and it doesn't make you a snob. I had two of my favorite players over last night and we played for hours and really didn't want another sound in there. Open session, different story. Relax and enjoy it, if someone, guitar or melody wrecks it, have a polite word with them.
Maybe all guitarists should learn and carry a tin whistle just in case they find themselves suddenly unwelcome? I got to a session one time, a drummer, three guitars, that was it. So I went into DADGAD and played tunes.....interesting. One other sang a few. Would have preferred differently though. We had some fun anyway with the absurdity of it all. You have to laugh at what happens sometimes and lighten up.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by irisnevins
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
PS That wasn't meant to be a rude word in there. This site has a dirty mind. How very dare it!
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by bowburner
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Ah, but what about the classic tommy tedesco album "20 guitars go south of the border"? Surely an inspiration to all of us.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by woops
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
"Maybe all guitarists should carry a tin whistle"? iris, haven't you read the other thread? Those things are hard to play. ;-0
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by woops
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I have to be careful about this one, because there are some *very* good guitarists around - OK, only one - in sessions near me, and I would rather not offend, or even put off, the good one that we have.
But, and it's a very big BUT, guitars are simply not necessary, or even desirable for the very best sessions. Before I get going, I ought to make it clear that I am definitely NOT talking about guitarists who play the tune. I've heard that on a number of occasions, and it's absolutely magical. So, the following refers entirely to guitars used as 'backing'.
I know bb has said something on another thread to the effect that if we haven't heard a good guitar in a session, then we're missing something. I've been in sessions with exceptionally good guitarists, but the fact that they're playing chords simply gets in the way of the tune. The music isn't based on chords, unlike either Western classical or pop pusic, both of which are. So any chords used will be a compromise at best and will definitely interfere with the melodic nature of the tunes.
I've been in some cracking sessions which have had guitarists playing backing, but the very best have been just like those ... only without the guitar.
There is another problem associated with this, however. I've noticed that otherwise mediocre sessions can actually be improved by guitar backing. Frustrating that ...
(btw, I used 'chords' above instead of saying harmony, even though it isn't really what I meant, because I got abused by Michael last time I tried to explain - I thought perfectly reasonably - what I meant.)
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by benhall.1
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I really have to get a handle on these smilies
that's better.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by woops
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Iris, you're dead right. In a gig, I would choose a guitar or other backer 100% of the time, even though I've done some very enjoyable gigs with just another melody instrument. But gigs are completely different from sessions. Frankly, I don't even try to make a trad sound at a gig. I just show off, because I've been trained by the audience over the years, in a sort of Pavlov's dog sort of way, that that's what they are more likely to respond to.
And, I've just realised that maybe part of the reason I enjoy our local guitarist's playing *quite* so much is that he only plays guitar on about 1/3 of the tunes. The rest of the time, he's a complete whiz on box and tin whistle.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by benhall.1
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Are fiddles necessary? Are whistles necessary? Are boxes necessary? You can have a good session if you take any of those three out. No, guitars aren't necessary, because the music is essentially melody-driven, but even if you self-righteous people see fit to get up on your soapboxes and rant about how people who do what I have spent the last several years pouring my heart into are a bunch of idiot 'plonkers' with no musical sensitivity, well-played accompaniment MAKES THE MUSIC SOUND BETTER. And while a guitarist is not necessary at a session, I'm thinking that having a good one around will make the session better tenfold. So will you smug, cocky melody players just lay off for once?
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by Zazzaliss
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
...Not that I am bitter.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by Zazzaliss
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Zazza Have some chocolate! I think most people are saying there are some very talented guitarists around who are a pleasure to listen to and add something positive to the session. I think the gripe here is about the less talented ones who just thrash root chords over the tunes. Those really bug us smug, cocky melody players who think about what we are playing and how it sounds.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by bowburner
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
No, actually, Zazzaliss, I think that, except for not vey good sessions, guitars, even very well played, don't make the music sound better. I wouldn't call anyone a plonker for playing one, though, not least becuase, when not in a session context, I like really good accompaniment.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by benhall.1
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I meant to say "I really like ... "
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by benhall.1
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Iris - sessions by invite only. We've tried this and us smug, cocky melody players (USCMP from now on) had a f***ing great time. Let's look at it this way. If USCMP weren't there, there would be no session. If the guitarists aren't there (hopefully), the session still goes ahead.
Play guitar in a band if you like, be a fully integrated musician and use your skills and talent - great. But bands play gigs, and a session isn't a gig.
Love Max
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by maxF
Does anyone actually think melody players are necessary at a session?
Apparently all you need is guitars and punters.
Hurrah!
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by maxF
Re: Does anyone actually think melody players are necessary at a session?
Shouldn't you have said "Dose"???
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by RichardB
Re: Does anyone actually think melody players are necessary at a session?
oops - didn't read the previous thread - Joke already made
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by RichardB
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Hmmm New meaning for PMT - Posting Musician Tantrums!
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by bowburner
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
yes
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by DADGADLad
Re: Does anyone actually think melody players are necessary at a session?
Get some bodhran operatives in and you can do away with the guitars.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by geoffwright
Re: Does anyone actually think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
That is how it should be spelt!!!
I wasn't asleep, just dosing.
Rhythm backers should be made to sit an exam - immediately after a set, starting with "what key did we finish in?". It is surprising how many backers don't know.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by geoffwright
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Necessary? Of coures not. Some sessions hold together better and sound better with accompaniment, depending on the (lack of) skill of the melody players. Some don't benefit from accompaniment. Some are dragged down by it. I'm mainly a guitar player, but I rarely indulge in accompaniment. If I'm not prepared to add some tasty spice to the soup, I'd rather just play melody or listen.
