What is it? Once the backer has learned the tunes, he or she has a bunch of choices to make:
- Strum, cross-pick, countermelody, some mixture of all three.
- Simple rhythms, complex strum patterns, syncopation, etc.
- Sparse or frequent use of passing chords, chord substitutions.
My question is directed to the melody players: what do you like the backer to do?
I guess I like a mixture of the three techniques best of all, for the sake of variety. The right hand is more important to me than the left hand. If the rhythm is there, that's the most important part, and the rhythm should be there in all three techniques. That's not to say that you can't completely kill the mood by playing in the wrong key, of course. But if the backer's rhythm doesn't match the lift and swing, then it will suck the life out of the music so quickly it makes you reach for your garlic and wooden stakes.
Do all of those things, but most importantly, just back. Don't force anything to happen that isn't happening. Everything you do should be a reaction to what I'm doing, never vice versa. Follow and enhance. Cover me, I'm going in. Get my 'back', quite literally. Do all that and I'll get the next round.
Unless you want to lead off a set and play melody. I'll sneak in behind you then, unless you do that thing where you stop playing melody and start backing like on the 2nd or 3rd time through, that's slick. Or, just keep playing the tunes on the set.
I'm lucky enough to play regularly with a mando and a bouzouki player who do just that. Sometimes they'll start sets, sometimes they'll back, sometimes both. They switch modes effortlessly from melody to backing, from active to reactive.
Don't add chords which the melody does not call for. It is a permanent point of discussion between me and our guitarists. When I play a polka in D major I don't want any b minor chords thrown in.
Hmm, I might disagree with that... I enjoy the occasional minor substitution... it makes for better variety, and they can lead to a more interesting tension resolution. The point is, I like minor substitutions in the *right* places!
So to sum up my ideas so far... I want you to do all the cool stuff that backers can do, but only if you do it *well*... That's not asking too much, is it?
"Everything you do should be a reaction to what I'm doing, never vice versa"
I'm not into that at all. I like to play with people and I like people to play with me. It should be a proper ensemble, with no leader. The strummer should be of a standard and standing to be able to both effect and affect the music (I'm taking it as read that for the purpose of this discussion, said strummer is beyond learning the tunes, of course). I'm not interested in people who want to play beneath me.
Well, that got horribly misinterpreted, didn't it?
Don't you ever find learning backers doing things that disrupt the flow of the tune? I find it all the time. Some never get it, but most folks do, and some do really well, which allows them to enhance and effect the music positively, leading to those magic musical moments.
I don't consider anyone below or above. The music has roles to fulfill, as it's come to evolve. There is nothing negative about fulfilling any of the roles. We're an anarchist music collective. No, we're just a buncha musicians hanging out in a pub. To be honest, I'm quite jealous of my good friends' skills as they are equally talented handling both roles with their instruments. (In other words, they don't let me near the guitar, which is probably best.)
"When I play a polka in D major I don't want any b minor chords thrown in." ... Though I don't share it personally, I'm positive kuec is not alone out there in that line of thinking, even when it comes to accomplished (and of good standing) accompanists.
I'm sure I read a note from Harry Bradley somewhere about misplaced focus on sophisticated harmonies rather than melodic variation, but I think it was more about recorded music than about what happens in sessions.
Well, I keep on being told, that I'm supposed to buy all the drinks for all the melody players as payment to be allowed to back them... Hmmm.... maybe they're trying to tell me something.
I tend to err on the side of simplicity in chords myself, and have been focusing most of my efforts toward improvement on the strumming. Like the good Reverend, I believe keeping a steady and lively pulse is my most important role as a guitarist, with chords that complement the melody without stealing attention from it.
Oh, I see the question was directed at melody players. Oops. But it really doesn't change my answer. What I strive for in my own playing is what I like hearing from others when I am playing melody.
I think most melodies imply the chord but it depends on how much you know about the inside workings of the chord that make a killer backing. I thing a lot of backers place too much bias towards the bass end and I think thats where you can really alienate the person playing the melody, because then the tune gets actually changed by the bass note.
Good point - look at Alec Finn, whose accompaniment never uses deep bass notes (because he doesn't have one) yet never sounds thin or weedy because of it.
“the absolute rule you always should fall back on is consensus.”
Yep. That’s really all there is.
“I thing [sic] a lot of backers place too much bias towards the bass end and I think thats where you can really alienate the person playing the melody,…”
Yep, again. I heartily agree. I don’t like a heavy rhythm section for this music. Too much bass turns it into a mushy wall of sound. Of course, that’s just my personal preference.
