As a singer and guitar accompanyist of traditional music. I would be most interested in seeing chords included in the tunes submitted (unless they are part of the "abc" notation and I have not spotted it in which case I would be grateful for an explanation).
I do not mean they should be obligatory of course but only if the submitter should happen to know them.
Before anyone jumps in with links to past discussions, I'd like to offer my opinion!!
Dingla, in an Irish Trad session a chord player generally improvises chords around the tune, and that any chords included in the music would not be *the* chords but only one possible set of them.
If you don't know how to improvise them, try learning off a cd what one person is doing with a particular tune and use that as a starting point.
Also... try and recognize the tune and I'd go so far as to suggest not backing a tune you don't already know.
As a "tunesmith", I agree 100% with glenn's view. Maybe Molloy, Peoples and Brady, not as a beginner tutorial album, but to see how Paul Brady treats accompaniment as a virtuoso.
It has to be said that a good backer (guitar, mandola, bouzouki) can make such a difference to a session...can really produce a dramatic musical backdrop to the tunes meanderings...rather than the half dozen chords often offered from the untutored newbie in a ching-a-ling-a-ling beat, regardless of whether they're accompanying a jig, reel, hornpipe, polka or whatever.
That rant off my chest, it must be daunting for new guitar accompanists, when they view the height of the musical mountain they are about to scale. Maybe a few cairns to show them the way, plus the odd piton, for the more difficult scrambling. But for vertical climbs you really need Friends.
I believe Jeremy prefers to have the ABC of a tune *as posted* to be without ornaments or chords. Ornaments and chords(if any) should be added in the comments section. One reason for this is probably that the presence of ornaments and chords in the main ABC listing would thoroughly mess up and render ineffective the "advanced" search function.
Trevor
The advanced search gets messed up if you play say one note out of 4 differently from the posted version, regardless of whether there are ornaments or not. I see nothing wrong with the odd roll here and there, or even triplet. If you play Irish music, you should be able to adapt that ornamentation to your own instrument and style of playing anyway.
I do think that suggestions for chords should be given in the comments section though, because there are millions of different possibilities. If you need help with what chords to play, then you should learn the art of backing tunes. Looking at ABC or sheetmusic will *not* help with this because the rhythm is more important than the chords you play. Backing tunes is *not* just about strumming along some chords to a tune. Listen to recordings and watch what people do in live performances. Do it for years until you can do what they're doing. There's no easier way I'm afraid.
Thanks for the responses, with all of which I agree.
It does need a lot time and effort to go from the basics, to improvising the chords to finally "feeling" the tune. Above all it is indeed the rhythm/beat which can make or break a set. Behind the drive that can lift a set beyond the sum its parts is often just such a skillful but unobtrusive foundation.
As in so many skills, the more effortless and fitting it sounds and looks the higher the talent and application that has gone into it.
It was more curiosity on my part to see how different accompanyists attack a tune and the comments section would be ideal for that type of information
Why do we put down people who want to bring dots into sessions yet encourage people to have the chords?
The chords should be automatic or you haven't listened to enough ITM.
Wha---? Where did that come from, Geoff? I don't think chords are "automatic" any more than the tunes themselves are, or you wouldn't have backers occasionally making a train wreck out of a tune by playing different chords at the same time, even though both chords would be acceptable on their own. Beginners will have a harder time of it than an advanced player will, and, if was me, I'd be discouraged to hear that everything is "automatic" because for a beginner it won't be for quite some time, no matter how much of this stuff you listen to. And I don't think anyone was suggesting that someone should have the chords in front of them anymore than the dots, or did I miss something here?
Zina, I think perhaps Geoff stated his point a bit forcefully and you perhaps interpreted his statement as meaning more than he intended it to.
I took his statement to mean that chords to ITM tunes aren't rocket science and that if one is questioning what chord is appropriate in a given tune then one certainly doesn't know that tune well enough to be performing in public with musicians who do know the tune, and that one probably needs to listen to it, and lots of other tunes, more.