As much as I admire the folks who do it really well, I could do without guitar accompaniment altogether. I'd rather have Alec Finn on 'zouk any day.
Everybody seems to agree that one guitar is enough, if not too much. What about the other instruments? Two banjos? Is that too much? My favorite sound in all of ITMdom (after a great singer) is a single naked fiddle. I love to hear all the subtleties and eccentricities that a good fiddler can bring to a tune. Add another fiddle and the subtleties are smeared away. Now there's just the tune. Of course, if I'm one of the fiddlers, I'm still having fun, but from a listening point of view, something's lost.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by Bob himself
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I am lucky to have a guitar player at my local session who amongst other things
1 Never needs to ask the key
2 Plays some very good jigs and reels (melody)
3 Can play a light finger style accompanyment or a driving rythym, as required
4 Is able to go for a pint/chat/chill when six other guitarists turn up
5 Never seems to play the same chords each time, giving a fresh feel to the music
6 Can keep a room full of well lubricated spectators happy with all the "Athenry-Wild Rover" standards as well as contempory ballads, againn as required
7 Is able to spell does
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by len
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Sounds like Kevin Boyle. Apart from the spelling bit.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Whats wrong with playing root chords on the guitar anyway ? So long as their played perfectly in time and the volumes just right . . ?
I agree you only need 1 guitarist, more than that spoils the overall sound. When our guitarist stops playing to scratch his a**se, the music doesn't sound as good. Possibly because like some one said earlier that a good guitarist covers for mediorcre melody players.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by Justintime
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
The answer is of course no, Guitars are not necessary in a session.
But then of course, no particular one instrument is actually necessary in a session, so you can have a great session without any one of the favourite instruments, yes even without a Fiddle.
But to have a session, let's agree first that you do need at least two instruments, so that can surely mean two melody, or indeed one melody & one accompany, so a good session could of course include one Guitar.
Of course, if the question was one of desirability, then that would be a different matter.
Sessions without accompanying strings can & do work well & I enjoy those, but I also enjoy, & if the truth be known, probably prefer the presence of a good guitar player.
So I think it boils down to this:
'Good musicians' are necessary for a good session, regardless of which instrument they play!
So I suppose what I'm saying is that I would rather have a good session with myself on Fiddle & three great Guitar players than meself & three crap melody players.
( However, to qualify that statement, I should point out that I am myself, a pretty crap Fiddle player!)
Anyway, I hope that answers your question Lad?
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by Ptarmigan
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
The ideal guitarist at a session is one who can accompany sensitively and knows when not to play. Just like all the other instruments there. I like to have a good guitar in the background because I feel it adds some depth to the music, I don't even mind if they make a bit of a hash of it while they are trying to learn a piece, afterall we do seem to be a bit more laid back than most of the sessions on this site. What I dislike is being overwhelmed by twelve guitars thrashing away so loudly and each in his own style of course, that I can't hear the tune. Then when it's a taking turns session it's overwhelmingly boring waiting for them all to have a turn, hence I sometimes fall asleep (just to link some threads here!) Humph!
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by bowburner
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Let me just clarify why I have a problem with guitars. We used to have a really good session with a mix of songs and tunes and lots of different instruments and talented musicians. Then, gradually one by one more guitarists started to arrive. The result was that the melody players stopped coming and now most weeks we are down to two melody instruments and twelve guitars. I have heard of this happening in other sessions too. Once word gets round that the session is a sing around the instrumentalists stop coming.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by bowburner
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
"I'm not a fan of them, although I think they're wonderful played sensitively as a solo instrument"
Excuse me, Mark Harmer, but what is that person doing at the front of your band?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2tj_zC_XX4
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by oldstrings
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Taking a guess here, are the people who don't like guitars from either the USA or London? If your problem is too many guitarists at your session who aren't very good then the problem is with the particular people who play instruments at your session. And clearly, it depends on the size of the session as to the number of guitars a session can hold (if there's 30 odd people playing you'll get away with more than one).
Benhall, I'm inclined to disagree that the music isn't chordal (presuming you don't mean chordal in the exact sense - ie 4 note chords). At the very least I think it's diadic - if you do much dancing you'll know that its easy to spot where-abouts you are in a dance based on the tune. And as all tunes don't have the same notes making up the final bar there must be something else there to tell you this - the changing harmonic patterns of the tune (cadences if you'll excuse the use of a classical term) which define the same "chord" (or diad/triad) changes - which can be outlined by a chordal instrument ie a guitar etc.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by Andy V
That said, I reserve everybody elses right to have a preference as to how tunes are arranged (be it in a session or band). I just don't agree that chordal instruments don't belong in trad. music on the grounds that the tunes aren't chordal.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by Andy V
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
"30 odd people playing "
Well, that could be a bit of fun but hardly a serious musical experience. I've been in these situations often enough and enjoyed them for what they are but I'm sure most of us don't always wish to be in such large gatherings.
Actually, there's no problem with more than one guitar or even bodhran at a session providing there's enough space. As long as they don't all play at the same time.
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by Johannes J
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
SESSION - 3 Guitars, 1 Fiddle & 1 Snare Drum - ENJOY!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31_SUA-uyo4
Now admit it, don't you wish you'd been there?
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by Ptarmigan
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
The punters love them
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Guitars are actually necessary. Think actuall in a session. Dose anyone?
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by halfwaythere
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Well Don... I know two tunes pretty well on the whistle thus far!
I semi-agree, sometimes in a session with some real hot shot melody players I just want to sit back at times and listen to it unaccompanied, it's super. Then what do you do when they ASK you to play? LOL.
