Musing what to say to Briggfoot on the subject of learning guitar. A number of sensible suggestions have been made on that thread, and I considered whether to add one or two of my own.
The trouble is that at the end of the day I tend to prefer ITM without accompaniment instruments. The music doesn't need it (indeed I would say nearly always sounds better without it). Too often the music suffers, swamped by an excess of thrashing and banging. The subtlety of the music's internal rhythms tends to be glossed over and lost, and the result is wallpaper music which all sounds the same.
I would acknowledge that there are some guitarists who can blend well with and lift the music. Dennis Cahill would be one. But in my experience these are rare individuals - in the single percentage figures.
Dead right. Most of the music was composed without backing, though if you read Hardy,(accepting ,perhaps herectically that much of the traditional music in these Isles is from a common & mixed up heritage, it's what the Irish did with it that counts)even in the 1820's there was always some eejit ready to jump in with a tambourine or even a "Serpent"(bass bassoon thing.
Ed does your view also extend to bouzoukis, citterns, mandolas & mandolins playing chords, fiddles who play harmonies & what about the left hand of the box?!
I wasn't going to learn guitar but then I saw an old battered one in a charity shop for a tenner. Can't play it yet, but really want to try traditional music on it, but as a melody instrument rather than accompaniment. What are people's views on this? Are there any sessions where this is done?
Haylien
Try listening to Tony McManus, the absolute master of finger picked tune playing on the guitar, his website has good samples.
Interestingly, all the great guitar accompanists (Dennis Cahill, Steve Cooney,Arty McGlyn, Dathi Sproul) can play tunes brilliantly though you'll almost never hear them playing them on the guitar in a session context. I think that without their staggering technique (McManus in particular) it's incredibly difficult to gain fluidity over the big stretches.
Of course that's not a reason not to try as it's a lot of fun & great for your technique. Also, it's the very best way to learn sympathetic backing (should you choose to) based on the real harmonic structures of the music rather than one's imported from rock, which is the usual root of the problems with backers.
It's worth trying to learn tunes in different tunings though I think EADGBE is the most efficient if the least forgiving of mistakes. Flat picking is easier but "finger style" sounds more natural & fluid.
I like subtle guitar accompaniment, too, Ed and I also like unaccompanied traditional music (and this, Todd, most definitely extends to the left hand of most accordions). There's a Scottish guitarist called Ross Martin who plays as sensitively as Dennis Cahill, but, yes, those guys do seem to be few and far between. I do have a weakness for jangly, 7th fret guitar chords, uncomplicated, which can make the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end and can make a really lovely, bittersweet melody out of an apparently ordinary one. Maybe the problem with a lot of guitar accompanying is that the players tend to make it too complicated (perhaps to alleviate the boredom of generally only using 3 chords).
Haylien, another brilliant Scottish player to look out for is Anna Massie, fairly new on the scene and definitely with the potential to give Tony McManus a run for his money. She has an album out now -'Glad Company' - which is very much worth listening to.
I think that the melodies can be made more exciting by good skillful accompaniment, ie guitar, mandola, but can just as easily be ruined by tasteless and bad acc.
I'd go so far as to say the good accs are every bit as skilled and talented as the top melody players. Pity they're so scarce.
Well, if you're learning guitar and want to play Irish, there are some helpful hints from a Jazz book I own that I try to stick with.
"You know the tune fully when:
You have memorized the melody in single notes, in every octave.
You have memorized and can play all the chord changes in at least 3 areas of the fingerboard.
You can play the chord changes in any key.
You have spent time improvising over the changes. The problem spots have been ironed out, and you can navigate the changes competently.
You can play it at any tempo."
These are pretty lofty goals, but aspire to rise above the tired old hippy "kumbaya" school of accompaniment. Most the smack "melody" players talk about guitars in sessions is rooted in the idea that the accompanists don't "know" the tunes and thus make mistakes in mode and/or key - or that the accompanists don't suffer sufficiently in the learning of the tunes because they only learn the changes.
Chris Smith's "Accompanying Celtic Music for All Instrumentalists" is an excellent source for learning to do more with your accompaniment than just banging on block chords all night.