For me it's quite simple. If one doesn't know the tune, as a backer or melody player, don't play. If one must, then go way off in the corner and play very quietly.
As for "backers occasionally making a train wreck out of a tune by playing different chords at the same time", I'm not sure how "occasionally" it occurs. I would substitute the word "inevitably", or "incessantly".
One backer is fine and can even be great if they know the tunes and their instrument.
I imagine that for most of us mortals playing good music comes from years of "experience" - playing not so good music...
Given a limited lifespan there are tutorials available to speed the experience of learning to back tunes. One fine example is the book "Celtic Back-Up For All Instrumentalists" by Chris Smith. Rather than just give a list of suggested chords it teaches the process of backing tunes, on the fly, in a session setting. I've used the book and highly recommend it. I believe it's shaved years off of my learning curve. It's written in a guitar setting though it's applicable to any rhythm instrument, bouzouki, piano, hammer dulcimer!
I have to say though, after several years of learning chord choices and substitutions I find I am now going back to hone my basic strumming technique - downstrokes, upstrokes, rests, bass, treble, drive, pulse. Beyond finding appropriate chord choices it is all about the rhythm.
I personally have played with 2 kinds of backers: the first plays 1-4-5 um-chucking all the way and yes, this is not rocket science. I'd suggest this isn't really backing a tune either. A monkey could do this.
The other type of backer actually makes the session *better* and performs something on the guitar/bazouki that in my opinion is in fact either magic or rocket science... the chords and rhythm so far beyond my understanding I won't even try to describe them.
I know the arguments above have all been covered before in other discussions...and I understand the views above... but I think some chords are useful for chimps like me trying to learn to accompany tunes on guitar....and it would be good if they were included. Not everyone accessing this site is an expert. I think you'll find most people are somewhere between monkey and rocket scientist. I find that I always modify some of the written chords, but it helps to have base chords when I start to learn a tune (just as the dots help the fiddle player I am practicing with). Come on guitarists, don't feel inferior !
It must be magic, because it sure as hell ain't rocket science! None of the rocket scientists of my acquaintance (actually, I only know one rocket scientist, but that's enough to make the maths work) can do diddly-squat on the guitar.
It's the guitarist lot in life, I'm afraid, to be eyed suspiciously when they enter with their case... and to be the recipient of quick abuse when attempts to be clever sometimes give less-than-hoped-for results. No fan of 1-4-5 um-chucking by any stretch (and no wizard on the instrument myself by all accounts, including and especially my own), I wonder if the odd whistle player tweeting around without ornamentation and any lift/soul is so quickly condemed.
At one time, I posted my thoughts on getting quick and dirty chord progressions for songs at http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display.php/1431 along with a gross oversimplification of a nice system for thinking about chord changes developed by a another contributor to this site.
If I may add one more thought... "proper" guitar technique is as much a matter of taste as anything else. The decision to add a simple backing technique on a particular tune may get you scorn or praise, likewise, a complex chord progression with unusual chord voicings and add-on's can make people gape in wonder or bitch incessantly (who hasn't heard someone say, "He plays too many of those damn "jazzy" chords for traditional music..."). Think about the vampy piano-style of the early recordings and then of John Doyle, who's recent stuff is bending the "rules" to the breaking point in the minds of the more conservative players.
Thankfully, I've got a group of musicians close by that are still supportive when my attempts to stretch myself sometimes crash and burn (while I respectfully keep my volume way down).
If the heat from disapproving melody players gets too much, remember that you could be a bodhran player!
Chords
Chords
As a singer and guitar accompanyist of traditional music. I would be most interested in seeing chords included in the tunes submitted (unless they are part of the "abc" notation and I have not spotted it in which case I would be grateful for an explanation).
I do not mean they should be obligatory of course but only if the submitter should happen to know them.
What do readers think?
# Posted on October 4th 2003 by dingla
Re: Chords
Before anyone jumps in with links to past discussions, I'd like to offer my opinion!!