I get it though... I don't think we're technically necessary, which is what the question was, it is all about the melody. I'd just not play if twelve others were playing too. Or even one, where our styles conflict badly. I play fingerstyle and do not chord much at all to tell the truth, and try to be at least semi-melodic, pick up parts of the melody where the mood hits, so am often abale to play with another who is hitting chords. If you have one doing those jazz chords and another playing straight up though.... ugh...disaster!!!
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by irisnevins
Re: Does anyone actually think guitars are really necessary in a session?
Mark Harmers' answer at the top, and the video of his band on youtube are in complete contradiction to one another.
For those of you who have missed the video - 6-piece band, fiddler plays the tune, all else are playing chords/rhythmn; guitar, bouzouki ( which Mark calls a guitar - Mark, that guy on your right is playing a bouzouki ! ), bass guitar, bodrhan, Mark furiously arpeggio'ing on his harp. I wonder what happens if the fiddler needs a night off when they have a gig ? Much like some of the sessions we've been hearing about, I fear.
On the other hand, I'm sure the band pleases a lot of the punters out there ( chaps at Oxford or Cambridge in straw boaters ).
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by Guernsey Pete
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
In contrast, check the band on this tune
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRhHyH0te2I
Presumably if the fiddler/piper takes a night off, the guitarist will switch to flute.
Did I forget to mention that on the whole, and unrelated to the *session* question, I love Mark's band?
# Posted on January 13th 2007 by oldstrings
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Firstly, in defence of Mark, as I said before, sessions and gigs are completely different. I cannot see why Mark can't have a completely different opinion as to what's appropriate for a gigging band as to what's appropriate for a session - I certainly do, and I *like* guitars in bands and, except where they're mainly melodic, I just think they're superfluous at best in sessions (although I admit that our local guy is damn good, doesn't play guitar all the time and I still want him to do it for the about 1/3 of the tunes that he *does* play guitar on).
Next, addressed to andy_newcastle, yep, it IS easy to tell where you are in a dance tune, normally. That's because the melody is framed that way. It's built in 8-bar phrases, with two 4-bar phrases answering each other, which are again subdivided at the bar and at the half bar. Of *course* it's easy, based solely on the tune. These tunes are based on melodies based around modes. Generally, the 'harmonic progressions' that a lot of modern people, especially guitarists, imagine they hear are just that - imagination. Sadly, it's becoming what we all 'hear' when we think of the tunes, because it's now so prevalent.
In fact, thinking about it, given that the dance music itself, according to some sources, apparently owes its origins to music that made its way to England and Wales and then Ireland with the fiddle or its immediate precursor around the 10th century, how exactly does that fit in with needing a chord instrument like a guitar? (As before, I'm not talking about guitars where they are used for melodic purposes.)
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by benhall.1
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
GP, why would *educated* people from Oxford or Cambridge risk their lives in straw boats?
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by oldstrings
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Benhall.1, you missed my point (I think). Certainly in your final paragraph you do - I have and will never argue guitar as a traditional instrument - nor will I claim chords are required. That said, there are tunes where the final two chords of a tune could never be disputed. And it's the same change - V to I. And there's enough tunes that do this for it not to be conincidental. So therefore, even if the chords aren't explicitly there (and I agree, they aren't) it strikes me as improabable it could be a coincidence that this change occurs often in the final bar of a tune (or part) for it not to exist in the music.
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by Andy V
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I thought I came here to learn something. Was I confused, or what?
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by Snakefingers
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
A good musician brings to any gathering their taste and talents, regardless of what instrument they play. I know guitarists and backers who have more taste, talent, understanding and love of the music than some tune noodling instrumentalists (myself included).
These thinly veiled instrument bashing threads are certainly giving me a dose...
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by Greenwiggle
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Ripthecalico.
I'll tell what is claptrap - that's the way you've twisted my words. I never suggested having a bunch of backers or bodhrans thrashing away together - a session doesn't neccessarily need any accompaniment at all.
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by Ron P
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I don't think in the past few years of being on this site I have read such ignorance and stupidity from some knuckle-scraping snobbish morons. (Is that overstating it?)
Of course guitars are not essential in a session and an all guitar session is not going to have many good tunes in it but a session is a session and you will get whatever walks through the door. As some have already alluded to you can get melody instrument players in a session that can not play to save their lives and yet we find the conversation aimed at the guitarists again!!
If you listen to a good session in full swing (and I mean a really good session - which I have had the fortune to attend more than I probably have the right to) and there is a good guitarist playing away and s/he suddenly stops playing mid-set you listen to the sound levels and energy drop right out of that set and you try to work out why.
A good guitar accompaniment adds so much to a session because the music is, like all music, fundamentally chordal. A tune can sound completely different depending on the backing it recieves and the choice of chords used. Good backing highlights all the different levels that are in the music rather than hampering it.
Why is the situation different with a band that all of a sudden loads of accompaniment is fine (such as Mark's video). Frankly a session is an open environment where people play together for fun. It is in a band situation that you have to worry more about the sound dynamics and the balance of instruments. It is when you have a paying audience and you are being paid to perform that you ask whether the mix is right. Not in a session.
This question, and others like it come around again and again, and again and again the same tired drivle gets spouted. Please move on.
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Hey Greenwiggle, it's all meant to be a bit of mindless fun to relieve the boredom. I mean, who really gives a toss who likes what instrument, or who doesn't, or who likes this player because they are so much more trad/hip/etc etc. Or how many ferrets you can fit down your trousers (oops, sorry, wrong blog site) It's all crap. I mean, who cares?
Reminds me of a story that I think was about Tony Trishka, the great American 5 string banjo player. Someone was raving on and on about bluegrass and he replied " We shouldn't take all this too seriuosly, because at the end of the day, it's only a banjo"
And no, before anyone starts, I am not having a go at the banjo.
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by woops
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Why did this site change my word that started in B and ended in ollocks to crap? Doesn't mean the same thing at all.
