Right here's my next beef. When I'm playing tunes it really annoys me when a backer insists on following every single little harmonic change in a tune with an accented chord change. There's this one guy does it all the time at a session I go too, it's like he's never heard of the concept of droning and subtle changes,
The constant chord changes, particularly bass heavy ones give the tune no chance to breathe, when you hear a great piper use the drones and regulators well, the effect and lift it gives to the tune can be marvellous. How I wish more backers would learn from pipers, this is where the harmony in Irish music really developed and the combination of the drones and regulators produces such wonderful harmonies, far nicer than the kind of piano backing style which seems to have been adopted by so many guitarists.
That John Blake fella plays in that constant chord change way, it's so uninspiring, I don't understand why so many great tune players use him on their recordings, I mean it's obvious he knows the tunes and all and he plays chords which go with the melody but the constant plodding changing of chords is very distracting from the melody.
It comes down to taste and I respect your individual taste in accompaniment. As you say John Blake does it very well even though you don't like it. Jim Murray also does this and does it well. I happen to like both.
If I were accompanying you or someone like you I would hope that (your preference) you would convey that nicely beforehand rather than dismissing it as bad accompaniment. If you prefer this type of accomp then i suspect you prefer the DADGAD thing. All I would suggest to you is to work out what style you like and know how to ask for that from the guitarist.
I'd be interested to know what you think of Michael Rooney's harp accompaniment.
I know what you mean portnabucai. I like like both styles - variety is nice, including, of course, no accompaniment sometimes. The piper analogy is great a great one.
You might consider making a gift to this guitarist of recordings of Dennis Cahill accompanying Matin Hayes; I've heard them play whole sets in cncert where Dennis played one chord the whole time - amazing!
Yeah, I'd give him a whole stack of CDs, maybe some instruction books (with accompanying videos too) and offer him some instruction yourself. Or perhaps you could write out some notes on the kind of style that meets your personal preferences, print and bind a few copies, and give one to any guitarist who comes into your session. That should do the trick!
So you don't like John Blake's playing? So what? Why post a whole thread about it? Why not do something constructive like post us an article on your approach to backing on bouzouki and guitar, showing us the chords you use and giving some examples of how you'd use drones and why you think tha tyour approach is more effective and inspiring than the way JB would back the same tune. Now that I'd find interesting. I could try it for myself and decide for myself, and perhaps then I might even agree with you.
One wonders how many chords are too many ?
Status Quo (very old metal rockers from the uk famous for playing three chord songs ) still have many fans !
Well, I agree fully with the original post, having suffered the same thing from two different people over the years. Both exceptionally good guitarists, both from backgrounds other than ITM. One was from a rock band that we've all heard of but which I won't name to avoid identifying the geezer in question, which I have no desire to do. Their attitude seemed to be that they could embellish and improve ITM immeasurably with their ego-driven fancy work. A new chord on every note it seemed. This is not a matter of taste at all. ITM is at its heart melody music and anyone who does this kind of thing is stealing that away. It is very repressive to play along with as well for melody players. Some guitar or piano backing can be very nice but guys like this have stepped well over the line in the sand.
I think there is big difference between changing chords on every note as in a major shift of the root note and all or keeping a chord but making slight adjustments like moving a bass note or adjusting an inversion or suspending a third up to a fourth. I happen to really like this second style of accompaniment. It is a good balance between doing nothing at all, thereby adding nothing and making too much thereby imposing on the melody. It makes enough harmonic adjustment so as to accentuate the beauty of the melody without trampling on it.
BTW - de Selby, you made be laugh out loud, well done.
Have you actually had John accompany you playing, is that what you're moaning about?
Some people don't really like guitar accompaniment, full stop, as this music is melody music and because it's dance music, generates its own rhythm, so guitars are considered superfluous. I don't necessarily agree but I see where they're coming from. I don't like any more than 2 guit's at a session.
If you want a justifiable moan, what about people sitting next to you who launch into conversation as soon as a tunes starts up that they don't know. That is really distracting.
Perhaps this is why the bouzouki is becoming so popular - the flatpicking style lends itself so much to accompanying tunes and isn't as intrusive as the chunky chord style beloved of some guitar and zook players.
As the first reply said, this is all about musical taste. There are some tunes, to my ear, that really only have two main chords, one of which may be held on for long periods of time, 4 - 6 bars maybe, in each measure. Others require a more involved chording, sometimes involving a chord change within a bar, but all of these chords only being tonic, sub-dominant, dominant, and their related minors.
Personally I think that augmented, diminished, and suspended chords have no part in this music unless they occur naturally as a combination of drones on the tonic and dominant and parts of a another chord within the simple accompaniment.
sus4 chords are useful for implying another chord (something DADGAD is full of). For example Dsus4 can imply a G chord and so on. I must admit to being guilty of using passing chords quite a lot in accompaniment (eg passing from one minor to another such as em7 to dm7 via ebm7 and vice versa). It is probably not to everyone's taste but hey ho! I also love droning on a chord for ages though. Variety is the spice of life and overdoing one thing could get boring. I don't tend to like that heavy boom-chucka swing jazz guitar style in accompaniment (my, that is specific) as I have seen it totally take over a tune in terms of volume and crushing the melody. But again that is a matter of taste too.
I mentioned John Blake specifically because he is on so many recordings I think are otherwise brilliant and could have been so much better either without any backer or with someone who played in a way that let the tunes breathe more.
I've nothing personal against John Blake and I know he is an excellent musician, I have met him a number of times and got on fine with him. I just don't think he is a very dynamically thoughtful backer on either guitar or piano, he's actually better on bouzouki on the few times he uses it I think. I have played in sessions with him and I tend to not notice his backing too much, which some people would think is a good thing, but to me a good backer is someoone you notice gives a lift to the music.
It's on recordings where his style really gets to me. I know some people like his backing a lot, I just wonder are these people who really listen to the accompaniment, I sometimes get the sense that he's used so much because he doesn't play too loud (a good thing) and because he knows all the tunes (also a good thing) but to me that's not enough. His style (which is being copied a lot these days by others) has no dynamics about it, he never goes with the dynamics of the tune player, he just keeps the same dynamic all the time whilst constantly changing chords and to me its just pointless and frustrating really.
