The Session >> Discussions >> How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Comments
How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
50 years between them, but what exactly is different in the accompaniment?
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Oh boy, is that balm to the soul or what?
I don't want to shoot you down in flames. I've really enjoyed listening to both these tracks, but I would have enjoyed both of them more, or at least as much, without the accompaniment..
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
honeynut, the differences in the accompaniment are apparent, aren't they?
Coleman:
- backed by one guitar, not overbearing, steady rhythm
- bouncy 4-count strumming (gets old fairly quickly)
- some questionable (to me) chord choices
Burke:
- overproduced. Is that a 12 string guitar, or a six- string overdubbed or heavily chorused on itself? And synth keyboard?
- downbeat, 1-count strums in the beginning. Meh.
- The guitar grows increasingly strummy (down/ups)
- a bit new-agey celtic for my tastes. Kevin's playing doesn't need the chorus, but he did that on several albums. Sigh.
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
How much similarity is there between the two? I can't tell so much as there's I've got a bit of background noise, but it seems to me that the choice in chords/progression are pretty similar. I'm curious what some experienced backers would say.
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Right.
What I hear as a difference is mostly in the D/4th (?) part where Coleman's backer stays major and Burke's backer (presumably Michael O'Domhnaill) uses a minor chord.
(I don't back this music, but I've played guitar for 35 years. Chords are part of how I hear music, even when they're not there (no backer). That said, I really didn't listen super close to either track. Frankly, to me, the backing is by far the least interesting part of both recordings.)
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
To my ear the main difference is in the quality of the recording. By coincidence I am busy learning this tune from Kevin Glackin's version on Forgotten Days cd, in which he plays solo. Even Katherine Tickell's version is obviously influenced by, if not based on, the Coleman recording, all of which illustrates the drawback of using a single instance of a tune as the standard.
Like Will, I have played guitar for 40 years, and although I have never backed Irish music, should I do so I would not use those chords, or indeed play in that manner. Neither fits with the chords I have in my head, and both become distracting after a short while.
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Kevin Burke was backed on that track by Gerry O'Beirne, one of the few Irish guitarists I've ever come across to play a 12-string guitar, as he does on "Lord Gordon's".
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Both fine recordings. Maybe because I listened to Coleman first, but I didn't care for all the minor chords in Burke's version - made it sound darker than it needed to.
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Then I will say it too -
I got nothing from the accompaniment.
(However, as I am much fonder of un-accompanied playing on fiddle, my opinion is already invalidated.)
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Kenny's right the guitarist is Gerry O'Beirne, I think there is a cittern there as well it kind of sounds like it. If there is it is the guy who played with Kevin in Open House I can't remember his name at the moment but I am fairly certain he is a on that album 'Up Close' is what it is called.
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
I wouldn't have used those relative minor chords like Gerry O'Beirne did either. The tune is a happy major tune and the inclusion of the minor chords takes the feeling away from the tune (for me, of course. Other people will hear it differently). I quite like the backing on the Coleman recording, in context. It adds a warmth or frivolity to his playing yet doesn't overpower or take away from it either.
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
The accompaniment in the Coleman track was too far in the background, while on the Burke track, it was much more in the front of things. A difference in the tastes of the period they were recorded, I suppose.
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Kenny, thanks for the clarification, and confirmation that my ears still work after all these years. A 12-string. Yep, that's what it sounded like to me.
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
The Coleman backing is better, the accompaniment is in the background where it should be, and the accompanist sounds like he is playing with Michael Coleman, I prefer the chord choice[marginally]
The Burke accompaniment is too far forward in the mix, and sounds like it has been recorded seperately [possibly to a click track], the accompanying instruments sound as if their purpose is to fill out the sound, rather than add lift.
The Burke recording lacks the feeling of musicians playing together in a session or even in a studio.
The Burke recording would have been much better without any other instruments.
I think I would have preferred Coleman on his own, but the guitarist does quite well, and is certainly better than some of the pianists who accompanied him who were completely clueless
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Huh? The chord choice on that Coleman is horrible. The guy's sense of rhythm and tempo may not be too bad, but any backer approving of those chords is not someone I'd want in our pub.
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Which is the track where the piano player (or was it a guitarist?) accompanies a whole set of tunes playing one chord only? I imagine someone saying to him something like, "This is all in G", and Michael soldiers bravely on.
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
I remember really liking Kevin Burke's version, in my younger trippy days. I don't think the fiddle is chorused, it may be, but it's certainly multi tracked, as is the twelve string. And there's quite a loud "pad" in there, or layers of pads which sounds like a lush old Juno 106 I used to have one of them), or a prophet 5, or both. And, dare I say it, it sounds like it's done to click track too. Maybe not, but it sounds like it was.