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by woops
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Apparently Crap is way less offensive than b****cks - which is just stupid - same as this thread. I agree greenwiggle - I know some backers (two in particular) who have more talent and passion in their little fingers than loads and loads of crap tune players put together. snooooorrrrreeeee
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by bb
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
no more than two generally but i think they're essential. but if they're good players then it doesn't matter how many of them there are. hasn't anyone seen the national ukelele orchestra? brilliant.
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by Daniel Gott
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Hi Oldstrings, the person at the front of our band on the YouTube link is thrashing away - but then that's not a session, it's a recorded gig. Having said that I don't particularly like his playing on that particular number!
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by Mark Harmer
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
oops, and I've just seen your reply a few comments down, about "Crossing the bridge" - we're lucky I guess to have a guitarist who can do other stuff...
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by Mark Harmer
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I dunno...I think that "necessary" is the wrong word to use regarding any instrument in a session. No matter which ones are taken away, there always will be others to continue to play. Granted, if there aren't any passable melody players, it could be potentially problematic. However, as long as there are people to play who enjoy the music, and have a relatively tight grasp on what they're doing, then it should be a fun session to attend. The great thing about guitar is that it can add multiple elements to a tune. It is percussive, contributes to the melody, and should compliment the other instruments. No; not essential...but very welcome in my book.
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by IrishElf
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I don't think I did miss you point, andy_newcastle. I've just opened O'Neill's at random - the page I'm looking at goes from 477 The Mourne Mountains to 489 The New Mail-Coach - and, in those 13 reels, only one of them could conceivably be 'harmonised' V - I for any of their parts, and even then it wouldn't be right. (OK - I've found one more which could be, but still not right.)
But all 13 of them are based on 8-bar melodic phrases containing ansering 4-bar sub-phrases, which are subdivided again at the 2-bar, 1-bar and 1/2 bar levels. That's how the dancers know where they are at ALL points in the tune.
My point was simply that an argument that dancers know where they are in the music is not a good one for 'proving' that the music is harmonic rather than melodic in nature. In fact, it tends to prove the opposite.
I hope that, whilst I have said that I have found that the very best sessions do not have some sort of harmonic accompaniment, I do in fact like guitars played well. All of that is my opinion. I find it disappointing that having a different opinion to some, for instance, apparently, to No Cause For Alarm, means that I am open to being called ignorant, stupid, knuckle-scraping, snobbish and moronic. If we were to descend to that level of intellectual debate here, then, frankly, I'd be off. Thankfully, there are some here who have a greater regard for others.
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by benhall.1
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
man you guys are really stupid.
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by insert username here
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Mr. Mark Hammer... your band really sucks.
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by insert username here
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Striving For Shameless, perhaps you'd like to give us your reasons for the personal opinions expressed in your last two posts?
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by lazyhound
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Wonder why so many great melody players have nearly always liked to have a guitar or bouzouki backer. Or a Piano.
Even going back to the old 78's. I know this isn't relevant to the specific topic of it being necessary at a session, it's just that apparently many listeners, maybe most prefer the sound, which can apply to sessions too.
Are we done yet? This seems to be degenerating into nonsense and insults.
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by irisnevins
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Oldstrings, if you weren't having a bit of fun, or perhaps misread GP's post, and for the benefit of those outside the UK, the word was "boaters", an English colloquialism for a straw hat.
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by lazyhound
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I say we should avoid any threads that start with the word, "dose."
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
"Wonder why so many great melody players have nearly always liked to have a guitar or bouzouki backer."
Cause some tune players have taste.
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by bb
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I think..though English Martin Carthy makes Dave Swarbrick sound 10 times better, I thought Daithi Sproule with Tommy Peoples, who could handle it solo sounds better, as does James Kelly... adds some depth is all. Donal Clancy with Danu really revs things up (I know not a session, but have been at sessions with them) Paul DeGrae to Jackie Daly, on and on.... you'll say they are all performers.... but come to the Catskills this summer and hear them in session, some of these great guitar players.
Don't knock us, we love you guys, and just want to bring out the sound sometimes, session or gig. If we're messing you up, just tell us, we're happy for polite advice, we really do love the music in case you were wondering. I feel certain many could have been great melody players with a different choice, we choose this for a reason, we like it, and seems many others do as well.
# Posted on January 14th 2007 by irisnevins
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Yeah Iris - I wish I could back. Sirnose started to tell me some of the theory behind it once and I just thought - 'feck it - its too hard'.
# Posted on January 15th 2007 by bb
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I think a well played guitar is a lovely thing.
I also think most guitar players wouldnt be able to play the melody on thier instrument, up to speed, with ornaments, triplets, rolls, variations, and built in harmonies.
I think those things are critical, someone shouldnt play guitar if he dosent know the melody, and I dont mean "having heard a G tune before" I mean, being able to intimately reproduce the whole melody, the same way the melody players in the session can.
Guitar players get away with not knowing the music because "they just play rythm" and I think thats the problem. Its a whole complete music, and If I brought a fiddle to "just play the rythm" I'd get booted instantly. Its a melody music, and it does have a chord structure, but you cant understand how that structure works, in context, without being able to play the melody up to speed. Thats my take on it. When you can do that, you are qualified to understand -why- the accompiniment works the way it does.
And James Kelly's recordings were destroyed by all the guitar players he played with. A crying shame. Depth? I dont think so.
# Posted on January 15th 2007 by another_piper
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
But what about people who back but play other melody instruments....they may not be able to play the tune on the guitar though.
Anyhow - thats complete crap - I know loads of deadly backers in Ireland who dont do anything else but back. And they know exactly what they are doing. Just the same way as I can tell a good backer from a bad backer even though I cant back myself.