Arty McGlynn often does a lot of chord changing but he does so much dynamically that it can give the music such a lift, he also mixes it up a lot where he might play just one drone chord the first time around then next time add a few more chords until the last time he lets lose with a whole ingenious chord progression, now that's brilliant, dynamic backing. Someone mentioned Dennis Cahill earlier and he's also great although I've never had the pleasure of playing with him, from what I gather his style is all about gradual build up too and the power in his playing lies in his right hand, not the amount of chords he uses.
I guess the difference between John Blake and people like Arty and Dennis is that John is not a backer through and through, he's more a flute player who also plays guitar, piano and bouzouki, he is an excellent flute player I'll give him that. I'm a bit similar in that I'm mainly a tune player but I can back too, but when I do gigs/recordings I never insult other tune players by trying to back when there are people out there who concentrate mostly on backing, these are the real experts. The few people who actually know how to enhance a tune with backing
personally i love guitarists and piano players who play on the beat,it gives a proper dance feel to the music ,this music is dance music,it should set your feet tapping and make you want to get up and dance.
so many guitarists and bouzouki players just fill in the music,and give no rhythmic lift.
it is a question of taste,however when people want to dance,playing on the beat,as many piano players do,really lifts the dancing[with the exception of irish polkas,which have a slight off beat emphasis].
He doesn't really use that many chord changes, his technique is more ornamentation, on the guitar through hammer ons and runs.
" I don't understand why so many great tune players use him on their recordings"
That kind of says it all really.
your posts are full of one sided biased opinion.
How can a constant changing of notes (and it is notes - not chords) detract from the melody, when they are playing the melody?
I'd find that hammer it to death, schtrummmm, token drone, relative minor stuff to be more distracting to the melody.
In my opinion, if you are a good piper, you shouldn't need a backer. Backers should listen to all instruments, not just pipes.
I'm not going to try and dictate his style in a paragraph as you have done above with Artys backing. But from what I learnt from him, he usually starts a tune with a lighter or higher progression following the tune. The next time round he may add a bass element to it, and finally, he might mix the two - It is dynamic. Just not what your understanding of dynamic is - fair enough?
I've also played with him, and his backing is so tastefull that it enhances the tune you are playing. Listen to the overall sound, and not just one instrument or another which is what you seem to be doing.
Your understanding of backing, or your taste doesn't mean its right or wrong????
I don't know what you mean by "insult" when you say that about tune players. Perhaps your wording is a little too strong here???
I'd much prefer backers try and get his sympathetic, tasteful backing rather than the John Doyle, Hennessy type backing which is more rocky. Its great, but not my cup of tea.
He follows the tunes excellently, and rides with the the melody rather than driving them.
For me, his style is the main reason I got into backing.
I think its the best guitar backing out there - period.
I'm nearly with "portnabpucai" on this.
This is my theory/ observations/ idea on the subject...
When backing ITM on a chordal stringed instrument, I think it’s a mistake to approach accompaniment in the conventional “what’s the chords to this tune” manner, but that is how guitar players are usually “brought up”.
Consider this:
Without stringed instrument backing, ITM has three or four things going on that aren’t actually “the tune” and it forms a passive accompaniment.
They are:
(a) The drones & regulators of the pipes
(b) The basses of the boxes
(c) The percussion of the bodhrans (spoons, bones, size 12 Doc Martins)
(d) The subtle cloud of pan modal notes from the fiddles hitting (usually) appropriate open strings plus (at a session particularly) the quiet noodling of any melody instrument as the player tries to suss out the key, mode or tune.
If one sits and listens and ignores the melody, one can hear what one means. This enigmatic sound is what one bases ones own backing on.
It means one rarely needs to play more than two chords or partials (Tonic and some sort of Dominant or surrogate) to any tune. This loosely copies what lots of box players do (as per “b” above).
Occasionally twanging “out of the blue” (in the style of “d” above) is also effective if used sparingly.
Of course deadening strings and letting just one string drone on the tonic is good (“a” above) and the scrubbing sound one gets on the deadened strings is at times similar to “c” above. One can do a lot of bodhran imitations on instruments with bodies actually!
Whatever you play, make sure it's "right on the money" i.e. right in time and appropriate to the tune.
Not playing at all on some sections or tunes is a good idea. And there should only ever be one chordal backer at a time. If there is another stringed instrument backer let them have a go because you’re bound to be playing different harmonies to them! And the resulting cacophony will not be good.
Never ever play too loudly! If one can’t hear the drone of piper or the basses of the box player sat next to you, it’s too loud. Fingers and nylon strings are good for this; plectrums and steel are a bit strident and tasteless.
And pay attention to the tune and end neatly with the melody players (assuming they all do!).
And please don’t finish with a dreadful solo Jimmy Page exposition type thing (even if one can)! You know: (pentatonic BLooZ mode in E, full distortion):Wheeeeeeee! Whiddle! Whiddle! Whiddle! Whiddle! Whiddly-wheedly-widdly-weedly-widdly-widdly-iddle- iddle-iddle-iddle-iddle-iddle-iddle-iddle-iddle-iddle-iddle--wheeeeeeeee Chank! (DrumsBlatt! Bhlatt! (JimmyKer-raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang………………………………………
Donnachá Moynihan is the best backer I have played with to date. He is so aware of the cords and how they suit specific tunes.
For bouzouki I love playing with Reuben Bada as you can here the Asturian touch to his backing.
There is a great Breton CD dedicated to guitar backing (and one bouzouki track by Jamie Mc Menamin). Its called Kerden (I think it means Chords in Breton) and features some class trad guitar backing.
I hate to admit this, but I am unfamilar with John Blake, who does he play with? I suspect I have heard him play, but didn't recognize the name.
In terms of accompaniment, I prefer the "less is more" approach in sessions, although more busy accompaniment can work well in groups, where the approach to tunes is more "arranged."
This is interesting. Portnapbucai, just a few threads ago you were decrying equal tempered tuning systems. If tuning this way bothers you so much, how can you stand any fretted instruments playing ITM, much less play them yourself? As a disclaimer, I'm a fan of fretted instruments in ITM and am not bothered by any particular tuning system.