I think when people talk about the melody implying the chords, they’re really imposing an aesthetic based on what they’re accustomed to hearing. When a Dmaj tune settles briefly around the F# note, why should that imply a D chord any more than an F#m or Bm? Any of those three would contain the F# and would be entirely within the mode/key. And when the tune diddles around an E note, which is more proper – an A chord or an Em?
In my early days of playing with bluegrass friends, somebody started up a tune and, since I was the only person holding a guitar at the time, I was nudged into accompanying. I don’t remember the tune, but it was clearly in E dorian, so I started playing Em, Dmaj and G chords. I thought it sounded hauntingly cool. Then another guitar player leaned over and told me it was in E major. So I switched over and this melancholy modal tune was suddenly hip and bluesy.
This actually happened to me twice. Maybe I’m a slow learner.
I deliberately picked a simple example. When you match all the notes of Denis Murphy's Polka to a scale you won't find any hint of b minor. And I don't think you need to try and make a good tune "interesting". In this case the question of who was there first the chicken or the egg finds an easy answer: the tune was there first and not the harmonies.
This does not imply I am unable to compromise. I just think ITM used to be melody-oriented. Classical music, jazz or rock are more harmony-oriented. You can mix this if you like. I think ITM loses some of its distinction that way.
And I do like being backed with fancy chords - when I play Swing.
How can the tune be there before the harmony, when tunes are harmony? (and rhythm of course)
(I agree there is now y hint of b minor in Denis Murphy's Polka though. But by this, you ate infering that there is a hint of Dmaj in the tune. Is this not harmony in the tune?)
Bob. It is true in my opinion that individual notes can imply more than one chord. I love all that stuff and try to utilise it. The trick to me is fitting it in so that it doesnt sound cheap . An
example is a version of backing to the tune the "Rolling
Wave" I heard where the tune starts on F# and the guitar plays
Bm A/C# / D G / to come to rest and settle with the D melody note in the second bar then does a III, IV , II , V cycle through bars 3 & 4.. Whoever it was doinig that backing really thought about it. and it was done quickly to add lift without changing the tune. That is the good challenge I think.
Can you guys think of another genre, other than maybe jazz, where the standards for backing are as high, broad and creatively demanding as in ITM? Over the past 30+ years, the standard has been set so high and in so many stylistic directions that we’ll never get through arguing about it. I suppose it’s a testament to several things – first, to the glorious, timeless brilliance and variety of the tunes handed down to us. Maybe also to the schizophrenia of the devotees. Just kidding. Maybe.
Firstly, Kuec is right. This stuff is primarily melodic, being based on linear melody rather than harmonic structure..
Secondly, to answer the question from my own point of view, what do I regard as tasteful backing? Answer: backing that doesn't get in the way. If you feel, as a backer, that you're *adding* something to the music, then, for my money, you're probably wrecking it.
I'll give an actual example of what I mean by the above. I was in this session one time and this guitarist arrived a bit later than some of us, and played for the rest of the night. His playing was absolutely stunning. So much so that I sat there, open-mouthed with wonder and awe for most of the evening, unable to even hear the tunes, let alone join in, because his playing was so beautiful, so inventive, so amazing. The tunes, in other words, didn't get a look in.
Chuneboi.... you know what really adapts is ragtime playing, I'd think more than classical, it's got some similar swing and tempo stuff going on. Not so formal, not stiff at all, pretty loose.
While the rags are tune picking, not backing, you can take the picking style, which is pretty simple, often on the real old time ear players, just two fingers most of the time. those two fingers adapt well for fingerstyle backing anyway. Wouldn't adapt for flatpicking so well if at all.
Also, again... my never ending rant.... listen to the good piano backers and what they are doing. Adapt to guitar. It can be done for flat and fingerpicking. And stay realy close to the melody the wa they do.
Jazz chords sound just out of place if used to often to my ear. The odd 7th tossed in for variety I can live with, but it distracts my ear from the melody and the feel of the tunes otherwise, doesn't sound like harmony to me at all. Some people obviously like the jazzy feel and swing since it is so often used, but I'll never go there personally. It's become pretty popular though, and considered "Irish Style" by many these days.
People often "accuse" me of having had classical training, but actually I learned ragtime tune playing by ear as a little kid, never much in the way of chording. That's what was around, a guitar and ragtime picking LPS. So I love hearing backing/accompanying that is really tune based, different for each tune, whether flat or fingerpicked, it's a pleasure. I love Donal Clancy who crosspicks often, hearing him with Osian McAuley, they are so together. What Donal is doing is every bit as challenging as the melody player, maybe more in some ways since he has to often make things up as he goes along, but they always fit. Martin Carthy is another very much tune based backer, and a fingerpicker who gets great attack and volume.