# Posted on January 15th 2007 by bb
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I think another_p's thoughts on backing are the melody players version of when punters ask melody players why they play the same tune all night. When you don't understand the distinct, subtle forms of the different parts of the music, you over-generalise and think that YOU 'get-it' and THEY never will...
in my opinion James Kelly ruined a lot of good guitar work on those albums
# Posted on January 15th 2007 by SirNose
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
piper.... I know likely hundreds of the tunes in my head real well, and can add melody in where I feel like it, sometimes will play the whole tune if it's one I have worked out, and can do it up to speed, a moderate but danceable tempo...maybe not ceili speed as a fingerstyle player, but a flatpicker could go ceili speed if good at it. We're not all bashers. I play a pretty understated, melodic fingerstyle, and love backing....not interfering with or fighting the music though. I am aware of the fact that some don't like backing and some do, some like how I play others don't, and If I thought most at a session didn't want it or backing in general, fine, I don't need to go there. One thing for sure... the melody is king.... not the backer, and backers who don't remember that will get in trouble if they try to push themselves out front and over the melody.
I agree, to back well you need to know the melody, and the basic melodic structure of the music, which often has repetitive patterns, however, is never boring.....but even if a tune comes along you haven't heard, you can remember it by second time through usually, you can listen first go round if you are immersed in the music and know it well and usually get it, and not two chord bashing either.
Surely others must not agree about James Kelly's recordings being destroyed by guitar players...including James Kelly himself one would assume, otherwise why would he have kept them on? He he could have dumped their tracks if he disliked them, but if you hate it, you hate it. Nothing wrong with that and you are not alone, this we know.
To assume all or most backers don't know the music is a mistaken generality. I know many who know the tunes real well, especially in their heads, even if they don't have them all worked out note for note as tunes, the point is that they could if they wanted to if they know their instrument well enough. Personally I like a blend of noting and some chording, the chording being used momentarily to stress a note or two or three, not to stay on it very long at all... like a fiddler holding a long note sometimes, while the tune goes on with other players...if that makes any sense.
Rhythm bashing doesn't sound so hot to my ears to tell the truth either. The instrument has all those frets and strings to make lots of sounds and notes, they are there for a reason. Rhythm bashing, if that's what you are used to hearing.... that fights the music as far as I am concerned, especially when they hit on the offbeat and try to fill the spaces between notes that should remain open. Just personal opinion here though.
BB... I could never wrap my brain around backing "theory"... I play by ear and try to stay with the melody player real closely, and that is my only "theory". I think each tune demands a different "theory" in a sinse, not some generalized textbook theory formula applied to all music. Though maybe it is useful in getting to know the instrument, that I don't know and can't judge, being musically illiterate and only an ear player.
# Posted on January 15th 2007 by irisnevins
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I decided awhile back that instead of branching out I should stick to the fiddle and try and get as good as I can. That should keep me occupied until I die. Which will be soon if you guys dont stop bitching about backing just because either you cant do it yourselves or (as Ive said before) you have no taste. Please a new thread - any thread. Anything - god, please, please.....pretty please.
# Posted on January 15th 2007 by bb
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
As often before, Iris, I think you've hit the nail firmly on the head. And more than once in your above post:
"Personally I like a blend of noting and some chording, the chording being used momentarily to stress a note or two or three, not to stay on it very long at all..."
Spot on! That's more than "backing", that's genuinely being part of the music and if all guitarist backers did that, I for one would have no beef at all. But lots of them don't - they flat pick incessant chords and superimpose a homogenous mush over everything.
"Rhythm bashing doesn't sound so hot to my ears to tell the truth either."
Absolutely. When that happens, you can get the rhythmic equivalent from one guitar of a 5-bodhran session, at which point I tend to go home.
# Posted on January 15th 2007 by benhall.1
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I get the impression of alot of melody players are being incredibly self righteous - doesnt matter if they are sh*te musicians - they can bitch and bitch about this and that because even if they are total hacks - at least they arent backers....rubbish!
# Posted on January 15th 2007 by bb
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Another_piper says:
“I also think most guitar players wouldnt be able to play the melody on thier instrument, up to speed, with ornaments, triplets, rolls, variations, and built in harmonies……
And James Kelly's recordings were destroyed by all the guitar players he played with. A crying shame.
Depth? I dont think so.”
Zan McLeod who plays Bouzouki and guitar on James Kelly Ring sessions can certainly play the ,melody
up to speed with ornaments triplets etc….is he one of the guitarists who destroys James Kelly’s playing ?.
Anyway to answer the question ..are guitars necessary – of course they’re not !
I like them though, so that’s good enough for me.
# Posted on January 15th 2007 by BegF
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Mark, with all due respect (and I've put up my own youtube clip, so you know I'm not trying to speak from any great position of authority), and also with the preface that what I've seen of your harping looks good: that band is celtic thrash trash of the sort that gets the genre a bad name. You can do better than that!
# Posted on January 15th 2007 by Lingpupa
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I'd agree - I think I prefer the quieter things we do to the "thrashy" stuff (but it keeps the punters dancing). I do do other stuff too, but the harp world is generally a bit conservative and I'm not sure I like the extremes of "delicate" solo harp playing either.
Anyway, good to have these opinions - apart from that gobsh*ite Striving for Shameless. He can go stick his head down the bog!
# Posted on January 15th 2007 by Mark Harmer
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Oh, and Striving for Shamelss, you can't spell. And you suck too!!
# Posted on January 15th 2007 by Mark Harmer
Re: Does anyone actually think guitars are necessary in a session?