On the other hand, you've displayed a remarkable ability to throw a hand grenade into a forum and make people scurry.
Hugo Chavez, It seems every post you have on this site is to do with how much you like John Blake, I'm beginning to wonder if you ARE John Blake! Either way you certainly are one hell of a publicist for him, he's lucky to have you!!
By the way AlBrown, John Blake has recorded with Harry Bradley, Paul O'Shaugnessy, The Tap Room Trio, Teada, The Kane Sisters, Ciaran O Maonaigh and so on, as I said most of these records he's on have wonderful tune playing and I guess he must be doing something these guys like, or maybe they just can't afford someone like Arty!
reenactor, a good backer CAN play with a tune player who uses notes outside of the equal tempered system, they just have to keep their playing free from thirds, sixths and sevenths which tend to be the flexible notes in the tunes. I don't want to go back over my previous post but maybe I didn't explain clearly that only some notes are outside the equally tempered scale in the old way of playing and these notes vary depending on the key. If someone was playing a fiddle tune in F then the F note they use would be 'in tune' as we think of 'in tune' today but if they then changed to D Dorian they might choose to sharpen or flatten the F a little or even vary whether they play F or Fsharp, a backer who doesn't understand this and uses thirds and sevenths all the time can ruin this effect.
I love a good backer, but there aren't too many out there who put the time into really learning about the music, a lot of them just seem to want to show off
Agreed on Tony McManus, he's phenomenal. I wonder how his style fits in with the styles discussed in this thread, though? I don't *think* he plays all those weird chords, but I don't know enough theory to say for sure. He can play the tunes, too, if he wants. Just amazing.
No, not unless they retune for every key change. Leaving the 3rds and 7ths out will help, but it's not going to solve all the problems because of how the frets are set up.
Just getting in this thread late. I agree totally with what's been declared. I'm in the Boston scene. And I accuse just about every good backer I've seen in this city of doing this over-cluttered form of backing. These guys are great guitarists, don't get me wrong -better timing than I'll ever have. But after years of being around and playing trad you know what does and doesn't work. Let the chords hang a bit. And not too much syncopation please. I guess that's what happens when you grow up listening to Lunasa and Solas.
Is that so?
Shall I start talking about your posts???
Filtering through your astute and fantastic knowledge of this music?No.I'm not putting myself or anyone else through that....
So rather than observe what I have written, and try to entertain a discussion, you have clicked my history tab....ehh...ok.
I can see your powers of discussion.
Rather than post a one sided rant, I usually add my tuppence. So if I like his backing and somebody asks a question, I recommend.
Isn't that what the discussion board is for?
I'm learning the pipes and fiddle out of tune.
I can play the Bucks in F minor sharp on a lute I'm the best, and I learnt it from Tommy og O dooley a fantastic blind piper......bla bla.
Yawn
By the way I didn't click your history tab, before I posted this I did a search to see what people had said about John Blake before and your name came up on pretty much EVERY thread
there's not much of a discussion to entertain Hugo Chavez, you are obviously wildly in love with John Blake, I'm not, I think I've explained very adequately why I don't like his backing or the backing of similar people and you've explained very adequately why you do like his backing. So we can agree to differ on this one ok and touché for taking the p*ss out of me!
And whether you like it or not I am the best and those tunes Tommy og O Dooley taught me are just so beyond the average players comprehension that only a true expert like me can really play them properly
I remember advertising for a guitar player to which several people replied. At audition, one guy came and confidently introduced himself as a Dropped `D` Back up Guitarist but was very versatile. Methinks to myself I'm gonna have some fun here so I ask him what he would do with a tune in F, he says no problem, I just put the capo on fret 3 and were ready to go. I then indicated to him that really he was a `Dropped D with added Capo versatility Back up Guitarist `. He looked slightly bemused, but said well I suppose if you want to look at it that way. I then said how the feck are we supposed to write that title into any bio or sleevenote or for that matter, at gigs when introducing the Band, how stupid is that going to sound.
"Well folks on Dropped D with Added Capo versatility Guitar, we have ..........!
He thought about it for a minute and conceded yeh ok I play Guitar. In the end we gave the job to someone else but I thought it was funny.
portna, re: tuning: you may *think* you do it yourself, but all those frets on your instrument are based on equal temperment that you say you can't put up with. Any time you put a finger down (except on an octave, I suppose) you are playing notes in the system you spent a lot of wind saying was bad and wrong.
Obviously, you don't have a problem with the sounds you make, so I'll respectfully submit that your theoretical construct might not be as important to your ear as it is to your head.
I'm really not sure about your ideas on tuning systems, to my mind you would do better with a system of intonation based upon the pythagorean system of harmonics. But you're still going to have a rough time getting everyone in tune to the extent that the imperfect intonation of fretted instruments is noticable. If you've got a button box to hand, try playing the E (in the top octave to allow for the logarithmic relationship between note name and note frequency) G row and comparing it to the same note in the D row. Better yet, do it with a C#/D (it'll need to be the G or the C# though). If you can tell the difference then your argument is at least sound from the point of view of physics.
As for expecting other people to bend to your will in order that they sound exactly how you wish for them to sound is ridiculous. Your opinions on the "correct" style on the guitar is willfully optimistic (and in it'self relies on you representing the entire of the music you claim to represent), and personally I'm of the opinion it's incredibly rude to go up to another musician and suggest they play in a different way, or offer them advice unless they're obviously struggling. But unless you can offer a practical means, and back it up with action, you're standing into the realms of insulting people.
At the end of the day, if you don't like the way people you play with play, get some different people to play with. Or start a band where it's very clear who's (and clearly it'd need to be you) in charge.
port, I agree with you that too much accompaniment can detract from the tune. Having played in bands for years, I thought about how our early playing experience can sometimes make it difficult to fit in to a group situation. Many guitarists, including myself, spent their formative years playing alone, so there is a tendency inherent in the instrument itself to play "all the parts." This is not a problem only in trad music. One of my favorite rock guitarists is the guy in a band called Presidents of the United States, because he only puts three strings on his instrument! The spareness of harmonic content really creates a lot of space, and that's the problem with your chordaholics. The multiple harmonics fill up all the space where you would be hearing the melody and the rhythm of the melody itself.