The whole thing creates this kind of dreamy state that kind of goes on and on at the same level but really goes no where at all.
But on listening to it again, and comparing it with the Coleman, I'm struck that that dreamy, druggy, kind of plateau state of it is not really being much to do with the backing at all, but actually the tune itself. It just goes nowhere, it's ten parts of the same thing. Just clever danced round inversions of the same old repetitive cliché. It's a crap tune. I'm gonna stop playing it. One more to my ever burgeoning list of tunes to unlearn.
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
It took a while for Lord Gordon's to grow on me too but I've found a love for it. Patsy Tuohy's version (which I learned from Angelina Carberry) is much less clichéd and provides the musician with some interesting turns to negotiate. Maybe source it if you can.
stantwang, you're probably thinking of Coleman's set "The Wind that Shakes the Barley/The Lady on the Island". When he changes tune, the piano players stays on the same chord. Worse than that, the chord is not even remotely close to the tonality of the tune.
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
There's a nice (and far easier) two part version of it. Gay McKeon plays it on "The Piper's Rock" and our very own "bogman" has a really lovely version. I can't remember where he said he got it.
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
This is one of the few Coleman recordings, I think, which has sympathetic accompaniment - less *sophisticated* perhaps, than some of today's, but the guitarist obviously knows the tune, knows the music and knows Coleman's playing intimately. And the fiddling itself is sublime.
The title of Burke's album, 'Up Close', seems to me to be a misnomer, as he (or the producer) seems to have done as much as possible to distance himself from the listener: the fiddle is at least double-tracked and there are apparently three backing instruments. Consequently, there is little sense of any *communication* between the musicians, however good they may be individually. Whilst the accompaniment displays some of the 'sophistication' to which I refer above, inasmuch as the harmony is more sensitive to the twists and turns of the tune, the use of three instruments following the same chord pattern immediately eradicates any notion of spontaneity. As for the fiddling itself, it cannot be argued that Kevin Burke is a very capable fiddler, but by multitracking his own playing, he focuses more on sound texture and obscures the 'heart' in his playing.
There is probably plenty of scope for Freudian analysis there, but I'm not trained in that field.
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Coleman's Lord Gordon (as most of the tunes from the same recordingsession) always struck me as sounding introspective. Too introspective to be intended for dancing. Compare the mood to, for example, that of his Lord McDonald/Ballinasloe Fair.
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Llig wrote: "Just clever danced round inversions of the same old repetitive cliché. It's a crap tune. I'm gonna stop playing it. One more to my ever burgeoning list of tunes to unlearn."
I agree - but in its two-part incarnation, Lord Gordon is actually a lovely tune, that doesn't warrant the tedious 'variation' treatment it often gets. Usual disclaimers, just my opinion etc
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Do I remember right that there's a two-part version on that Dolores Keane record that I haven't listened to in about five or ten years? Certainly not the extended dance mix that Kevin plays, anyway.
How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
50 years between them, but what exactly is different in the accompaniment?
# Posted on March 13th 2011 by honeynut
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Perhaps if you could post links to these two tracks..........
# Posted on March 13th 2011 by stantwang
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
http://www.colemanirishmusic.com/news/2007/11/20/michael-coleman-1891-1945-cd-and-booklet/ scroll down half way n you can play the track
wouldnt play for me otherwise!
http://www.we7.com/#/song/Kevin-Burke/Lord-Gordons-Reel rest your mouse on the play button and click queue next
# Posted on March 13th 2011 by honeynut
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Oh boy, is that balm to the soul or what?
I don't want to shoot you down in flames. I've really enjoyed listening to both these tracks, but I would have enjoyed both of them more, or at least as much, without the accompaniment..
# Posted on March 13th 2011 by stantwang
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
honeynut, the differences in the accompaniment are apparent, aren't they?
Coleman:
- backed by one guitar, not overbearing, steady rhythm
- bouncy 4-count strumming (gets old fairly quickly)
- some questionable (to me) chord choices
Burke:
- overproduced. Is that a 12 string guitar, or a six- string overdubbed or heavily chorused on itself? And synth keyboard?
- downbeat, 1-count strums in the beginning. Meh.
- The guitar grows increasingly strummy (down/ups)
- a bit new-agey celtic for my tastes. Kevin's playing doesn't need the chorus, but he did that on several albums. Sigh.
So....?
# Posted on March 13th 2011 by Will Harmon
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
How much similarity is there between the two? I can't tell so much as there's I've got a bit of background noise, but it seems to me that the choice in chords/progression are pretty similar. I'm curious what some experienced backers would say.