I think what it amounts to is that the tune is only an bare-bones abstract collection of notes on a piece of paper. It only becomes something worth discussing when the tune meets an instrument. And when that happens, even if its being played on only one instrument, how it sounds depends on the arrangement of the tune. Some arrangements (like some from Lunasa, for example) are incredibly complex, some are impromtu (ie a session) and some are simple (for example a solo fiddler playing a tune 3 times through with no variations).
The matter of instrumentation is simply a matter of personal preference, and the point is that we all have different opinions which I don't think we should try to "standardise". At the end of the day, it doesn't hurt to say "well, I don't really like such-and-such, but nonetheless I can appreciate the skill involved and accept their right to do it".
I doubt Iris would describe Ian Carr (for example) as a rhythm basher in a way that shows quite such contempt for that style of playing. It all seems rather pathetic and insecure to me to try to use condesension to belittle a particular set of opinions that disagree with yours as underdeveloped and immature.
# Posted on January 15th 2007 by Andy V
On the subject of being able to spell, that should have read "condescension". Sorry
# Posted on January 15th 2007 by Andy V
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Nice, Andy, thanks for the balance. Oh, and Shameless, I've calmed down now.
# Posted on January 15th 2007 by Mark Harmer
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
there is too much bashing of all kinds on this site, not just rhythm either!!
Sometimes, just like you get tired of your own cooking and want to eat out, I like to go hear a band with a more driving rhythm player than I could ever be, being a pretty low key melodic player...like Lunasa, or Danu. I love Donal Clancy's backing. He is also a great player of tunes, both flatpicking and fingerstyle, which not many knew until he did some CDs apart from the bands he was with. I think Randal Bays when he backed was brilliant, as well as a great tune player. Nice fiddler too!!
I will never be a flatpicker... the things seem alien to me, don't know what to do with them. I use a thumbick and can use it for the odd strum as a flatpick, but you wouldn't want to flatpick the whole night with one of these. I don't want to be one either, not out of *condescension*, but it's not the path I am on. There's something new to learn everyday, everytime you play, just within your own style. As Ben says, though about fiddle, it will take a whole lifetime to get everything out of this guitar playing, whether backing or tunes.
Backing is not a generic formula, it can be different all the time, you can vary things, you can play strong and steady (and yes a fingerpicker can get very good volume when needed for a stress note or chord if they know how, the proper attack at the proper time is critical) and then melt back.... even just drone quietly, near silently, for a measure while the melody goes at it full blast, then fade back in... this is why I love backing more than melody, you can feel what the player needs, what the tune needs at each moment, you can feel the soul of each tune, and each needs a different treatment. If your melody player likes backing that is! If not, well, I'll listen.
I used to play out at gigs a whole lot, with some of the best players of the time, late 70s-early 80's, was always working, for a stretch was doing five gigs a week on only three nights. My WELL spent youth!! Then came grown-up time, child-rearing, moved too far away from NYC to be able to go out much, especially the coming back at 4:00AM was out of the question. So I holed up for a few decades and played tunes, in isolation for the most part. Isolation is a good tool for develoment in ways too, if it suits the music that is, but you develop your own touches that way, so this was a musically lonely period, with just the odd house session, but it was satisfying in its way too.
Andy.... Ben... I missed backing terribly though. I know there are some who think it has no place in the music. Fair enough, let them play without it. Like I said... sometimes I am so amazed by a few melody players going at it who are great, I just want to sit and take it in and not play. I felt my right arm was missing though. Backing really gets my blood flowing, and the melody players I play with regularly (who like backing!) say it gets them flowing. I will never be an aggressive flatpicker, don't know how. The best hard driving rhythm players (not the bashers) they know how to lay back behind the melody.
That's the key thing... it's called backing or accompanying, because it should be underneath or behind the melody. Again, no it is NOT necessary, but many like it there. I see too many of the bashers acting like they want to be rock stars, like they want to be the one noticed.... there often is something else going on there, some other motivation, not love of the music as the main motivation. If you love this music and are backing, you WANT to stay in the background, provide the red carpet for the melody to march down upon like grand royalty.
OK... I need to shut up now!!! Need to go do some work!!
# Posted on January 15th 2007 by irisnevins
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
I want to be backed by you, Iris!
Actually, even better, I want to be in a session and NOT PLAY so I can *listen* to you backing. I think you must have been *born* to hit nails on the head.
# Posted on January 15th 2007 by benhall.1
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Looks like this thread's really struck a chord (no pun intended). But don't any other SMPs, knuckle brained morons, etc., often feel they're "fighting" backers (not just guitarists, certainly), which distracts you from the tune, when it's the last thing you want. Let's face it, these hours we spend playing, for those of us who have day jobs, are precious, aren't they - you might have to travel long distances, it's not often on, etc., it's IMPORTANT and we don't want it ruined. Yes, Carthy accompanied Swarbrick brilliantly, but they were a gigging duo, not a session, up on stage, tickets, etc.
Fair enough?
# Posted on January 15th 2007 by maxF
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Max... I fight many backers too, and sure some of them fight me, LOL. If there's a jazz chorder or a basher, I will back off. Let them be thrown to the melody players, they'll fix them.
Carthy and Swarbrick, sure a gig duo, but bet the first time they met (maybe a session?) they hit it off and sounded like they had played together for years. A backer who knows the music is speaking the same language, pretty fluently, as the melody players, and can walk into a new place with players they never met and sit in and fit in really well, provided backing is desired at all.... and I sure wouldn't do that without asking if they minded if I played a few. I have done gigs, emergency calls when their usual didn't show, dead cold, with players I never met before, or never played with before, with no rehearsal time, or maybe 15 minutes to cover any especially "curly" (thanks donough!) tunes and changes, and we played together quite well because we speak the same language, and with barely any stage fright.