So to be tasteful, my vote is for... tune based is the best, not jazzed up. Just my personal liking, but obviously many others think otherwise. We don't all have to play together!
Hey Iris, you ever wrote a book? I got a neighbor eager to learn backing guitar and we're in the cultural boondocks out here. Sure would be nice to be able to send him Iris' Greatest Hits.
To answer the original question, I can enjoy all of the current backing styles, but I suppose the real test, for me, is how long I can enjoy a style before it starts wearing on me. A heavy rhythm section can add excitement to a tune, but after a few sets of that, my mind starts to separate the backing from the tune and then it’s just noise that gets in the way.
I can listen to nekid fiddle all day and I can listen to fiddle backed by Alec Finn all day, so I guess however you characterize what Alec does is close to the ideal approach for me. Martin Carthy’s approach is also very satisfying to me. Maybe what it comes down to is that the tune has to rule.
Iris: Thank you! Once again, in a few short paragraphs you've calmly dispensed a ton of wisdom.
Bob himself: Nope, having done a bit of both, ITM backing is definitely more challenging than mainstream (I suppose what I'd call "Real Book") jazz, where (typically) you play the head a few times, then everybody takes their solos, then the head a couple more times, and the harmonizations and arrangements are tacitly agreed upon beforehand, and the rhythm section and melody players are *expected* to listen to and react to each other.
One of the best pieces of musical advice that I've ever gotten was to concentrate on making the *band* sound good, as opposed to making myself sound good. ...nuff said, I suppose, but sometimes the best backing is no backing at all. IMHO.
And don't even get me started about the feeling that I get sometimes that we're just supposed to play cover versions of what the current "supergroups" are doing. Rant over.
Speaking as someone who has played melody as well as accompanying other musicians in various genres of music such as ragtime, blues, Irish, (and others), varying the accompaniment patterns slightly while maintaining a steady beat does add some interest to the music. Playing the same heavy-handed rhythms and chords for all the tunes isn't a good idea (speaking from experience). A small amount of variety if used discreetly and sparingly can add to and enhance a session. Or, to quote "tomw" you are supposed to be trying to make the band sound good instead of just yourself.
SWFL.... you're not serious! I know I get carried away and write too much (part of my job has required voluminous writings over 30 years, and it's a habit! Bad maybe!). I know zilch about music or theory, nothing beyond knowing the fingerboard and what note or sound lives where and loving this music and having maybe a thousand or more tunes and snips of tunes in my head. My biggest pitfall in teaching is I am an ear and eye teacher primarily..... and run off most potential students because I won't deal with people who want two chords to alternate in each key and don't care about murdering the music. I can teach in bits and pieces, this section, now the next etc. and have developed a series of one finger "chords" in dropped D I can show anyone in ten minutes, and if practiced you can slide around fast with them. Just one finger along with one or two other open strings, flat or fingerpicked. It's almost too easy, it seems to scare people for whatever reason. it's almost too out of the box, too loose, too unreal to them.
Teaching someone tunes is way easier than teaching backing, because backing is too ethereal in many ways, they have to have an instinct for it, it's more a world of feelings than technicalities or this note comes after that. That is part of it of course, but to convey when to lay back or get stronger or toss a bit of melody in, to get a feel for where every different melody player's mind and feelings are going, and to do it on the fly with people you never met before and keep on track with them is pretty challenging. To teach relative pitch so they can hear key changes in a split second, on and on.... it requires as serious a student as any melody student to get really decent at it at all. The main way to get it is to give someone the tools (like the one finger chord business) and then they practice endlessly, learn the structure of the tunes and the melodies, and those who find fun in that and don't notice five hours have passed are the ones who will get it.
Grego.... yes, am I allowed to post links... I guess others have, I don't want to push it on anyone... well, here goes...for tune playing: http://cdbaby.com/cd/irisnevins
people say it relaxes them... as in maybe puts them to sleep? LOL. Do not play while driving... I think of guitar as a form of harp really and treat it as such.
This is a whole mix of stuff, mainly the Hearts Content trio with Linda Hickman and Tom Dunne, both wonderful musicians I feel honored to play with. Some things with others too for lack of anywhere else to park them... particularly Alan Morrisroe, great box player. We'll be doing a concert at IAANJ in Rockaway this Saturday if anyone is interested. Check the events section or email me off group.