It's amazing how effective a "vague harmonic noise" can be as a flavoring for the tunes if said noise is applied sparingly and with intimate knowledge of the tune you're playing.
Aye, picking on us guitarists again? Nothing on the telly tonight, eh?
Part of being a halfway decent musician of any stripe is knowing how to play sensitively with other musicians, and knowing when NOT to play. As a long-time ITM guitarist who has played with a few of the big names in ITM now and then, I'll freely admit there are some tunes that don't really like accompaniment. For those, unless I really know what the melody is doing, or I've worked out something decent ahead of time, I'll just hang my arms freely and sip my beer. Clueless guitar players drive the clued ones as crazy as anyone else. But for the rest, if you know what you're doing, it doesn't ruin a tune to have some tasteful guitar backup.
And yes, I'm learning melodies on guitar too. And octave mandolin, and banjo, and even fiddle. Helps me understand what the melody is doing, and develops the ear.
Anything good these days is often rare. Good taste and restraint are not restricted to those who play melody, and they are always in demand anywhere. Now go pick on the bodhran players...
It is always the same every time a discussion on guitar accompaniment rears its head. Anecdotal stories of the 'guitarist from hell' abound and sure there are quite a few around. But then even that is slightly subjective.
I have heard what I thought was a terrible guitar accompaniment only to hear some melody player compliment the playing.
Bad accompaniment is just as frustrating to guitarists who are struggling to get it right every time (or butt out). Generally I feel the standard of accompaniment is improving everywhere.
The age old argument is whether you like music just unaccompanied (regardless of who might be on hand such as Daithi Sproule or the like) or not. This is personal but it does seem that most audiences seem to like a bit of both in concert. In a session a good guitar can help keep everyone together - guitarists are not the only ones who are occasionally guilty of not listening carefully enough to those around them. Nonetheless a good session can really rock on without any guitarists (or bodhrans).
Finally be gentle on us guitarists who are trying our best to add something positive - remember that (according to a gentleman from Mayo) we are all of low self-esteem.
Who was it that said 'harmony is melody stacked vertically and melody is just harmony stretched out horizontally'?
That's it for my 3-chord trick.
Cheers
There is noething worse than 10 guitars thrashing about @ a session, drowning out the lead instruments, each player desperately watching someonelse for the chord changes [and missing them].
But, a session is no place for a fingerstyle guitarist, unless its a round-the-table amd pretty quiet. That's why I play the mandolin as well - to learn the tunes and positively join in!!
I think backing should be limited to one of each instrument - have as many lead instruments as yopu like.
I (personally) reckon that a session with 10 fiddles, or 10 flutes, or 10 uilleann pipes, or 10 banjos, or 10 bodhrans, or 10 piano accordions would be just as bad as a session with 10 guitars, because they'd all be playing in different rhythms and their own different settings. I'm happier with 5, 6, 7 different instruments, in tune, everybody listening to each other, and a few pints of Guinness on the table. Give me that scenario any day.
Yes, you also get lots of "clueless" fiddle and flute players too who either don't, can't, or won't play the tune and insist on "jamming" or improvising their way through it. Sometimes, perhaps, they know the tune very well and find it too boring to play normally. In that case, they should have a rest.
Sorry, I keep bringing this scenario up but it's one of my pet hates in traditional music.
Well,it aint gona change,in fact it`s something that`s being developed
gradually.It doesn`t not suit every playing situation,due to the sensitive,conservative nature of the supposed,shoulds and shouldn`ts of this music,but it has to be a collective thing to work right or,it can sound pretty shetty.But,as a player,I cannot,not improvise,and the extent one would do it would be to do with either taste,ability to do so,and who you are playing with.
So,tell it to Tommy Potts.
Improvisation has always been a part of this music ,and as the music changes,as it always has ,and will,so will the things people do with it, as new opportunities arise from it,a natural human reaction to a situation,oh ,and back to guitarists...............
Sometimes you have to go through a period of bad taste to get to the place you want to be,blah,blah,blllaaaaaaahhhh
"taste, ability to do so, and who you are playing with".
This is all important. I'm not against improvisation or innovation as such but it has to be appropriate and tasteful.