Dingla, in an Irish Trad session a chord player generally improvises chords around the tune, and that any chords included in the music would not be *the* chords but only one possible set of them.
If you don't know how to improvise them, try learning off a cd what one person is doing with a particular tune and use that as a starting point.
Also... try and recognize the tune and I'd go so far as to suggest not backing a tune you don't already know.
Ok... fire away
# Posted on October 4th 2003 by glenn
Re: Chords
As a "tunesmith", I agree 100% with glenn's view. Maybe Molloy, Peoples and Brady, not as a beginner tutorial album, but to see how Paul Brady treats accompaniment as a virtuoso.
It has to be said that a good backer (guitar, mandola, bouzouki) can make such a difference to a session...can really produce a dramatic musical backdrop to the tunes meanderings...rather than the half dozen chords often offered from the untutored newbie in a ching-a-ling-a-ling beat, regardless of whether they're accompanying a jig, reel, hornpipe, polka or whatever.
That rant off my chest, it must be daunting for new guitar accompanists, when they view the height of the musical mountain they are about to scale. Maybe a few cairns to show them the way, plus the odd piton, for the more difficult scrambling. But for vertical climbs you really need Friends.
D
# Posted on October 4th 2003 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: Chords
I believe Jeremy prefers to have the ABC of a tune *as posted* to be without ornaments or chords. Ornaments and chords(if any) should be added in the comments section. One reason for this is probably that the presence of ornaments and chords in the main ABC listing would thoroughly mess up and render ineffective the "advanced" search function.
Trevor
# Posted on October 4th 2003 by lazyhound
Re: Chords
The advanced search gets messed up if you play say one note out of 4 differently from the posted version, regardless of whether there are ornaments or not. I see nothing wrong with the odd roll here and there, or even triplet. If you play Irish music, you should be able to adapt that ornamentation to your own instrument and style of playing anyway.
I do think that suggestions for chords should be given in the comments section though, because there are millions of different possibilities. If you need help with what chords to play, then you should learn the art of backing tunes. Looking at ABC or sheetmusic will *not* help with this because the rhythm is more important than the chords you play. Backing tunes is *not* just about strumming along some chords to a tune. Listen to recordings and watch what people do in live performances. Do it for years until you can do what they're doing. There's no easier way I'm afraid.
# Posted on October 4th 2003 by Dow
Re: Chords
Thanks for the responses, with all of which I agree.
It does need a lot time and effort to go from the basics, to improvising the chords to finally "feeling" the tune. Above all it is indeed the rhythm/beat which can make or break a set. Behind the drive that can lift a set beyond the sum its parts is often just such a skillful but unobtrusive foundation.
As in so many skills, the more effortless and fitting it sounds and looks the higher the talent and application that has gone into it.
It was more curiosity on my part to see how different accompanyists attack a tune and the comments section would be ideal for that type of information
Thanks again
# Posted on October 4th 2003 by dingla
Re: Chords
Why do we put down people who want to bring dots into sessions yet encourage people to have the chords?
The chords should be automatic or you haven't listened to enough ITM.
# Posted on October 5th 2003 by geoffwright
Re: Chords
Wha---? Where did that come from, Geoff? I don't think chords are "automatic" any more than the tunes themselves are, or you wouldn't have backers occasionally making a train wreck out of a tune by playing different chords at the same time, even though both chords would be acceptable on their own. Beginners will have a harder time of it than an advanced player will, and, if was me, I'd be discouraged to hear that everything is "automatic" because for a beginner it won't be for quite some time, no matter how much of this stuff you listen to. And I don't think anyone was suggesting that someone should have the chords in front of them anymore than the dots, or did I miss something here?
# Posted on October 5th 2003 by Zina Lee
Re: Chords
Zina, I think perhaps Geoff stated his point a bit forcefully and you perhaps interpreted his statement as meaning more than he intended it to.
I took his statement to mean that chords to ITM tunes aren't rocket science and that if one is questioning what chord is appropriate in a given tune then one certainly doesn't know that tune well enough to be performing in public with musicians who do know the tune, and that one probably needs to listen to it, and lots of other tunes, more.