I know my backing/accompaniment is kind of stylized and not the norm. I made it up in isolation honestly, without meaning too, it just grew, and the players I listend to most were John Renbourne and Martin Carthy, going back to the early 70s. It's not what people call "Irish Style" these days, but I was doing it around NYC way back before there was this "Irish Style" you hear referenced today. it was always pretty laid back and melodic, but can do strong attack and volume when required.
Please, no one listen to the singing, I am awful, they force me at the odd bar gig to do one or two so we had to put some up. No one has tossed eggs or run out laughing, but I hate to do it.... the first time in public, took half a xanax washed down with a Jack Daniels. It was the only way to not fall apart. Linda has a song up there which is nice, she's got a unique style. It's the accapella one. She's a super flute and whistle player too, full of great tunes.
Tom Dunne is a choppy gutsy box player, and fiddler, was taught fiddle by Paddy Cronin.
OK... sorry... just wrote a book again... but one last word, I am no authority on it, just do what I do, and if people like it, I try to convey it as best as possible, and some may not like it and that's OK too. Most think i have fallen off the deep end with this listen to piano business, but boy do they know accompaniment.
Dont worry Iris, when it comes to talking/writing about this you do it better than anyone else. I have stopped posting anything about guitar here since you arrived because you usually have said all that needs to be said - also because I don't know as much as you anyway!
Donough.... that's not true, you are a darned good player. I can't do some of what you do. There are lots of ways to tastefully accompany this music. A flatpick is just about completely alien to me for example. I can get by on it when showing a flatpicker how to hit the one finger chording stuff, but would fall flat on my face if I had to perform or sit a whole session strumming. I find it HARD! Someone like Donal Clancy I admire because he is really good at both. And crosspicking, which totally boggles my mind.
I was more than one time told I play "too fancy", it's too intricate and should learnt o strum "like the rest of us". The one thing that struck is that if you are somewhat stylized people tend to either love or hate it... I have heard that about Carthy even, who is a backing genius, as well as tune player, even if mostly English music. As long as most people seem to like it, even if some wildly hate it, I will stay on the same path. If too many hated it, well, I'd know something was wrong and I was murdering the music.
The thing too, for all of us, even melody players, our ways keep changing subtly or sometimes not so subtly. Lately i am getting more and more into the melody lines and sometimes may not chord at all, but do a little walking and counter melody bits. There's always something new to find on the fingerboard, sometimes it happens by accident while playing and you build on that. it's never over, the learning process.
I want 'em to do it ALL--yeah, that's right, show me ALL of it !
God forbid, I should find a backer who can play more than the triad and rel. minor in a few keys---it awould be sooooooooo refreshing.
Tasteful Backing
Tasteful Backing
What is it? Once the backer has learned the tunes, he or she has a bunch of choices to make:
- Strum, cross-pick, countermelody, some mixture of all three.
- Simple rhythms, complex strum patterns, syncopation, etc.
- Sparse or frequent use of passing chords, chord substitutions.
My question is directed to the melody players: what do you like the backer to do?
Beyond learning the tunes, of course.
# Posted on June 2nd 2008 by grego
Re: Tasteful Backing
Please post serious discussions Grego, or I'll tell Jeremy on you.
# Posted on June 2nd 2008 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: Tasteful Backing
Buy my beer!
# Posted on June 2nd 2008 by jwvansteenwyk
Re: Tasteful Backing
I guess I like a mixture of the three techniques best of all, for the sake of variety. The right hand is more important to me than the left hand. If the rhythm is there, that's the most important part, and the rhythm should be there in all three techniques. That's not to say that you can't completely kill the mood by playing in the wrong key, of course. But if the backer's rhythm doesn't match the lift and swing, then it will suck the life out of the music so quickly it makes you reach for your garlic and wooden stakes.
# Posted on June 2nd 2008 by Reverend
Re: Tasteful Backing
I like sparse, so you can hear the poor little mandolin in the spaces
# Posted on June 2nd 2008 by Bren
Re: Tasteful Backing
Do all of those things, but most importantly, just back. Don't force anything to happen that isn't happening. Everything you do should be a reaction to what I'm doing, never vice versa. Follow and enhance. Cover me, I'm going in. Get my 'back', quite literally. Do all that and I'll get the next round.
Unless you want to lead off a set and play melody. I'll sneak in behind you then, unless you do that thing where you stop playing melody and start backing like on the 2nd or 3rd time through, that's slick. Or, just keep playing the tunes on the set.
I'm lucky enough to play regularly with a mando and a bouzouki player who do just that. Sometimes they'll start sets, sometimes they'll back, sometimes both. They switch modes effortlessly from melody to backing, from active to reactive.