I guess the distinction here is between "improvising variations on a tune you know", and "trying to improvise in the sense of 'noodle' a tune you don't".
One thing that Donough touched on briefly - the one who suffers most from too many guitarists is the guitarist trying to play something good!
I quite like the sound of guitarists flatpicking a fiddle tune for example, you can hear them OK on a good guitar in a quiet session, but one loud strummer can kill a single note player. However a few guitars playing single notes in unison can be quite a strong sound.
It's very nice if you get to a session early when the place is quiet or perhaps late when there's just a few at a lock in, to hear what some of these beautiful guitars you see at sessions really sound like. That's the shame of it : sometimes when I look round at a session, there's more money tied up in guitars than all the rest of the instruments put together.
If I had a rule for guitars in groups, it would be "many leads (playing the same tune of course!), one rhythm"
Yes, I agree with that. However, there are cases where some players will turn a tune into something which is almost unrecognizable-almost a different tune. I find this particularly annoying with "slow airs" where they add lots of unecessary "twiddly bits". If they think that the original tune is so boring, they shouldn't play it at all.
Ooffff, you reckon worse than 2? I reckon you could be right y'know, cuz with no.3 there's probably also show-off-look-at-me-factor in the mixture, which compounds the naffness of the tasteless variations themselves.
taste etc.?
I`ve realised that over the years i`ve ruined sessions for some other people as a musician that improvises and that was interested in improvisation jazz/classical,and what I and some people around me at the time played,was pretty much chaos and technical bullshit.But taste is different for everyone.what is too much for one person is perfectly ok for another,
so the challenge then becomes political.Being able to gauge the situation,who you are playing with,and in some cases there would be very little room to move outside the tune,depending on,lets say,the conversation at hand.When you`re young,this kinda stuff can be quite testosteronic,but if treated as carefully as learning the tune itself,it
can become something worth looking into.You have to know what the guitarist/bouzouki player is doing chordally/or the mode(s)the tune is/are in,this means having a knowledge or sense of harmony,something thats a big problem and major divide between chordal and melody players,and in most cases both partys have a limited knowledge of the harmony of the music they are playing,offtimes leading to harmonically incorrect w§§king...
(3,2,1??)
I can only imagine.
Some interesting reactions. Contrary to the impressions of one or two, I'm not interested in picking on people. My remarks are concern the music itself, and my view of what works and what doesn't.
Maybe some concrete examples are useful as an illustration. Consider the following recordings:
"The Star above the Garter" Dennis Murphy and Julia Clifford
"The South West Wind" Peadar O'Loughlin and Ronan Browne
"Kitty Lie Over" Mick O'Brien and Caoimhin O Raghallaigh
"I gCnoc na Grai" Noel Hill and Tony MacMahon
"The Sliabh Luachra Fiddle Master" Padraig O'Keeffe
As well as the absence of guitar (or any other) accompaniment what links these recordings is the great rhythm in the music. But specifically this is a rhythm and feel that comes from the playing of the tunes themselves - not from some outside source. In my view the music is the better for it.
Does anyone think these recordings would (or could) have been improved by the addition of guitar accompaniment?
I suppose my difficulty is with the sheer ubiquity of such accompaniment. If it's applied sparingly and sensitively it can work. But too often guitar is seen as an essential component. Which acts to render the music bland and samey. I like gravy with a Sunday roast. But gravy on everything just gets tedious.
It boils down to personal likes and dislikes in the end. I play mandola (backing) in sessions, and some of the people I play with hate backing and play with me because they're tolerating me cuz I can go to the bar to get their drinks while they're playing tunes. Others in the session seem just to like backing and will kick me in the shins if I'm not accompanying, even if I don't know what I'm doing and just playing a pile of scheidt.
Ed, it's an interesting choice of recordings you made to illustrate your point. In each one there is a certain amount of "accompaniment", so to speak, to the actual melody on these discs. With Denis Murphy, Julia Clifford and Padraig O'Keefe you have exponents of the "singing" Kerry style of fiddling where there is a lot of double-stopping/droning. Indeed this is precisely the style emulated by Caoimhín O'Raghallaigh. Coupled with Mick O'Brien's drones and regulators, you could say that there is a lot more than just the melody going on here. The same could be said for the Noel Hill/Tony McMahon recording.