So what are your choices? Discussion, withdrawal, sabotage? Talking helps, going to the bar sometimes, or wait till chordzilla goes to the bar and get out the wire cutters.....
my place on the spectrum is with the comment above about irish music being essentially melodic, so my personal taste is for minimalist guitar backing. constant chord changes, loud, rocker-wannabe "excitement"-generating strumming, and most of all, counter-melodies, are not my thing for irish guitar, though i am a big fan of rock, flamenco and other genres where guitar is front & center.
but i can kind of sympathize with some of those yearning guitarists. we are at a cultural moment where the biggest popular music form puts guitar at the top of the heap. in rock, the alphas and the divas become guitar players. it is a stereotype, but it is true. in itm, the alphas play melody instruments, while the guitar slot is more like the bass-player slot in rock. and many chafe at this.
i played for a little over a year with an informal itm combo in which the guitar was handled by someone whose main musical pursuit was electric blues/rock. and this person got sick of itm really fast. it was a drag for him. it wasn't creative enough for him. it was too repetitive and limited. there was no room to solo or improvise (i'm paraphrasing his take on it here). he was used to ripping the roof off at party gigs and roadhouse dives with marshall amps stacked up to the ceiling and soloing between stanzas sung by a five-foot tall dairy truck driver in his 60s with a huge set of blues pipes. it wasn't keith richards or dave navarrao, but he was very good at it, and he also reveled in that whole guita-monsta thing. and while he was no zan macleod at itm backup, the truth was he was playing passable irish backup like, an hour after hearing his first irish tune. and he got bored with it really fast.
so that's looking at it from the other point of view.....but bottom line---why don't you choose sympatico guitar players like everybody else does, and let the hotdoggers go their own way???
I do choose 'sympatico' backers when I have a choice but in a session you generally don't have a choice unless you are very rude to the player who is ruining it for you. It may surprise you all to know that I'm actually very welcoming in sessions and I rarely if ever tell someone to stop playing because I realise that these are social events not gigs. So this relates to my next little 'hand grenade' as reenactor might say.
Good at the beginning and end, this thread sort of degenerated there in the middle, eh?
There seem to be barriers both ways, and I'd like to see them come down a bit. It's a rare and welcome thing when a good melodist actually gives me clear instructions on how they'd like the guitar/bouzouki to sound with them, and on the relationships they'd like the accompaniment to have with their playing. Rare and welcome. Of course, it's much easier to steam a while over an unsatisfying experience, come home, fire up the browser and write it out here.
The world is full of misguided guitarists, that's a simple fact and not likely to change overnight. Some of us, however, are dedicated to being accompanists in the full sense of learning how best to complement the overall poignancy of the music.
Many of the pickers I know don't feel that they have a set and generally applicable orthodoxy or method for playing ITM, and different melodists and regional session players expect widely different things from pickers. So it's my impression that most of the pickers I know would love to know that This Fiddler likes the guitar This Way and This Piper wants it to be That Way and how those change with different aspects of the music. And especially that this can all be shared in conversation and not just in disappointed invective online and after the fact.
It would be very rare for a singer (traditional or otherwise) to sing with an accompanist (on any instrument) without some preparation and honest communication about how to accomplish the desired effect of the performance.
I apologize for the 'hotdoggers,' they annoy me as well. Our instrument is a victim of overpopularity. *sigh*
For my part, I'd love to learn your preferred accompaniment methods from you accomplished melodic stylists. But I'm ... er... mature and I can get my hotdogging ya ya's all on my own. When I play in session, my desire is to contribute to the ensemble as a team player. You want it different, tell me how and I'll do my very best to do it.
backers who constantly change chords
backers who constantly change chords
Right here's my next beef. When I'm playing tunes it really annoys me when a backer insists on following every single little harmonic change in a tune with an accented chord change. There's this one guy does it all the time at a session I go too, it's like he's never heard of the concept of droning and subtle changes,
The constant chord changes, particularly bass heavy ones give the tune no chance to breathe, when you hear a great piper use the drones and regulators well, the effect and lift it gives to the tune can be marvellous. How I wish more backers would learn from pipers, this is where the harmony in Irish music really developed and the combination of the drones and regulators produces such wonderful harmonies, far nicer than the kind of piano backing style which seems to have been adopted by so many guitarists.
That John Blake fella plays in that constant chord change way, it's so uninspiring, I don't understand why so many great tune players use him on their recordings, I mean it's obvious he knows the tunes and all and he plays chords which go with the melody but the constant plodding changing of chords is very distracting from the melody.
Anyone else find this style of playing annoying?
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by portnabpucai
Re: backers who constantly change chords
It comes down to taste and I respect your individual taste in accompaniment. As you say John Blake does it very well even though you don't like it. Jim Murray also does this and does it well. I happen to like both.
If I were accompanying you or someone like you I would hope that (your preference) you would convey that nicely beforehand rather than dismissing it as bad accompaniment. If you prefer this type of accomp then i suspect you prefer the DADGAD thing. All I would suggest to you is to work out what style you like and know how to ask for that from the guitarist.
I'd be interested to know what you think of Michael Rooney's harp accompaniment.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Donough
Re: backers who constantly change chords
I know what you mean portnabucai. I like like both styles - variety is nice, including, of course, no accompaniment sometimes. The piper analogy is great a great one.
You might consider making a gift to this guitarist of recordings of Dennis Cahill accompanying Matin Hayes; I've heard them play whole sets in cncert where Dennis played one chord the whole time - amazing!
Any maybe the piping you have in mind too.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Keith Dubinsky
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Yeah, I'd give him a whole stack of CDs, maybe some instruction books (with accompanying videos too) and offer him some instruction yourself. Or perhaps you could write out some notes on the kind of style that meets your personal preferences, print and bind a few copies, and give one to any guitarist who comes into your session. That should do the trick!
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Lingpupa
Re: backers who constantly change chords
So you don't like John Blake's playing? So what? Why post a whole thread about it? Why not do something constructive like post us an article on your approach to backing on bouzouki and guitar, showing us the chords you use and giving some examples of how you'd use drones and why you think tha tyour approach is more effective and inspiring than the way JB would back the same tune. Now that I'd find interesting. I could try it for myself and decide for myself, and perhaps then I might even agree with you.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Dow
Re: backers who constantly change chords
"it's like he's never heard of the concept of droning"
Whereas some people...