# Posted on June 2nd 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Tasteful Backing
Don't add chords which the melody does not call for. It is a permanent point of discussion between me and our guitarists. When I play a polka in D major I don't want any b minor chords thrown in.
# Posted on June 2nd 2008 by kuec
Re: Tasteful Backing
Hmm, I might disagree with that... I enjoy the occasional minor substitution... it makes for better variety, and they can lead to a more interesting tension resolution. The point is, I like minor substitutions in the *right* places!
So to sum up my ideas so far... I want you to do all the cool stuff that backers can do, but only if you do it *well*... That's not asking too much, is it?
# Posted on June 2nd 2008 by Reverend
Re: Tasteful Backing
"Everything you do should be a reaction to what I'm doing, never vice versa"
I'm not into that at all. I like to play with people and I like people to play with me. It should be a proper ensemble, with no leader. The strummer should be of a standard and standing to be able to both effect and affect the music (I'm taking it as read that for the purpose of this discussion, said strummer is beyond learning the tunes, of course). I'm not interested in people who want to play beneath me.
# Posted on June 2nd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Tasteful Backing
Well, that got horribly misinterpreted, didn't it?
Don't you ever find learning backers doing things that disrupt the flow of the tune? I find it all the time. Some never get it, but most folks do, and some do really well, which allows them to enhance and effect the music positively, leading to those magic musical moments.
I don't consider anyone below or above. The music has roles to fulfill, as it's come to evolve. There is nothing negative about fulfilling any of the roles. We're an anarchist music collective. No, we're just a buncha musicians hanging out in a pub. To be honest, I'm quite jealous of my good friends' skills as they are equally talented handling both roles with their instruments. (In other words, they don't let me near the guitar, which is probably best.)
# Posted on June 2nd 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Tasteful Backing
Some nice ideas so far...
"When I play a polka in D major I don't want any b minor chords thrown in." ... Though I don't share it personally, I'm positive kuec is not alone out there in that line of thinking, even when it comes to accomplished (and of good standing) accompanists.
I'm sure I read a note from Harry Bradley somewhere about misplaced focus on sophisticated harmonies rather than melodic variation, but I think it was more about recorded music than about what happens in sessions.
# Posted on June 2nd 2008 by grego
Re: Tasteful Backing
“Don't add chords which the melody does not call for.”
But that’s always a matter of opinion and personal taste. If you and the backer disagree, there's no absolute rule to fall back on.
# Posted on June 2nd 2008 by Bob himself
Re: Tasteful Backing
the absolute rule you always should fall back on is consensus. But that doesn't mean you shoudn't fight your corner.
# Posted on June 2nd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Tasteful Backing
Well, I keep on being told, that I'm supposed to buy all the drinks for all the melody players as payment to be allowed to back them... Hmmm.... maybe they're trying to tell me something.
# Posted on June 2nd 2008 by Ron P
Re: Tasteful Backing
I tend to err on the side of simplicity in chords myself, and have been focusing most of my efforts toward improvement on the strumming. Like the good Reverend, I believe keeping a steady and lively pulse is my most important role as a guitarist, with chords that complement the melody without stealing attention from it.
# Posted on June 3rd 2008 by AlBrown
Re: Tasteful Backing
Oh, I see the question was directed at melody players. Oops. But it really doesn't change my answer. What I strive for in my own playing is what I like hearing from others when I am playing melody.
# Posted on June 3rd 2008 by AlBrown
Re: Tasteful Backing
I think most melodies imply the chord but it depends on how much you know about the inside workings of the chord that make a killer backing. I thing a lot of backers place too much bias towards the bass end and I think thats where you can really alienate the person playing the melody, because then the tune gets actually changed by the bass note.
# Posted on June 3rd 2008 by chuneboi slim
Re: Tasteful Backing
Good point - look at Alec Finn, whose accompaniment never uses deep bass notes (because he doesn't have one) yet never sounds thin or weedy because of it.
# Posted on June 3rd 2008 by Sugarfoot Jack
Re: Tasteful Backing
“the absolute rule you always should fall back on is consensus.”
Yep. That’s really all there is.
“I thing [sic] a lot of backers place too much bias towards the bass end and I think thats where you can really alienate the person playing the melody,…”
Yep, again. I heartily agree. I don’t like a heavy rhythm section for this music. Too much bass turns it into a mushy wall of sound. Of course, that’s just my personal preference.
I think when people talk about the melody implying the chords, they’re really imposing an aesthetic based on what they’re accustomed to hearing. When a Dmaj tune settles briefly around the F# note, why should that imply a D chord any more than an F#m or Bm? Any of those three would contain the F# and would be entirely within the mode/key. And when the tune diddles around an E note, which is more proper – an A chord or an Em?