So it seems there is a place for accompaniment or harmony even in the absence of a guitar.
Yeah. I've never got the whole melody _versus_ harmony thing. They go together and always have done. The melodies are based around a harmonic system. Like for example K:Ador |A2eA cAeA| is melody based round a chord of A minor... oh dear I'm starting to have deja-pedantic-vu with this thread...
I suppose I could have picked a better pseudonym.
yes,some people play in way that needs no accompaniment,
and would be worse off with it.
Tommy Peoples loves to play with a guitar etc.but he`s incredibly difficult to back ,according to sources.
I`m going to disappear and re-appear as somebody new,
someone i can love,someone untracable,
Sam O`skip ,heavily loaded ,or something
Conan: Actually this was a random(ish) sample of recordings which I happen to have listened to recently.
My point is not to do with harmony in music. This music obviously has innate harmony. Even in O'Keeffe's recording (which, barring one or two tracks, is solo) this is clear. And as you point out, devices such as the use of drones / regs will also contribute to this.
To me these recordings are good examples of what happens when you let the music itself carry the rhythm. To my ears what emerges is more subtle and vibrant. To overlay these performances with guitar accompaniment would, I suggest, have been superfluous at best. At worst it would have muddied and obcured these aspects of the music.
Conan
You are comeing close to the truth about ITM. The drone is the thing. I try to emulate a drone when I play backup. I think that special something, that bit of nyah is the drone. Your Sean Nos singers create a drone as they sing. Pipers of all types have drones and are judged by thier use of them. Your fiddles try to create a drone with certain techniques. Besides the on the fly embelishment, the drone is what makes it ITM. I think that is why the more slack tuned instrument are more widely prefered because they are more droney than what your typical guitarist plays. Your alternate tuneings are often refered to as droney. So when playing backup guitar think DRONE and you will find yourself much more appreciated.
Ed, I agree - I doubt they could have been improved with the addition of guitar. However there are definitely some solo recordings around which would doubtless have benefited from some accompanying instrument - it depends on the musician in question, and on the taste of the listener.
Well Fern, I like the sound of a drone along with a tune. Maybe it helps people to understand where the tune is leading, or emphasises some phrase if the drone isn't a dominant; perhaps it helps people tune in to the harmonics of the melody instrument. Whatever it is, it works for me!
That's just daft. How can you say a recording could be improved by adding another instrument. I bet you'd like to add the strumming yourself? Post mortem?
Anyone here heard of Arty McGlynn? Listen to him back a fiddle player or piper and then say you don't agree with guitar accompaniment in ITM. Same goes for Tommy O'Sullivan, Steve Cooney, Denis Cahill and many other.
I shut down a guitar wanger myself one night. He was the boyfriend of a local student fiddler. He just didn't have a single clue, so I told him politely but firmly that he needed to stop playing and simply listen to the tune. He smiled and did so.
This was just one night. I'm a scientist by training, and what there's a lot of going on here is the use of isolated anecdotes to draw general conclusions for those who practice an art form: music.
Sure, there's a lot of bad guitar players, just like there's a lot of bad musicians of all stripes and instruments. Just pull them aside--and how did they get into your circle in the first place?--and tell them quietly but firmly the rules of the road. Bad musicians need to be dealt with immediately and firmly, or they'll kill a session, or prevent a good one from even starting. (The guitar player who I had to nip in the bud was at a session attended by none other than Liz Knowles and Kieran O'Kane. They decided to leave their instruments in their cases, which left us all a bit disappointed.)
Taste is not meaningless. Tell that to any decent musician's face, and they'll laugh at you.
Stevieguitar, the word "taste" itself isn't meaningless of course. It's just that "any decent musician" would define "taste" differently. It's subjective, and so it makes little sense for one musician to use the words "good/bad taste" to make a serious point in a discussion with another musician, like I tried to do in my earlier post.
P.browne, if you are serious about disappearing, do you mind if I ask you about your reasons for doing so? Purely out of interest... Is it because you think people will pick on you, or treat you differently than "just another person with an online opinion"? You don't even have to answer this - I'm just really curious...