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by de Selby
Re: backers who constantly change chords
One wonders how many chords are too many ?
Status Quo (very old metal rockers from the uk famous for playing three chord songs ) still have many fans !
Dont know why though
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by bazouki dave
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Dow well said. As a starter on the bouzouki what should I do portnabpucai.
Bazouki_Dave hows life , the last time I saw you I was fairly drunk .Thanks for the tunes I had a great weekend.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Saint
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Well, I agree fully with the original post, having suffered the same thing from two different people over the years. Both exceptionally good guitarists, both from backgrounds other than ITM. One was from a rock band that we've all heard of but which I won't name to avoid identifying the geezer in question, which I have no desire to do. Their attitude seemed to be that they could embellish and improve ITM immeasurably with their ego-driven fancy work. A new chord on every note it seemed. This is not a matter of taste at all. ITM is at its heart melody music and anyone who does this kind of thing is stealing that away. It is very repressive to play along with as well for melody players. Some guitar or piano backing can be very nice but guys like this have stepped well over the line in the sand.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Steve there is alot to be said for a bodhran. Play in time and keep it simple.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Saint
Re: backers who constantly change chords
You forgot to mention play it occasionally.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Occasionally is no good you have to be playing it all the time.Hehe
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Saint
Re: backers who constantly change chords
I think there is big difference between changing chords on every note as in a major shift of the root note and all or keeping a chord but making slight adjustments like moving a bass note or adjusting an inversion or suspending a third up to a fourth. I happen to really like this second style of accompaniment. It is a good balance between doing nothing at all, thereby adding nothing and making too much thereby imposing on the melody. It makes enough harmonic adjustment so as to accentuate the beauty of the melody without trampling on it.
BTW - de Selby, you made be laugh out loud, well done.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by kjay_bc_box
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Made me laugh even.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by kjay_bc_box
Re: backers who constantly change chords
John Blake is also a superb flute player, so I suspect he has some idea what he is doing
http://celticgrooves.homestead.com/CG_Blake_Gillespie.html
Have you actually had John accompany you playing, is that what you're moaning about?
Some people don't really like guitar accompaniment, full stop, as this music is melody music and because it's dance music, generates its own rhythm, so guitars are considered superfluous. I don't necessarily agree but I see where they're coming from. I don't like any more than 2 guit's at a session.
If you want a justifiable moan, what about people sitting next to you who launch into conversation as soon as a tunes starts up that they don't know. That is really distracting.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Alf Tupper
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Perhaps this is why the bouzouki is becoming so popular - the flatpicking style lends itself so much to accompanying tunes and isn't as intrusive as the chunky chord style beloved of some guitar and zook players.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Sugarfoot Jack
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Nobody mentioned Shetland yet ?
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Kenny
Re: backers who constantly change chords
As the first reply said, this is all about musical taste. There are some tunes, to my ear, that really only have two main chords, one of which may be held on for long periods of time, 4 - 6 bars maybe, in each measure. Others require a more involved chording, sometimes involving a chord change within a bar, but all of these chords only being tonic, sub-dominant, dominant, and their related minors.
Personally I think that augmented, diminished, and suspended chords have no part in this music unless they occur naturally as a combination of drones on the tonic and dominant and parts of a another chord within the simple accompaniment.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Guernsey Pete
Re: backers who constantly change chords
sus4 chords are useful for implying another chord (something DADGAD is full of). For example Dsus4 can imply a G chord and so on. I must admit to being guilty of using passing chords quite a lot in accompaniment (eg passing from one minor to another such as em7 to dm7 via ebm7 and vice versa). It is probably not to everyone's taste but hey ho! I also love droning on a chord for ages though. Variety is the spice of life and overdoing one thing could get boring. I don't tend to like that heavy boom-chucka swing jazz guitar style in accompaniment (my, that is specific) as I have seen it totally take over a tune in terms of volume and crushing the melody. But again that is a matter of taste too.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: backers who constantly change chords
I'm surprised at you portnabpucai. John Blake speaks so very highly of your playing.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by woops
Re: backers who constantly change chords
I mentioned John Blake specifically because he is on so many recordings I think are otherwise brilliant and could have been so much better either without any backer or with someone who played in a way that let the tunes breathe more.
I've nothing personal against John Blake and I know he is an excellent musician, I have met him a number of times and got on fine with him. I just don't think he is a very dynamically thoughtful backer on either guitar or piano, he's actually better on bouzouki on the few times he uses it I think. I have played in sessions with him and I tend to not notice his backing too much, which some people would think is a good thing, but to me a good backer is someoone you notice gives a lift to the music.
It's on recordings where his style really gets to me. I know some people like his backing a lot, I just wonder are these people who really listen to the accompaniment, I sometimes get the sense that he's used so much because he doesn't play too loud (a good thing) and because he knows all the tunes (also a good thing) but to me that's not enough. His style (which is being copied a lot these days by others) has no dynamics about it, he never goes with the dynamics of the tune player, he just keeps the same dynamic all the time whilst constantly changing chords and to me its just pointless and frustrating really.
Arty McGlynn often does a lot of chord changing but he does so much dynamically that it can give the music such a lift, he also mixes it up a lot where he might play just one drone chord the first time around then next time add a few more chords until the last time he lets lose with a whole ingenious chord progression, now that's brilliant, dynamic backing. Someone mentioned Dennis Cahill earlier and he's also great although I've never had the pleasure of playing with him, from what I gather his style is all about gradual build up too and the power in his playing lies in his right hand, not the amount of chords he uses.
I guess the difference between John Blake and people like Arty and Dennis is that John is not a backer through and through, he's more a flute player who also plays guitar, piano and bouzouki, he is an excellent flute player I'll give him that. I'm a bit similar in that I'm mainly a tune player but I can back too, but when I do gigs/recordings I never insult other tune players by trying to back when there are people out there who concentrate mostly on backing, these are the real experts. The few people who actually know how to enhance a tune with backing
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by portnabpucai
Re: backers who constantly change chords
personally i love guitarists and piano players who play on the beat,it gives a proper dance feel to the music ,this music is dance music,it should set your feet tapping and make you want to get up and dance.
so many guitarists and bouzouki players just fill in the music,and give no rhythmic lift.
it is a question of taste,however when people want to dance,playing on the beat,as many piano players do,really lifts the dancing[with the exception of irish polkas,which have a slight off beat emphasis].