# Posted on March 13th 2011 by banshee misfortune
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Right.
What I hear as a difference is mostly in the D/4th (?) part where Coleman's backer stays major and Burke's backer (presumably Michael O'Domhnaill) uses a minor chord.
(I don't back this music, but I've played guitar for 35 years. Chords are part of how I hear music, even when they're not there (no backer). That said, I really didn't listen super close to either track. Frankly, to me, the backing is by far the least interesting part of both recordings.)
# Posted on March 13th 2011 by Will Harmon
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
To my ear the main difference is in the quality of the recording. By coincidence I am busy learning this tune from Kevin Glackin's version on Forgotten Days cd, in which he plays solo. Even Katherine Tickell's version is obviously influenced by, if not based on, the Coleman recording, all of which illustrates the drawback of using a single instance of a tune as the standard.
Like Will, I have played guitar for 40 years, and although I have never backed Irish music, should I do so I would not use those chords, or indeed play in that manner. Neither fits with the chords I have in my head, and both become distracting after a short while.
# Posted on March 13th 2011 by gam
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Kevin Burke was backed on that track by Gerry O'Beirne, one of the few Irish guitarists I've ever come across to play a 12-string guitar, as he does on "Lord Gordon's".
# Posted on March 13th 2011 by Kenny
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Both fine recordings. Maybe because I listened to Coleman first, but I didn't care for all the minor chords in Burke's version - made it sound darker than it needed to.
# Posted on March 13th 2011 by sara505sings
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
I think the accompaniment is awful on both. Am I allowed to say that?
# Posted on March 13th 2011 by Steve Shaw
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
o but of course
# Posted on March 13th 2011 by honeynut
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Then I will say it too -
I got nothing from the accompaniment.
(However, as I am much fonder of un-accompanied playing on fiddle, my opinion is already invalidated.)
# Posted on March 13th 2011 by Piece
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Kenny's right the guitarist is Gerry O'Beirne, I think there is a cittern there as well it kind of sounds like it. If there is it is the guy who played with Kevin in Open House I can't remember his name at the moment but I am fairly certain he is a on that album 'Up Close' is what it is called.
# Posted on March 13th 2011 by Why Bother?
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
I wouldn't have used those relative minor chords like Gerry O'Beirne did either. The tune is a happy major tune and the inclusion of the minor chords takes the feeling away from the tune (for me, of course. Other people will hear it differently). I quite like the backing on the Coleman recording, in context. It adds a warmth or frivolity to his playing yet doesn't overpower or take away from it either.
# Posted on March 13th 2011 by 52Paddy
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
The accompaniment in the Coleman track was too far in the background, while on the Burke track, it was much more in the front of things. A difference in the tastes of the period they were recorded, I suppose.
# Posted on March 13th 2011 by AlBrown
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
No, Al, that's all down to contemporary recording methods.
# Posted on March 13th 2011 by MacCruiskeen
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Kenny, thanks for the clarification, and confirmation that my ears still work after all these years. A 12-string. Yep, that's what it sounded like to me.
Meh.
# Posted on March 13th 2011 by Will Harmon
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
The Coleman backing is better, the accompaniment is in the background where it should be, and the accompanist sounds like he is playing with Michael Coleman, I prefer the chord choice[marginally]
The Burke accompaniment is too far forward in the mix, and sounds like it has been recorded seperately [possibly to a click track], the accompanying instruments sound as if their purpose is to fill out the sound, rather than add lift.
The Burke recording lacks the feeling of musicians playing together in a session or even in a studio.
The Burke recording would have been much better without any other instruments.
I think I would have preferred Coleman on his own, but the guitarist does quite well, and is certainly better than some of the pianists who accompanied him who were completely clueless
# Posted on March 13th 2011 by Joseph Tailyour
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Huh? The chord choice on that Coleman is horrible. The guy's sense of rhythm and tempo may not be too bad, but any backer approving of those chords is not someone I'd want in our pub.
# Posted on March 14th 2011 by Steve Shaw
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Which is the track where the piano player (or was it a guitarist?) accompanies a whole set of tunes playing one chord only? I imagine someone saying to him something like, "This is all in G", and Michael soldiers bravely on.
# Posted on March 14th 2011 by stantwang
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
I remember really liking Kevin Burke's version, in my younger trippy days. I don't think the fiddle is chorused, it may be, but it's certainly multi tracked, as is the twelve string. And there's quite a loud "pad" in there, or layers of pads which sounds like a lush old Juno 106 I used to have one of them), or a prophet 5, or both. And, dare I say it, it sounds like it's done to click track too. Maybe not, but it sounds like it was.
The whole thing creates this kind of dreamy state that kind of goes on and on at the same level but really goes no where at all.