Also, stevieguitar, the fact that you wrote "tell that to any _decent_ musician's face..." is a bit dodgy in that it logically implies that:
1) All decent musicians think that "taste is not meaningless", and would laugh in the face of anyone who said otherwise.
2) Anyone of the opinion that "taste is meaningless" has to be something _other_ than a "decent musician"
3) Anyone _other_ than a "decent musician" is someone to be laughed at (derided?) by anyone who _is_ a "decent musician"
4) I am not a "decent musician".
The point is: ensemble playing is about listening and reacting to what you hear from others. Solo playing is not dependent on this. You can't just add stuff because you think it just might sound nicer. That's daft
Why not. It's all about texture, and likes and dislikes. Daft doesn't come into it. If you have 2 accordion players, one of whom can also play guitar, I would rather listen to the one accordion accompanied by guitar, assuming that the person who could play both was of roughly equal playing ability on both instruments.
But if it's about "listening and reacting to what you hear from others" then surely you have to decide whether or not to add (or remove)a guitar accompaniment. Not so that it might sound "nicer" necessarily but whether or not it was appropriate. The same would apply to other instruments, although I would probably agree that you can't get enough fiddles
If you can decide that there's times when the guitar(or another instrument)should be left out, then surely you have to make a conscious decision to include it on occasion. Sorry, if I'm not making sense.
you miss the point. It's not about adding or subtracting instruments because you are fond of their timbre. It's about adding or subtracting musicians because of how they interact
On a guitar playing note,
The best chordal players that I`ve played with,or know,are all proficient tune players aswell,either on another instrument or their guitar or bouzouki,because they know what a melody player looks for in a an accompanist.
I think alot of gtr/bzki players,even reconised good ones can still have an inability to nail or recognise the entire harmony of certain tunes,but just continue to play there own misinterpretation of the mode or harmony at hand,which in turn can be quite frustrating,so either you tell them "it`s an A on that part!",
or you grin and bare.If you say something,three basic things can happen,
1.They are happy to have been told the chord.
2."who is he to tell me what chords to play"and continue to play the wrong chord ,assuming their right.Due to the fact that melody players seldome know much about harmony,and what would they know ?,,other than the shock of being told what chord to play"that`s my job,i`ll not be told what to play"etc.
but ,it is their job to know,but I only know a handful of people who can actualy do accurately.
3.They do believe you ,but continue in spite,coz,again,they aint takin no direction from no melody player,damaged ego etc.
So ,for me,the vast majority of accompanist have an ability to piss me off.
my advice to gtr/bzki ists is "learn your modes and to recognise them instantly,and rapid changes between them,and possible alternative chords for same sections.
and learn to follow the tune closely,every conture,take note of every accidental every possible chord change,this doesnt mean you have to play every possible chord change in a tune,but you should be aware of it.
The responsibility you have is to ,
1.keep the time,and play corosponding rhythms.
2.control the harmonic feel of the tune.bassline etc,as humans hear from the bottom up,so the lowest note in a chord is very important.
3.be sensitive to different types of players,one example being cooney,
listen to him with begley,then hayes,then dermot byrne.
three different approaches.
hope this wasnt too much,
i love the sound of a decent guitarist accompning tunes, which is why i now want to learn guitar.
i think the tunes sound pants when there is only a melody line and no backing, especially if different instruments are playing different ornamentations that clash abit together. the guitar strumming etc helps to keep things in time.
i think the guitarists are cool aswell, as if they dont know a tune, they can play very quietly to themselves to work something out, whereas with the pipes or whistle, mistakes stand out like as sore thumb.
its the same with any musician. if they are not profficient, then it can annoy the musicians around them. a poor piper making mistakes is more annoying that a poor guitarist, as the guitar tends to be more subtle.
alot of contempory irish music (is that the right word??) uses guitars which makes the music exciting.