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Rufus Jameson
Re: backers who constantly change chords
He doesn't really use that many chord changes, his technique is more ornamentation, on the guitar through hammer ons and runs.
" I don't understand why so many great tune players use him on their recordings"
That kind of says it all really.
your posts are full of one sided biased opinion.
How can a constant changing of notes (and it is notes - not chords) detract from the melody, when they are playing the melody?
I'd find that hammer it to death, schtrummmm, token drone, relative minor stuff to be more distracting to the melody.
In my opinion, if you are a good piper, you shouldn't need a backer. Backers should listen to all instruments, not just pipes.
I'm not going to try and dictate his style in a paragraph as you have done above with Artys backing. But from what I learnt from him, he usually starts a tune with a lighter or higher progression following the tune. The next time round he may add a bass element to it, and finally, he might mix the two - It is dynamic. Just not what your understanding of dynamic is - fair enough?
I've also played with him, and his backing is so tastefull that it enhances the tune you are playing. Listen to the overall sound, and not just one instrument or another which is what you seem to be doing.
Your understanding of backing, or your taste doesn't mean its right or wrong????
I don't know what you mean by "insult" when you say that about tune players. Perhaps your wording is a little too strong here???
I'd much prefer backers try and get his sympathetic, tasteful backing rather than the John Doyle, Hennessy type backing which is more rocky. Its great, but not my cup of tea.
He follows the tunes excellently, and rides with the the melody rather than driving them.
For me, his style is the main reason I got into backing.
I think its the best guitar backing out there - period.
Perhaps you should read this:
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/5153/comments#comment108559
Your opinion isn't right or wrong.
Its just yours.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Hugo Chavez
Re: backers who constantly change chords
I'm nearly with "portnabpucai" on this.
This is my theory/ observations/ idea on the subject...
When backing ITM on a chordal stringed instrument, I think it’s a mistake to approach accompaniment in the conventional “what’s the chords to this tune” manner, but that is how guitar players are usually “brought up”.
Consider this:
Without stringed instrument backing, ITM has three or four things going on that aren’t actually “the tune” and it forms a passive accompaniment.
They are:
(a) The drones & regulators of the pipes
(b) The basses of the boxes
(c) The percussion of the bodhrans (spoons, bones, size 12 Doc Martins)
(d) The subtle cloud of pan modal notes from the fiddles hitting (usually) appropriate open strings plus (at a session particularly) the quiet noodling of any melody instrument as the player tries to suss out the key, mode or tune.
If one sits and listens and ignores the melody, one can hear what one means. This enigmatic sound is what one bases ones own backing on.
It means one rarely needs to play more than two chords or partials (Tonic and some sort of Dominant or surrogate) to any tune. This loosely copies what lots of box players do (as per “b” above).
Occasionally twanging “out of the blue” (in the style of “d” above) is also effective if used sparingly.
Of course deadening strings and letting just one string drone on the tonic is good (“a” above) and the scrubbing sound one gets on the deadened strings is at times similar to “c” above. One can do a lot of bodhran imitations on instruments with bodies actually!
Whatever you play, make sure it's "right on the money" i.e. right in time and appropriate to the tune.
Not playing at all on some sections or tunes is a good idea. And there should only ever be one chordal backer at a time. If there is another stringed instrument backer let them have a go because you’re bound to be playing different harmonies to them! And the resulting cacophony will not be good.
Never ever play too loudly! If one can’t hear the drone of piper or the basses of the box player sat next to you, it’s too loud. Fingers and nylon strings are good for this; plectrums and steel are a bit strident and tasteless.
And pay attention to the tune and end neatly with the melody players (assuming they all do!).
And please don’t finish with a dreadful solo Jimmy Page exposition type thing (even if one can)! You know: (pentatonic BLooZ mode in E, full distortion):Wheeeeeeee! Whiddle! Whiddle! Whiddle! Whiddle! Whiddly-wheedly-widdly-weedly-widdly-widdly-iddle- iddle-iddle-iddle-iddle-iddle-iddle-iddle-iddle-iddle-iddle--wheeeeeeeee Chank! (Drums
Blatt! Bhlatt! (Jimmy
Ker-raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang………………………………………
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by yhaalhouse
Re: backers who constantly change chords
"I never insult other tune players by trying to back when there are people out there who concentrate mostly on backing, these are the real experts."
I know of a few tune players who are expert backers also.
"If one sits and listens and ignores the melody, one can hear what one means. This enigmatic sound is what one bases ones own backing on."
One.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Dow
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Donnachá Moynihan is the best backer I have played with to date. He is so aware of the cords and how they suit specific tunes.
For bouzouki I love playing with Reuben Bada as you can here the Asturian touch to his backing.
There is a great Breton CD dedicated to guitar backing (and one bouzouki track by Jamie Mc Menamin). Its called Kerden (I think it means Chords in Breton) and features some class trad guitar backing.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by iwerzon
Re: backers who constantly change chords
http://www.arbedkeltiek.com/saozneg/music/kerden.htm
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by iwerzon
Re: backers who constantly change chords
I hate to admit this, but I am unfamilar with John Blake, who does he play with? I suspect I have heard him play, but didn't recognize the name.
In terms of accompaniment, I prefer the "less is more" approach in sessions, although more busy accompaniment can work well in groups, where the approach to tunes is more "arranged."
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by AlBrown
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Have a listen to Alasdair Fraser being backed by Tony McManus on "Return to Kintail." Peerless.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: backers who constantly change chords
This is interesting. Portnapbucai, just a few threads ago you were decrying equal tempered tuning systems. If tuning this way bothers you so much, how can you stand any fretted instruments playing ITM, much less play them yourself? As a disclaimer, I'm a fan of fretted instruments in ITM and am not bothered by any particular tuning system.