In my early days of playing with bluegrass friends, somebody started up a tune and, since I was the only person holding a guitar at the time, I was nudged into accompanying. I don’t remember the tune, but it was clearly in E dorian, so I started playing Em, Dmaj and G chords. I thought it sounded hauntingly cool. Then another guitar player leaned over and told me it was in E major. So I switched over and this melancholy modal tune was suddenly hip and bluesy.
This actually happened to me twice. Maybe I’m a slow learner.
# Posted on June 3rd 2008 by Bob himself
Re: Tasteful Backing
I deliberately picked a simple example. When you match all the notes of Denis Murphy's Polka to a scale you won't find any hint of b minor. And I don't think you need to try and make a good tune "interesting". In this case the question of who was there first the chicken or the egg finds an easy answer: the tune was there first and not the harmonies.
This does not imply I am unable to compromise. I just think ITM used to be melody-oriented. Classical music, jazz or rock are more harmony-oriented. You can mix this if you like. I think ITM loses some of its distinction that way.
And I do like being backed with fancy chords - when I play Swing.
# Posted on June 3rd 2008 by kuec
Re: Tasteful Backing
How can the tune be there before the harmony, when tunes are harmony? (and rhythm of course)
(I agree there is now y hint of b minor in Denis Murphy's Polka though. But by this, you ate infering that there is a hint of Dmaj in the tune. Is this not harmony in the tune?)
# Posted on June 4th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Tasteful Backing
Bob. It is true in my opinion that individual notes can imply more than one chord. I love all that stuff and try to utilise it. The trick to me is fitting it in so that it doesnt sound cheap . An
example is a version of backing to the tune the "Rolling
Wave" I heard where the tune starts on F# and the guitar plays
Bm A/C# / D G / to come to rest and settle with the D melody note in the second bar then does a III, IV , II , V cycle through bars 3 & 4.. Whoever it was doinig that backing really thought about it. and it was done quickly to add lift without changing the tune. That is the good challenge I think.
# Posted on June 4th 2008 by chuneboi slim
Re: Tasteful Backing
Sorry, that should have been III, VI, II, V
# Posted on June 4th 2008 by chuneboi slim
Re: Tasteful Backing
Can you guys think of another genre, other than maybe jazz, where the standards for backing are as high, broad and creatively demanding as in ITM? Over the past 30+ years, the standard has been set so high and in so many stylistic directions that we’ll never get through arguing about it. I suppose it’s a testament to several things – first, to the glorious, timeless brilliance and variety of the tunes handed down to us. Maybe also to the schizophrenia of the devotees. Just kidding. Maybe.
# Posted on June 4th 2008 by Bob himself
Re: Tasteful Backing
Probably some forms of Indian music.
# Posted on June 4th 2008 by grego
Re: Tasteful Backing
Firstly, Kuec is right. This stuff is primarily melodic, being based on linear melody rather than harmonic structure..
Secondly, to answer the question from my own point of view, what do I regard as tasteful backing? Answer: backing that doesn't get in the way. If you feel, as a backer, that you're *adding* something to the music, then, for my money, you're probably wrecking it.
I'll give an actual example of what I mean by the above. I was in this session one time and this guitarist arrived a bit later than some of us, and played for the rest of the night. His playing was absolutely stunning. So much so that I sat there, open-mouthed with wonder and awe for most of the evening, unable to even hear the tunes, let alone join in, because his playing was so beautiful, so inventive, so amazing. The tunes, in other words, didn't get a look in.
# Posted on June 4th 2008 by benhall.1
Re: Tasteful Backing
No, grego, you’re supposed to say, “Oh, my, no! Nothing compares!”
# Posted on June 4th 2008 by Bob himself
Re: Tasteful Backing
I've always thought that the principles of Classical gutar harmony adapt better to tune backing than Jazz, to respond to Bob's request.
# Posted on June 4th 2008 by chuneboi slim
Re: Tasteful Backing
Oh, my, no! Nothing compares!
# Posted on June 4th 2008 by grego
Re: Tasteful Backing
Chuneboi.... you know what really adapts is ragtime playing, I'd think more than classical, it's got some similar swing and tempo stuff going on. Not so formal, not stiff at all, pretty loose.
While the rags are tune picking, not backing, you can take the picking style, which is pretty simple, often on the real old time ear players, just two fingers most of the time. those two fingers adapt well for fingerstyle backing anyway. Wouldn't adapt for flatpicking so well if at all.