Taste...aside from my bad writing, it certainly is subjective, rather than objective, much less measureable, but that doesn't make it meaningless. Jazz musicians strive for taste. Blowing a bunch of notes, like many beginners or young hot players do, can be technically proficient, but it can lack a certain "landscape" or pattern that is pleasing to the ear, or says something profound. I think that writers, especially poets, are sensitive to this. Visual artists can do the same. A canvas full of paint can be meaningless, whereas a canvas with certain colors and patterns just so can say something perhaps a more eloquent. One of the best acoustic guitar solos I ever recorded--I am NOT trying to set myself as an judge of taste--was very minimal in its choice of notes and phrasing, and I was quite pleased with the final result.
Sensitive, well-trained musicians realize the value of spaces as well as notes, and good guitar players do so equally. They try not to play too much, too loud, or too many chords (all of which I've done on occasion, and hopefully have gotten past). Call it taste, choice, balance, beauty, whatever, but don't call it meaningless. It's what makes music good, in my opinion.
"i think the tunes sound pants when there is only a melody line and no backing, especially if different instruments are playing different ornamentations that clash abit together. the guitar strumming etc helps to keep things in time."
I think this is why a lot of sessions could do without a guitar player. But that's just my taste, of course.
Taste, choice, balance, beauty... we can both use the words Stevie, but we'll not be talking about the same thing. Your "balanced" and "beautiful" might be my "boring" and "twee".
So when I tried to make a point about "tasteless variations", there's a good chance that a lot of readers didn't know what I _meant_ by that. How can anyone else know what I think is or isn't a "tasteless variation"? So, as I said, it's "kind of meaningless" to have said it in the first place. I was talking bullschitt.
"Chris Smith's "Accompanying Celtic Music for All Instrumentalists" is an excellent source for learning to do more with your accompaniment than just banging on block chords all night.
It's amazing how effective a "vague harmonic noise" can be as a flavoring for the tunes if said noise is applied sparingly and with intimate knowledge of the tune you're playing."
Ed writes:
"Maybe some concrete examples are useful as an illustration. Consider the following recordings:
"The Star above the Garter" Dennis Murphy and Julia Clifford
"The South West Wind" Peadar O'Loughlin and Ronan Browne
"Kitty Lie Over" Mick O'Brien and Caoimhin O Raghallaigh
"I gCnoc na Grai" Noel Hill and Tony MacMahon
"The Sliabh Luachra Fiddle Master" Padraig O'Keeffe
As well as the absence of guitar (or any other) accompaniment what links these recordings is the great rhythm in the music. But specifically this is a rhythm and feel that comes from the playing of the tunes themselves - not from some outside source. In my view the music is the better for it.
Does anyone think these recordings would (or could) have been improved by the addition of guitar accompaniment?"
Conversely, would the Sliabh Notes' take on the Sliabh Luachra style
be better withouth Tommy O'Sullivan's guitar?
Or would Patrick Street profit from Ged Foley's absence?
Do you listen to Martin Hays and try to tune out Dennis Cahill?
STV Culchie asked if I had heard Chris play in a session.
Chris Smith? Can't say I've had the pleasure, but the book is great.
But STV is right in that that post probably should have come in the other thread. My bad.
THIS thread isn't about learning guitar, but rather about melody players bellyaching that their tradition is sullied by upstart accompaniment, which it has suffered under for only, oh, 80 years or so.
And you know, I really miss that two field farming system and those peasants really bolluxed it up about 1000 years ago by adding a third field. I wish we could get back to that lost tradition.
The point is that taste is subjective, and some people are always going to whine about ITM having chordal accompaniment (piano, mandola, guitar, harp...whatever), and others are going to really love that sound. There is a place for it - as long as people want to play ITM with accompaniment and people want to hear it with accompaniment, it will continue to be done. I think that this tradition is big enough to support both approaches without "deteriorating."
I think Randall Bays, who played on the first Martin Hayes album, deserves a mention as a great accompanist. In some respects I prefer him to Denis Cahill.
ITM and Guitars
ITM and Guitars
Musing what to say to Briggfoot on the subject of learning guitar. A number of sensible suggestions have been made on that thread, and I considered whether to add one or two of my own.
The trouble is that at the end of the day I tend to prefer ITM without accompaniment instruments. The music doesn't need it (indeed I would say nearly always sounds better without it). Too often the music suffers, swamped by an excess of thrashing and banging. The subtlety of the music's internal rhythms tends to be glossed over and lost, and the result is wallpaper music which all sounds the same.