On the other hand, you've displayed a remarkable ability to throw a hand grenade into a forum and make people scurry.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by reenactor
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Hugo Chavez, It seems every post you have on this site is to do with how much you like John Blake, I'm beginning to wonder if you ARE John Blake! Either way you certainly are one hell of a publicist for him, he's lucky to have you!!
By the way AlBrown, John Blake has recorded with Harry Bradley, Paul O'Shaugnessy, The Tap Room Trio, Teada, The Kane Sisters, Ciaran O Maonaigh and so on, as I said most of these records he's on have wonderful tune playing and I guess he must be doing something these guys like, or maybe they just can't afford someone like Arty!
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by portnabpucai
Re: backers who constantly change chords
reenactor, a good backer CAN play with a tune player who uses notes outside of the equal tempered system, they just have to keep their playing free from thirds, sixths and sevenths which tend to be the flexible notes in the tunes. I don't want to go back over my previous post but maybe I didn't explain clearly that only some notes are outside the equally tempered scale in the old way of playing and these notes vary depending on the key. If someone was playing a fiddle tune in F then the F note they use would be 'in tune' as we think of 'in tune' today but if they then changed to D Dorian they might choose to sharpen or flatten the F a little or even vary whether they play F or Fsharp, a backer who doesn't understand this and uses thirds and sevenths all the time can ruin this effect.
I love a good backer, but there aren't too many out there who put the time into really learning about the music, a lot of them just seem to want to show off
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by portnabpucai
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Agreed on Tony McManus, he's phenomenal. I wonder how his style fits in with the styles discussed in this thread, though? I don't *think* he plays all those weird chords, but I don't know enough theory to say for sure. He can play the tunes, too, if he wants. Just amazing.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by kennedy
Re: backers who constantly change chords
No, not unless they retune for every key change. Leaving the 3rds and 7ths out will help, but it's not going to solve all the problems because of how the frets are set up.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by reenactor
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Yes it will reenactor, I can do it myself
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by portnabpucai
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Just getting in this thread late. I agree totally with what's been declared. I'm in the Boston scene. And I accuse just about every good backer I've seen in this city of doing this over-cluttered form of backing. These guys are great guitarists, don't get me wrong -better timing than I'll ever have. But after years of being around and playing trad you know what does and doesn't work. Let the chords hang a bit. And not too much syncopation please. I guess that's what happens when you grow up listening to Lunasa and Solas.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by saltcast
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Is that so?
Shall I start talking about your posts???
Filtering through your astute and fantastic knowledge of this music?No.I'm not putting myself or anyone else through that....
So rather than observe what I have written, and try to entertain a discussion, you have clicked my history tab....ehh...ok.
I can see your powers of discussion.
Rather than post a one sided rant, I usually add my tuppence. So if I like his backing and somebody asks a question, I recommend.
Isn't that what the discussion board is for?
I'm learning the pipes and fiddle out of tune.
I can play the Bucks in F minor sharp on a lute I'm the best, and I learnt it from Tommy og O dooley a fantastic blind piper......bla bla.
Yawn
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Hugo Chavez
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Oooh, someones a bit touchy aren't they!
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by portnabpucai
Re: backers who constantly change chords
By the way I didn't click your history tab, before I posted this I did a search to see what people had said about John Blake before and your name came up on pretty much EVERY thread
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by portnabpucai
Re: backers who constantly change chords
You still didn't entertain a discussion.
I'm not touchy,
I'm taking the p*ss out of you.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Hugo Chavez
Re: backers who constantly change chords
there's not much of a discussion to entertain Hugo Chavez, you are obviously wildly in love with John Blake, I'm not, I think I've explained very adequately why I don't like his backing or the backing of similar people and you've explained very adequately why you do like his backing. So we can agree to differ on this one ok and touché for taking the p*ss out of me!
And whether you like it or not I am the best and those tunes Tommy og O Dooley taught me are just so beyond the average players comprehension that only a true expert like me can really play them properly
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by portnabpucai
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Hi Just for some amusement
I remember advertising for a guitar player to which several people replied. At audition, one guy came and confidently introduced himself as a Dropped `D` Back up Guitarist but was very versatile. Methinks to myself I'm gonna have some fun here so I ask him what he would do with a tune in F, he says no problem, I just put the capo on fret 3 and were ready to go. I then indicated to him that really he was a `Dropped D with added Capo versatility Back up Guitarist `. He looked slightly bemused, but said well I suppose if you want to look at it that way. I then said how the feck are we supposed to write that title into any bio or sleevenote or for that matter, at gigs when introducing the Band, how stupid is that going to sound.
"Well folks on Dropped D with Added Capo versatility Guitar, we have ..........!
He thought about it for a minute and conceded yeh ok I play Guitar. In the end we gave the job to someone else but I thought it was funny.
pkev
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by pkev
Re: backers who constantly change chords
I'm wildly in love with you.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Hugo Chavez
Re: backers who constantly change chords
pkev, I bet the guitarist was glad you gave the job to someone else.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Dow
Re: backers who constantly change chords
marry me Hugo, marry me please, i love you too xxx ooo
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by portnabpucai
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Don't you love yourself anymore?
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Dow
Re: backers who constantly change chords
of course I love myself still, mind you not half as much as you love yourself Dow.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by portnabpucai
Re: backers who constantly change chords
I love the way you flicked your tail and started washing your face nonchalantly with your paws when you said that. Do you want me to let you outside?
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Dow
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Sometimes I constantly change chords........................
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Backer
Re: backers who constantly change chords
erm.....sure Dow whatever you say
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by portnabpucai
Re: backers who constantly change chords
portna, re: tuning: you may *think* you do it yourself, but all those frets on your instrument are based on equal temperment that you say you can't put up with. Any time you put a finger down (except on an octave, I suppose) you are playing notes in the system you spent a lot of wind saying was bad and wrong.
Obviously, you don't have a problem with the sounds you make, so I'll respectfully submit that your theoretical construct might not be as important to your ear as it is to your head.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by reenactor
Re: backers who constantly change chords
I think it's symbolic of "purity" more than anything, isn't it?