But on listening to it again, and comparing it with the Coleman, I'm struck that that dreamy, druggy, kind of plateau state of it is not really being much to do with the backing at all, but actually the tune itself. It just goes nowhere, it's ten parts of the same thing. Just clever danced round inversions of the same old repetitive cliché. It's a crap tune. I'm gonna stop playing it. One more to my ever burgeoning list of tunes to unlearn.
# Posted on March 14th 2011 by ...
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
It took a while for Lord Gordon's to grow on me too but I've found a love for it. Patsy Tuohy's version (which I learned from Angelina Carberry) is much less clichéd and provides the musician with some interesting turns to negotiate. Maybe source it if you can.
stantwang, you're probably thinking of Coleman's set "The Wind that Shakes the Barley/The Lady on the Island". When he changes tune, the piano players stays on the same chord. Worse than that, the chord is not even remotely close to the tonality of the tune.
# Posted on March 14th 2011 by 52Paddy
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
There's a nice (and far easier) two part version of it. Gay McKeon plays it on "The Piper's Rock" and our very own "bogman" has a really lovely version. I can't remember where he said he got it.
# Posted on March 14th 2011 by DrSilverSpear
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Gay didn't play the two part version on The Piper's Rock, he did the long one.
Séamus Ennis and Pat Brophy are both sources for two part versions (very close together versions too). Ennis called his Duke Gordon.
I don't recall a version by Patsy Touhey to be honest.
# Posted on March 14th 2011 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
You sure? You're probably right. I'm in my office at the moment so can't double check my recording,
# Posted on March 14th 2011 by DrSilverSpear
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
This is one of the few Coleman recordings, I think, which has sympathetic accompaniment - less *sophisticated* perhaps, than some of today's, but the guitarist obviously knows the tune, knows the music and knows Coleman's playing intimately. And the fiddling itself is sublime.
The title of Burke's album, 'Up Close', seems to me to be a misnomer, as he (or the producer) seems to have done as much as possible to distance himself from the listener: the fiddle is at least double-tracked and there are apparently three backing instruments. Consequently, there is little sense of any *communication* between the musicians, however good they may be individually. Whilst the accompaniment displays some of the 'sophistication' to which I refer above, inasmuch as the harmony is more sensitive to the twists and turns of the tune, the use of three instruments following the same chord pattern immediately eradicates any notion of spontaneity. As for the fiddling itself, it cannot be argued that Kevin Burke is a very capable fiddler, but by multitracking his own playing, he focuses more on sound texture and obscures the 'heart' in his playing.
There is probably plenty of scope for Freudian analysis there, but I'm not trained in that field.
# Posted on March 14th 2011 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
"plenty of scope for Freudian analysis"
....of Kevin Burke, I mean. Perhaps of me too.
# Posted on March 14th 2011 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Were the Coleman recordings originally intended to listen to or to dance to? The latter I suspect.
# Posted on March 14th 2011 by geoffwright
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Coleman's Lord Gordon (as most of the tunes from the same recordingsession) always struck me as sounding introspective. Too introspective to be intended for dancing. Compare the mood to, for example, that of his Lord McDonald/Ballinasloe Fair.
# Posted on March 14th 2011 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
I'm fairly sure the guitar player with Coleman is Whitey Andrews.
# Posted on March 14th 2011 by dr_funkenstein
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
"Whitey" Ha, was he a black guy who was nicknamed Whitey by his black mates 'cause he liked to play diddley music?
# Posted on March 14th 2011 by ...
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Close--he was a Welsh albino that played jazz!
# Posted on March 15th 2011 by dr_funkenstein
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Llig wrote: "Just clever danced round inversions of the same old repetitive cliché. It's a crap tune. I'm gonna stop playing it. One more to my ever burgeoning list of tunes to unlearn."
I agree - but in its two-part incarnation, Lord Gordon is actually a lovely tune, that doesn't warrant the tedious 'variation' treatment it often gets. Usual disclaimers, just my opinion etc
# Posted on March 17th 2011 by Jim Younger
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
It might still warrant attention as a two part reel, Ill grant you that.
# Posted on March 17th 2011 by ...
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Do I remember right that there's a two-part version on that Dolores Keane record that I haven't listened to in about five or ten years? Certainly not the extended dance mix that Kevin plays, anyway.
# Posted on March 17th 2011 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
You mean "trance" mix?
# Posted on March 17th 2011 by ...
Re: How would you compare Michael Coleman and Kevin Burke's recordings of Lord Gordons reel?paying great attention to the accompaniment!
Trance, or stupor, or whatever you please, sor.
# Posted on March 17th 2011 by Jon Kiparsky