Also, again... my never ending rant.... listen to the good piano backers and what they are doing. Adapt to guitar. It can be done for flat and fingerpicking. And stay realy close to the melody the wa they do.
Jazz chords sound just out of place if used to often to my ear. The odd 7th tossed in for variety I can live with, but it distracts my ear from the melody and the feel of the tunes otherwise, doesn't sound like harmony to me at all. Some people obviously like the jazzy feel and swing since it is so often used, but I'll never go there personally. It's become pretty popular though, and considered "Irish Style" by many these days.
People often "accuse" me of having had classical training, but actually I learned ragtime tune playing by ear as a little kid, never much in the way of chording. That's what was around, a guitar and ragtime picking LPS. So I love hearing backing/accompanying that is really tune based, different for each tune, whether flat or fingerpicked, it's a pleasure. I love Donal Clancy who crosspicks often, hearing him with Osian McAuley, they are so together. What Donal is doing is every bit as challenging as the melody player, maybe more in some ways since he has to often make things up as he goes along, but they always fit. Martin Carthy is another very much tune based backer, and a fingerpicker who gets great attack and volume.
So to be tasteful, my vote is for... tune based is the best, not jazzed up. Just my personal liking, but obviously many others think otherwise. We don't all have to play together!
# Posted on June 5th 2008 by irisnevins
Re: Tasteful Backing
Hey Iris, you ever wrote a book? I got a neighbor eager to learn backing guitar and we're in the cultural boondocks out here. Sure would be nice to be able to send him Iris' Greatest Hits.
# Posted on June 5th 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Tasteful Backing
Iris, are there any sound clips on the net of you (or others)doing the piano-like fingerpicked backing? It sounds intriguing.
# Posted on June 5th 2008 by grego
Re: Tasteful Backing
To answer the original question, I can enjoy all of the current backing styles, but I suppose the real test, for me, is how long I can enjoy a style before it starts wearing on me. A heavy rhythm section can add excitement to a tune, but after a few sets of that, my mind starts to separate the backing from the tune and then it’s just noise that gets in the way.
I can listen to nekid fiddle all day and I can listen to fiddle backed by Alec Finn all day, so I guess however you characterize what Alec does is close to the ideal approach for me. Martin Carthy’s approach is also very satisfying to me. Maybe what it comes down to is that the tune has to rule.
# Posted on June 5th 2008 by Bob himself
Re: Tasteful Backing
Iris: Thank you! Once again, in a few short paragraphs you've calmly dispensed a ton of wisdom.
Bob himself: Nope, having done a bit of both, ITM backing is definitely more challenging than mainstream (I suppose what I'd call "Real Book") jazz, where (typically) you play the head a few times, then everybody takes their solos, then the head a couple more times, and the harmonizations and arrangements are tacitly agreed upon beforehand, and the rhythm section and melody players are *expected* to listen to and react to each other.
One of the best pieces of musical advice that I've ever gotten was to concentrate on making the *band* sound good, as opposed to making myself sound good. ...nuff said, I suppose, but sometimes the best backing is no backing at all. IMHO.
And don't even get me started about the feeling that I get sometimes that we're just supposed to play cover versions of what the current "supergroups" are doing. Rant over.
Cheers, all!
# Posted on June 5th 2008 by tomw
Re: Tasteful Backing
Speaking as someone who has played melody as well as accompanying other musicians in various genres of music such as ragtime, blues, Irish, (and others), varying the accompaniment patterns slightly while maintaining a steady beat does add some interest to the music. Playing the same heavy-handed rhythms and chords for all the tunes isn't a good idea (speaking from experience). A small amount of variety if used discreetly and sparingly can add to and enhance a session. Or, to quote "tomw" you are supposed to be trying to make the band sound good instead of just yourself.
# Posted on June 6th 2008 by fauxcelt
Re: Tasteful Backing
SWFL.... you're not serious! I know I get carried away and write too much (part of my job has required voluminous writings over 30 years, and it's a habit! Bad maybe!). I know zilch about music or theory, nothing beyond knowing the fingerboard and what note or sound lives where and loving this music and having maybe a thousand or more tunes and snips of tunes in my head. My biggest pitfall in teaching is I am an ear and eye teacher primarily..... and run off most potential students because I won't deal with people who want two chords to alternate in each key and don't care about murdering the music. I can teach in bits and pieces, this section, now the next etc. and have developed a series of one finger "chords" in dropped D I can show anyone in ten minutes, and if practiced you can slide around fast with them. Just one finger along with one or two other open strings, flat or fingerpicked. It's almost too easy, it seems to scare people for whatever reason. it's almost too out of the box, too loose, too unreal to them.