Day jobs... yes, they make our playing time more precious, no one wants it ruined. With an open session you run the risk though, and what can you do. If a person is really wrecking it the lucky session host should have a chat with them. They may be a melody player too. In fact one problem with many melody players is they start playing at different speeds, they have different settings, many fiddlers' intonation is off.... it's not just backers who can ruin things. In fact a good backer with a strong attack and steady droning, can often tie them all back into the same pace, sometimes we actually hold things together and can make an otherwise untogether session sound halfway decent.
Ben... well if you are ever in New Jersey.... or go to E.Durham, we'll catch a few tunes. You may not like my style though. Some think backing should be flatpicked. My heaviest influences were Carthy and Renbourne... yes, I know, two English players. Very melodic though, not as stacatto as Carthy, though I have the Carthy "thumb" all right, but maybe more of the Renbourne gentle touch.... and sigh.... I aspire to be as good as both of them someday! two geniuses. Let's not even get started on Tony McManus... who, may I slip in, we have coming to IAANJ for a concert with Meave Donnelly 3/30. I cannot wait to meet him! I will post it to events closer to the date, otherwise it gets lost in the mist by not being near the top.
Don't know about hitting nails on the head Ben, sometimes on the fingernail, which bleeds and turns black.... i just really love backing, and am fairly opinionated as to what its place in the music should be. And I don't mean that people should play like me, any style done well and tastefully should be respected. Except as a rule I don't like a lot of jazz or 7th chords tossed in. it sounds too modern for this music to me, too space-age or something. Sounds like it fights the tune to my ear anyway. Sounds Dischordant! pardon pun.
Darn,,,, swore no more posting about this!!!
# Posted on January 16th 2007 by irisnevins
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Well, since I started this thread, half in jest, after a swipe was taken at whistle players on that other thread, I suppose I better say something to round it off (if indeed it is prepared to lay down and die quietly.)
Firstly, I've played many sessions where guitars, or even just one guitar, have been present. I wouldn't stand up and walk out if I saw a guitar case making an entrance. I used to do paid sessions with, along with a couple of other players, a guitarist. I've always tried to make sure I got a guitarist booked if I was doing a gig. There are a number of very fine guitarists on this site that I've had the pleasure to sit in with. I will even go as far as reneging on my initial statement by saying I'd max out at 2 guitars per session. Like the elusive butterfly I alluded to above, beautiful guitar accompaniment is a treat to behold, but hard to catch.
But that's it. 2 maximum. More than that and it gets cacophanous. In that way it is like 2+ bodhrans. And that is unlike 2+ flutes or 2+ fiddles. We all know that Irish music is based on dance music so it has inherent rhythmicity anyway. So although 1 possibly 2 guitars may augment the overall fullness and add to the rhythm, they are in fact, in essence, unnecessary. In a session anyway. This is purely my view. But if you are trying to please the pub guvenor or his punters, then maybe you may think guitars are neccessary. But then that type of session may have "performance" elements in it. This discussion could go for over a thousand posts if we went on to define all that again. Carry on if you want.
# Posted on January 16th 2007 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Key... I am tired of it! Ready to stop! Whew!! The patrons at a pub do look on it as a gig, they don't often realize the nature of it. I have gotten up for a while and stopped playing sometimes and a patron asks WHY, aren't you SUPPOSED to be there, why'd you walk away for so long (10 minutes?).
Whatever.... !! Interesting discussion, why not.... for those of us who work at home ALONE, this is interesting diversion sometimes and a welcome break!!
# Posted on January 16th 2007 by irisnevins
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
re: "If there's a jazz chorder or a basher, I will back off. Let them be thrown to the melody players, they'll fix them."
I would actually seethe, but it'd be wasted effort; this is most likely pointless but I'll say it again. People will always like different arrangement style. Don't try to "standardise" them to your tastes. It's 1) assuming you know more than the other person so your point is more valid than theirs and 2) going to leave you bloody bored if you actually do get your own way. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how many years of experience you have, your opinion in matters of taste is no more valid than someone who has very little experience.
If that doesn't make sense, re-read my previous two posts. I don't want to repeat myself.
Apologies for that, I just felt it had to be said even if its not an accurate representation of the true opinions of anyone. As it has been said - "Sir, I may not agree with you but I'll defend to the death your right to disagree with me".
As for whether a guitar is needed - no. No one instrument is needed. Provided there's a different one. The sessions where no instruments turn up are boring as hell. I like some kind of rhythm (dancing, guitar, bodhran etc etc) though, and I like playing for dancing. Because I enjoy dancing, and making people want to dance. If I can't do that then I see absolutely no point in playing (people don't actually have to dance, just want to). It is dance music after all.
# Posted on January 16th 2007 by Andy V
I should have made it clearer, the reason I don't want to repeat myself is cos otherwise it'll just make for boring posts. And we don't want that, do we?!?
# Posted on January 16th 2007 by Andy V
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Oh Dear oh Dear. I started the whistle thread as a joke because of the constant guitar bashing on previous posts. Whoops.
And BB admitted that she doesn't really hate tin whistles, She was just fed up with the same thing.
Still, it's been quite entertaining and helped me take breaks from the job I'm in the middle of trying to complete. Five "Dose" threads, all of which have brought out the best and worst in human nature. Some real gems amoungst all the drivel.
# Posted on January 16th 2007 by woops
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Andy....I wasn't knocking the use of the jazz chords due to thinking I know better, I just don't like them, they grate on me is all.... some people do them real well and I respect their talent, though still am not real fond of that style, just a taste thing, not a superiority thing or knowing better thing. I don't like chocolate ice cream either, it's on that level the comments were meant.
I mean a basher ,and one particularly doing jazz chords... esp. when used where they seem to not fit, like doing them every third chord all through or something just because it's time to toss it in.