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Dow
Re: backers who constantly change chords
I'm really not sure about your ideas on tuning systems, to my mind you would do better with a system of intonation based upon the pythagorean system of harmonics. But you're still going to have a rough time getting everyone in tune to the extent that the imperfect intonation of fretted instruments is noticable. If you've got a button box to hand, try playing the E (in the top octave to allow for the logarithmic relationship between note name and note frequency) G row and comparing it to the same note in the D row. Better yet, do it with a C#/D (it'll need to be the G or the C# though). If you can tell the difference then your argument is at least sound from the point of view of physics.
As for expecting other people to bend to your will in order that they sound exactly how you wish for them to sound is ridiculous. Your opinions on the "correct" style on the guitar is willfully optimistic (and in it'self relies on you representing the entire of the music you claim to represent), and personally I'm of the opinion it's incredibly rude to go up to another musician and suggest they play in a different way, or offer them advice unless they're obviously struggling. But unless you can offer a practical means, and back it up with action, you're standing into the realms of insulting people.
At the end of the day, if you don't like the way people you play with play, get some different people to play with. Or start a band where it's very clear who's (and clearly it'd need to be you) in charge.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Andy V
Re: backers who constantly change chords
It's not Hugo, it's portnapukie who is John Blake posing as an agent provocateur in order to bring his fans out of the woodwork.
# Posted on April 26th 2007 by Lingpupa
Re: backers who constantly change chords
port, I agree with you that too much accompaniment can detract from the tune. Having played in bands for years, I thought about how our early playing experience can sometimes make it difficult to fit in to a group situation. Many guitarists, including myself, spent their formative years playing alone, so there is a tendency inherent in the instrument itself to play "all the parts." This is not a problem only in trad music. One of my favorite rock guitarists is the guy in a band called Presidents of the United States, because he only puts three strings on his instrument! The spareness of harmonic content really creates a lot of space, and that's the problem with your chordaholics. The multiple harmonics fill up all the space where you would be hearing the melody and the rhythm of the melody itself.
So what are your choices? Discussion, withdrawal, sabotage? Talking helps, going to the bar sometimes, or wait till chordzilla goes to the bar and get out the wire cutters.....
# Posted on April 27th 2007 by Dave McGrath
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Bellman - "portnapukie"? How incredibly childish.
Of course, it's also the funniest thing I've read all week. (titter, snigger,smirk)
)
# Posted on April 27th 2007 by bc_box_player
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Portnabpucai - can't you just tell the guitarists to get off your back?
Or maybe to back off?
# Posted on April 27th 2007 by bc_box_player
Re: backers who constantly change chords
my place on the spectrum is with the comment above about irish music being essentially melodic, so my personal taste is for minimalist guitar backing. constant chord changes, loud, rocker-wannabe "excitement"-generating strumming, and most of all, counter-melodies, are not my thing for irish guitar, though i am a big fan of rock, flamenco and other genres where guitar is front & center.
but i can kind of sympathize with some of those yearning guitarists. we are at a cultural moment where the biggest popular music form puts guitar at the top of the heap. in rock, the alphas and the divas become guitar players. it is a stereotype, but it is true. in itm, the alphas play melody instruments, while the guitar slot is more like the bass-player slot in rock. and many chafe at this.
i played for a little over a year with an informal itm combo in which the guitar was handled by someone whose main musical pursuit was electric blues/rock. and this person got sick of itm really fast. it was a drag for him. it wasn't creative enough for him. it was too repetitive and limited. there was no room to solo or improvise (i'm paraphrasing his take on it here). he was used to ripping the roof off at party gigs and roadhouse dives with marshall amps stacked up to the ceiling and soloing between stanzas sung by a five-foot tall dairy truck driver in his 60s with a huge set of blues pipes. it wasn't keith richards or dave navarrao, but he was very good at it, and he also reveled in that whole guita-monsta thing. and while he was no zan macleod at itm backup, the truth was he was playing passable irish backup like, an hour after hearing his first irish tune. and he got bored with it really fast.
so that's looking at it from the other point of view.....but bottom line---why don't you choose sympatico guitar players like everybody else does, and let the hotdoggers go their own way???
# Posted on April 27th 2007 by ceemonster
Re: backers who constantly change chords
I do choose 'sympatico' backers when I have a choice but in a session you generally don't have a choice unless you are very rude to the player who is ruining it for you. It may surprise you all to know that I'm actually very welcoming in sessions and I rarely if ever tell someone to stop playing because I realise that these are social events not gigs. So this relates to my next little 'hand grenade' as reenactor might say.
# Posted on April 27th 2007 by portnabpucai
Re: backers who constantly change chords
Good at the beginning and end, this thread sort of degenerated there in the middle, eh?
There seem to be barriers both ways, and I'd like to see them come down a bit. It's a rare and welcome thing when a good melodist actually gives me clear instructions on how they'd like the guitar/bouzouki to sound with them, and on the relationships they'd like the accompaniment to have with their playing. Rare and welcome. Of course, it's much easier to steam a while over an unsatisfying experience, come home, fire up the browser and write it out here.
The world is full of misguided guitarists, that's a simple fact and not likely to change overnight. Some of us, however, are dedicated to being accompanists in the full sense of learning how best to complement the overall poignancy of the music.
Many of the pickers I know don't feel that they have a set and generally applicable orthodoxy or method for playing ITM, and different melodists and regional session players expect widely different things from pickers. So it's my impression that most of the pickers I know would love to know that This Fiddler likes the guitar This Way and This Piper wants it to be That Way and how those change with different aspects of the music. And especially that this can all be shared in conversation and not just in disappointed invective online and after the fact.
It would be very rare for a singer (traditional or otherwise) to sing with an accompanist (on any instrument) without some preparation and honest communication about how to accomplish the desired effect of the performance.
I apologize for the 'hotdoggers,' they annoy me as well. Our instrument is a victim of overpopularity. *sigh*
For my part, I'd love to learn your preferred accompaniment methods from you accomplished melodic stylists. But I'm ... er... mature and I can get my hotdogging ya ya's all on my own. When I play in session, my desire is to contribute to the ensemble as a team player. You want it different, tell me how and I'll do my very best to do it.
stv
http://cdbaby.com/Culchies
# Posted on May 10th 2007 by stv culchie