Teaching someone tunes is way easier than teaching backing, because backing is too ethereal in many ways, they have to have an instinct for it, it's more a world of feelings than technicalities or this note comes after that. That is part of it of course, but to convey when to lay back or get stronger or toss a bit of melody in, to get a feel for where every different melody player's mind and feelings are going, and to do it on the fly with people you never met before and keep on track with them is pretty challenging. To teach relative pitch so they can hear key changes in a split second, on and on.... it requires as serious a student as any melody student to get really decent at it at all. The main way to get it is to give someone the tools (like the one finger chord business) and then they practice endlessly, learn the structure of the tunes and the melodies, and those who find fun in that and don't notice five hours have passed are the ones who will get it.
Grego.... yes, am I allowed to post links... I guess others have, I don't want to push it on anyone... well, here goes...for tune playing:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/irisnevins
people say it relaxes them... as in maybe puts them to sleep? LOL. Do not play while driving... I think of guitar as a form of harp really and treat it as such.
and for samples of backing, but some tunes up there too and some repeats off the CD:
http://ezfolk.com/audio/bands/448/audio.php
This is a whole mix of stuff, mainly the Hearts Content trio with Linda Hickman and Tom Dunne, both wonderful musicians I feel honored to play with. Some things with others too for lack of anywhere else to park them... particularly Alan Morrisroe, great box player. We'll be doing a concert at IAANJ in Rockaway this Saturday if anyone is interested. Check the events section or email me off group.
I know my backing/accompaniment is kind of stylized and not the norm. I made it up in isolation honestly, without meaning too, it just grew, and the players I listend to most were John Renbourne and Martin Carthy, going back to the early 70s. It's not what people call "Irish Style" these days, but I was doing it around NYC way back before there was this "Irish Style" you hear referenced today. it was always pretty laid back and melodic, but can do strong attack and volume when required.
Please, no one listen to the singing, I am awful, they force me at the odd bar gig to do one or two so we had to put some up. No one has tossed eggs or run out laughing, but I hate to do it.... the first time in public, took half a xanax washed down with a Jack Daniels. It was the only way to not fall apart. Linda has a song up there which is nice, she's got a unique style. It's the accapella one. She's a super flute and whistle player too, full of great tunes.
Tom Dunne is a choppy gutsy box player, and fiddler, was taught fiddle by Paddy Cronin.
OK... sorry... just wrote a book again... but one last word, I am no authority on it, just do what I do, and if people like it, I try to convey it as best as possible, and some may not like it and that's OK too. Most think i have fallen off the deep end with this listen to piano business, but boy do they know accompaniment.
# Posted on June 6th 2008 by irisnevins
Re: Tasteful Backing
Dont worry Iris, when it comes to talking/writing about this you do it better than anyone else. I have stopped posting anything about guitar here since you arrived because you usually have said all that needs to be said - also because I don't know as much as you anyway!
# Posted on June 6th 2008 by Donough
Re: Tasteful Backing
Donough.... that's not true, you are a darned good player. I can't do some of what you do. There are lots of ways to tastefully accompany this music. A flatpick is just about completely alien to me for example. I can get by on it when showing a flatpicker how to hit the one finger chording stuff, but would fall flat on my face if I had to perform or sit a whole session strumming. I find it HARD! Someone like Donal Clancy I admire because he is really good at both. And crosspicking, which totally boggles my mind.
I was more than one time told I play "too fancy", it's too intricate and should learnt o strum "like the rest of us". The one thing that struck is that if you are somewhat stylized people tend to either love or hate it... I have heard that about Carthy even, who is a backing genius, as well as tune player, even if mostly English music. As long as most people seem to like it, even if some wildly hate it, I will stay on the same path. If too many hated it, well, I'd know something was wrong and I was murdering the music.
The thing too, for all of us, even melody players, our ways keep changing subtly or sometimes not so subtly. Lately i am getting more and more into the melody lines and sometimes may not chord at all, but do a little walking and counter melody bits. There's always something new to find on the fingerboard, sometimes it happens by accident while playing and you build on that. it's never over, the learning process.
# Posted on June 6th 2008 by irisnevins
Re: Tasteful Backing
This discussion about "tasteful backing" is delicious with so many different flavors expressed by everyone who has commented on it.
# Posted on June 7th 2008 by fauxcelt
Re: Tasteful Backing
I want 'em to do it ALL--yeah, that's right, show me ALL of it !
God forbid, I should find a backer who can play more than the triad and rel. minor in a few keys---it awould be sooooooooo refreshing.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by hauke