Lately I have seen some melody players seething at one basher at a session I go to. I just stopped playing until they stopped., which was a good while.. we conflicted badly and I didn't want to have a musical battle with the person and ruin the sound further, though was still polite and never said an unkind word, or any word at all actually, didn't even grimace. It was an open session after all. Two of the melody players decided next time there would be something said. That's what I meant...leave it to the melody players.... I don't want to tell people how to play. Surely this person must have hated how I play too, LOL! Very different!!
But boy, have I heard fiddle players knock each other at times over style too, same thing isn't it? People play how they play because it's what they like and think sounds best, usually they are not trying to change people to their style, if they try, that's pretty silly and a waste of time.
Andy... I sure do want to dance, bad as I am at it.... I leave our session circle to jump around in the set or two they do... broke my toe though, but going to get back to it ASAP. So keep on playing and making people dance!! That's great....
# Posted on January 16th 2007 by irisnevins
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Yes Don... great work breaks, this stuff, but I've had it!! Have to stop thinking about playing now, and just play. it's been a good discussion though, and I do agree guitar players are not necessary, the music would go on without them. That was the question.
# Posted on January 16th 2007 by irisnevins
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
thedon: BB, the bodhran player, is not really effeminate. He just dresses fashionably.
benhall.1: I am also fascinated by irisnevins, but please make your overtures in private.
# Posted on January 16th 2007 by oldstrings
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Don - I was aware the whistle thread was done tongue in cheek. This one was started in much the same spirit. I think we have witnessed wide ranging examples of the rich tapestry of human taste, even within the relative confines of the restricted area that is Irish Traditional Music.
# Posted on January 16th 2007 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Yes my friend, it's been very interesting. Good fun all round.
I think people confuse sessions with recordings, or gigs, and they are very different beasts. From my own experience, being a fiddle/ guitar player, I can well understand the frustration of people who have tunes wrecked by bad backing. And I stress the word bad. I spent many years as a back up player, and it is by far the hardest thing I have ever done. Good tune playing should provide all the rhythm needed to dance or tap the foot. Good back-up should enhance it.
I think the problem comes from backup players who think that they are providing the rhythm. This is a common mistake. The tune, if played properly, provides all that. Traditionally, you had a traveling fiddler/piper etc who worked with a dancing master, or was one himself, and they provided all the music for the dance. Just one instrument. The back up player is meant to enhance what is already there. So no, the back up is not necessary at all, or shouldn't be if the melody is being played properly.
The great backup players lock in with what is already being stated by the melody players, and add to it. The bad ones try to impose a pulse, and miss the point. Mind you, I've
played some sessions where the melody players had no idea what they were doing and couldn't have provided a beat to save themselves. Total sh*te. Just bad playing.
However, when you find a good back-up player, cherrish them, because they are as rare as rocking horse sh*t. And the good ones love the music as much as the melody players, and are just as knowledgable about it as committed, and I stress the word committed, melody players.
Over the years, as my knowledge increased, I have been drawn to solo instrumental recordings. This is, I believe, perfectly normal if you are going to get into the heart of what you are striving to perfect.
But we should never forget that at it's heart, it is community music. It is not about selfish indulgent tosserism. We are providing something for the community that we are part of. Fellow musicians, and interested listeners. We are not seperate, but a part of a larger community. Music provides many things to both players and listeners, and we should never forget it. Otherwise, what the hell is the point of tradition?
Tradition means passing on things, and providing for the community that we are part of. So we play for the weddings and parties and wakes, and then that community lets us be a bit self indulgent and play in sessions. But you have to give to receive, and it is also a given that you should teach as well as play. And I don't mean teaching as in formal lessons.
Teaching as in incouraging people to learn this tradition. Help them and welcome them. Sessions are a wonderful way of passing on the tradition. Don't jump down somebodies throat if they don't immediatly understand it. Educate them. If they still don't get it, then maybe you are a bad comunicator, rather than they are bad learners. after all, they are coming into your scene, not you theirs.
So we strive in our own little cocoon to improve our playing, and we come out into the real world and play, imagining that it will all be perfect. And guess what? Three guitars turn up, and the whistle player next to you blasts unrhythmical sh*te in your ear, and, horror of horrors, there are two bodhran players and a spoons player all wanting to contribute. All with huge hopeful smiles on their faces wanting to be a part of this magical thing. So, we grit our teeth and bare it, hopeing that one of them will get it, and dream of that great session where everything was just magical.
We are all, as musicians, forever looking for that bit of magic that inspired us. Guess what, it only happens very rarely. The reason we all keep on going is that we are all just like junkies, forever searching for that illusive hit of pure magic. But we all forget our responibility to our community as traditional musicians. Traditional music comes from community, and we have, as traditional musicians, a responsibility to give back to that community. That community will give back to us just as much, and more , as we give to it.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Aaaaahhhh. Sorry, just me falling off my soap box.
# Posted on January 16th 2007 by woops
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
And why does this web site turn w ankerism into t osserism? I'm Australian and we don't use the word tosser. we use w anker. PC is all very well, but it's the world wide web, not the EU home page. It did the same with b ollocks. changed it to crap, which in Australia, means totally different things.
# Posted on January 16th 2007 by woops
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Don... you said a mouthful. And I swore I was don posting, LOL..
Oldstrings.... Ben and I HAVE gone private
# Posted on January 16th 2007 by irisnevins
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
excuse me... DONE posting, was thing of you Don!!
# Posted on January 16th 2007 by irisnevins
Re: Dose anyone actuall think guitars are actually necessary in a session?
Now you're getting all giddy, Iris. Have a nice cup of tea and sit down for a few minutes.
thedon, your prize for best posting of the week is in the mail.
# Posted on January 16th 2007 by oldstrings