The old hoary 6 string chestnut-a light in the fog.
The old hoary 6 string chestnut-a light in the fog.
so i've thought of a way to frame the whole "Guitar in ITM" debate/argument/rant that may be a more constructive approach. It seems to me that, far from being the limited instrument many people on here claim it to be, the problem with categorising the guitar in ITM comes from the OPPOSITE issue- namely it's versatilty. So how about this as a framework: that it is approached as 3 separate entities:
1) The solo, unaccompanied instrument that is used for arrangements of tunes -often in unorthodox tunings, which supply, as it were their own accompaniment. This would include players like Pierre Bensusan, Steve Baughman, Martin Simpson etc etc , and as Irisnevins point out, is probably best seen as a continuation of the harp tradition.
2) As accompanists to melody players - ie the whole Steve Cooney thing. Often in drop D or DADGAD, is role is partly harmonic but primarily rhythmic. Its a relatively new addition to ITM, but seems to have achieved a level of acceptance.
3) As a melody instrument in its own right- ie as used to "play the tune" alongside the other more common instruments. Arty McGlynn was probably a pioneer at this and it seems the least common of the 3 (tho for me at this point in time, the most interesting and enjoyable-nce you can play the Bucks you'll never want to "accompany" it ever again!).
My suggestion is if we look at it as almost 3 separate instruments - or at least 3 separate roles, then a lot of the clumsy writing about guitar we have on here may be avoided. Probably not, of course!
What say you?
Re: The old hoary 6 string chestnut-a light in the fog.
I love the guitar played as 1) - and the idea of it being a continuation of the harp tradition makes a lot of sense to me.
As 2) it often seems limited and imposes limitations on others - for example, if someone's doing some nice inversions, the guitar will often play root position chords and spoil the effect. Maybe this is down to the skill level (as in, "not!") of those who play in 2) as opposed to 1)
You're right, though - it's successful because of its versatility, I think.
Re: The old hoary 6 string chestnut-a light in the fog.
I think I would add a subdivision to #1 – the (finger)style of playing where the melody is articulated more like flatpicking and the accompaniment is based on a fairly steady bass line. It’s a style that predates the popularity of the harp-influenced style. Duck Baker comes to mind. Also, Martin Carthy. This was my gateway (drug) into playing the tunes on guitar.
Re: The old hoary 6 string chestnut-a light in the fog.
i agree it can be approached as multiple instrument. thats what's so great about it. Making it sit in the the mix as a lead instrument is my own private mission. Its versatility is a key in utilising the qualities of other instruments to produce ornamentation etc. accordion and banjo type things as well as utilising the polyphony to punctuate here and there. About the only instrument that you can't really replicate patterns effectively on the guitar IMHO is the fiddle, but who wants to sound like a fiddle anyway. I like to play in tune.
I like the fingerstyle adaption of tunes up to a point, players like martin carthy and tony mcmanus but I'm waiting for really strong melodic players to come out of the woodwork somewhere and produce powerful dance music like flamenco players have been doing for centuries.
Re: The old hoary 6 string chestnut-a light in the fog.
The distinctions are useful, I think. I'm currently wading into the third -- flatpicking melody on guitar the way it would be played on other lead instruments. I think this works quite well.
The old hoary 6 string chestnut-a light in the fog.
The old hoary 6 string chestnut-a light in the fog.
so i've thought of a way to frame the whole "Guitar in ITM" debate/argument/rant that may be a more constructive approach. It seems to me that, far from being the limited instrument many people on here claim it to be, the problem with categorising the guitar in ITM comes from the OPPOSITE issue- namely it's versatilty. So how about this as a framework: that it is approached as 3 separate entities:
1) The solo, unaccompanied instrument that is used for arrangements of tunes -often in unorthodox tunings, which supply, as it were their own accompaniment. This would include players like Pierre Bensusan, Steve Baughman, Martin Simpson etc etc , and as Irisnevins point out, is probably best seen as a continuation of the harp tradition.
2) As accompanists to melody players - ie the whole Steve Cooney thing. Often in drop D or DADGAD, is role is partly harmonic but primarily rhythmic. Its a relatively new addition to ITM, but seems to have achieved a level of acceptance.
3) As a melody instrument in its own right- ie as used to "play the tune" alongside the other more common instruments. Arty McGlynn was probably a pioneer at this and it seems the least common of the 3 (tho for me at this point in time, the most interesting and enjoyable-nce you can play the Bucks you'll never want to "accompany" it ever again!).
My suggestion is if we look at it as almost 3 separate instruments - or at least 3 separate roles, then a lot of the clumsy writing about guitar we have on here may be avoided. Probably not, of course!
What say you?
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by hakanozel
Re: The old hoary 6 string chestnut-a light in the fog.
I love the guitar played as 1) - and the idea of it being a continuation of the harp tradition makes a lot of sense to me.
As 2) it often seems limited and imposes limitations on others - for example, if someone's doing some nice inversions, the guitar will often play root position chords and spoil the effect. Maybe this is down to the skill level (as in, "not!") of those who play in 2) as opposed to 1)
You're right, though - it's successful because of its versatility, I think.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Mark Harmer
Re: The old hoary 6 string chestnut-a light in the fog.
Here in Flanders DADGAD is called "bourdon gitaar"
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by dafydd
Re: The old hoary 6 string chestnut-a light in the fog.
I think I would add a subdivision to #1 – the (finger)style of playing where the melody is articulated more like flatpicking and the accompaniment is based on a fairly steady bass line. It’s a style that predates the popularity of the harp-influenced style. Duck Baker comes to mind. Also, Martin Carthy. This was my gateway (drug) into playing the tunes on guitar.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Bob himself
Re: The old hoary 6 string chestnut-a light in the fog.
i agree it can be approached as multiple instrument. thats what's so great about it. Making it sit in the the mix as a lead instrument is my own private mission. Its versatility is a key in utilising the qualities of other instruments to produce ornamentation etc. accordion and banjo type things as well as utilising the polyphony to punctuate here and there. About the only instrument that you can't really replicate patterns effectively on the guitar IMHO is the fiddle, but who wants to sound like a fiddle anyway. I like to play in tune.
I like the fingerstyle adaption of tunes up to a point, players like martin carthy and tony mcmanus but I'm waiting for really strong melodic players to come out of the woodwork somewhere and produce powerful dance music like flamenco players have been doing for centuries.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by chuneboi slim
Re: The old hoary 6 string chestnut-a light in the fog.
The distinctions are useful, I think. I'm currently wading into the third -- flatpicking melody on guitar the way it would be played on other lead instruments. I think this works quite well.
# Posted on May 3rd 2008 by devellis
Re: The old hoary 6 string chestnut-a light in the fog.
I loves a GOOD guitar player---nuf said.
# Posted on May 6th 2008 by hauke