For me it's quite simple. If one doesn't know the tune, as a backer or melody player, don't play. If one must, then go way off in the corner and play very quietly.
As for "backers occasionally making a train wreck out of a tune by playing different chords at the same time", I'm not sure how "occasionally" it occurs. I would substitute the word "inevitably", or "incessantly".
One backer is fine and can even be great if they know the tunes and their instrument.
Two backers are worse than no backers.
# Posted on October 5th 2003 by Tusong200
Re: Chords
I imagine that for most of us mortals playing good music comes from years of "experience" - playing not so good music...
Given a limited lifespan there are tutorials available to speed the experience of learning to back tunes. One fine example is the book "Celtic Back-Up For All Instrumentalists" by Chris Smith. Rather than just give a list of suggested chords it teaches the process of backing tunes, on the fly, in a session setting. I've used the book and highly recommend it. I believe it's shaved years off of my learning curve. It's written in a guitar setting though it's applicable to any rhythm instrument, bouzouki, piano, hammer dulcimer!
I have to say though, after several years of learning chord choices and substitutions I find I am now going back to hone my basic strumming technique - downstrokes, upstrokes, rests, bass, treble, drive, pulse. Beyond finding appropriate chord choices it is all about the rhythm.
# Posted on October 5th 2003 by SteveM
Re: Chords
Tusong,
I personally have played with 2 kinds of backers: the first plays 1-4-5 um-chucking all the way and yes, this is not rocket science. I'd suggest this isn't really backing a tune either. A monkey could do this.
The other type of backer actually makes the session *better* and performs something on the guitar/bazouki that in my opinion is in fact either magic or rocket science... the chords and rhythm so far beyond my understanding I won't even try to describe them.
# Posted on October 5th 2003 by glenn
Re: Chords
I know the arguments above have all been covered before in other discussions...and I understand the views above... but I think some chords are useful for chimps like me trying to learn to accompany tunes on guitar....and it would be good if they were included. Not everyone accessing this site is an expert. I think you'll find most people are somewhere between monkey and rocket scientist. I find that I always modify some of the written chords, but it helps to have base chords when I start to learn a tune (just as the dots help the fiddle player I am practicing with). Come on guitarists, don't feel inferior !
# Posted on October 7th 2003 by Al Baxter
Re: Chords
It must be magic, because it sure as hell ain't rocket science! None of the rocket scientists of my acquaintance (actually, I only know one rocket scientist, but that's enough to make the maths work) can do diddly-squat on the guitar.
# Posted on October 8th 2003 by nastyweegirl
Re: Chords
It's the guitarist lot in life, I'm afraid, to be eyed suspiciously when they enter with their case... and to be the recipient of quick abuse when attempts to be clever sometimes give less-than-hoped-for results. No fan of 1-4-5 um-chucking by any stretch (and no wizard on the instrument myself by all accounts, including and especially my own), I wonder if the odd whistle player tweeting around without ornamentation and any lift/soul is so quickly condemed.
At one time, I posted my thoughts on getting quick and dirty chord progressions for songs at http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display.php/1431 along with a gross oversimplification of a nice system for thinking about chord changes developed by a another contributor to this site.
If I may add one more thought... "proper" guitar technique is as much a matter of taste as anything else. The decision to add a simple backing technique on a particular tune may get you scorn or praise, likewise, a complex chord progression with unusual chord voicings and add-on's can make people gape in wonder or bitch incessantly (who hasn't heard someone say, "He plays too many of those damn "jazzy" chords for traditional music..."). Think about the vampy piano-style of the early recordings and then of John Doyle, who's recent stuff is bending the "rules" to the breaking point in the minds of the more conservative players.
Thankfully, I've got a group of musicians close by that are still supportive when my attempts to stretch myself sometimes crash and burn (while I respectfully keep my volume way down).
If the heat from disapproving melody players gets too much, remember that you could be a bodhran player!
Schy
# Posted on October 13th 2003 by Schy