I would acknowledge that there are some guitarists who can blend well with and lift the music. Dennis Cahill would be one. But in my experience these are rare individuals - in the single percentage figures.
Do others concur - or am I alone in this view?!
Ed.
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Presumin Ed
Re: ITM and Guitars
Agree all the way!
Trevor
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by lazyhound
Re: ITM and Guitars
Dead right. Most of the music was composed without backing, though if you read Hardy,(accepting ,perhaps herectically that much of the traditional music in these Isles is from a common & mixed up heritage, it's what the Irish did with it that counts)even in the 1820's there was always some eejit ready to jump in with a tambourine or even a "Serpent"(bass bassoon thing.
Ed does your view also extend to bouzoukis, citterns, mandolas & mandolins playing chords, fiddles who play harmonies & what about the left hand of the box?!
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Leftheris
Re: ITM and Guitars
Well, I guess you could be a total purist and have nothing but harps
.
So what's the ideal? Nothing but fiddles, flutes and whistles?
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by pakooper
Re: ITM and Guitars
I wasn't going to learn guitar but then I saw an old battered one in a charity shop for a tenner. Can't play it yet, but really want to try traditional music on it, but as a melody instrument rather than accompaniment. What are people's views on this? Are there any sessions where this is done?
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by haylien
Re: ITM and Guitars
Haylien
Try listening to Tony McManus, the absolute master of finger picked tune playing on the guitar, his website has good samples.
Interestingly, all the great guitar accompanists (Dennis Cahill, Steve Cooney,Arty McGlyn, Dathi Sproul) can play tunes brilliantly though you'll almost never hear them playing them on the guitar in a session context. I think that without their staggering technique (McManus in particular) it's incredibly difficult to gain fluidity over the big stretches.
Of course that's not a reason not to try as it's a lot of fun & great for your technique. Also, it's the very best way to learn sympathetic backing (should you choose to) based on the real harmonic structures of the music rather than one's imported from rock, which is the usual root of the problems with backers.
It's worth trying to learn tunes in different tunings though I think EADGBE is the most efficient if the least forgiving of mistakes. Flat picking is easier but "finger style" sounds more natural & fluid.
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Leftheris
Re: ITM and Guitars
I like subtle guitar accompaniment, too, Ed and I also like unaccompanied traditional music (and this, Todd, most definitely extends to the left hand of most accordions). There's a Scottish guitarist called Ross Martin who plays as sensitively as Dennis Cahill, but, yes, those guys do seem to be few and far between. I do have a weakness for jangly, 7th fret guitar chords, uncomplicated, which can make the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end and can make a really lovely, bittersweet melody out of an apparently ordinary one. Maybe the problem with a lot of guitar accompanying is that the players tend to make it too complicated (perhaps to alleviate the boredom of generally only using 3 chords).
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by west-coaster
Re: ITM and Guitars
Haylien, another brilliant Scottish player to look out for is Anna Massie, fairly new on the scene and definitely with the potential to give Tony McManus a run for his money. She has an album out now -'Glad Company' - which is very much worth listening to.
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by west-coaster
Re: ITM and Guitars
I think that the melodies can be made more exciting by good skillful accompaniment, ie guitar, mandola, but can just as easily be ruined by tasteless and bad acc.
I'd go so far as to say the good accs are every bit as skilled and talented as the top melody players. Pity they're so scarce.
Jim
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Worldfiddler
Re: ITM and Guitars
In a session of 12 guitarists, 8 bodhrans, 3 flutes and a 4 fiddles. Give me just the melody any day.
But I think one good guitar player and one good bodhran player add layers that enhance the music (even if it's not purely traditional).
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by scottcantrell
Re: ITM and Guitars
Well, if you're learning guitar and want to play Irish, there are some helpful hints from a Jazz book I own that I try to stick with.
"You know the tune fully when:
You have memorized the melody in single notes, in every octave.
You have memorized and can play all the chord changes in at least 3 areas of the fingerboard.
You can play the chord changes in any key.
You have spent time improvising over the changes. The problem spots have been ironed out, and you can navigate the changes competently.
You can play it at any tempo."
These are pretty lofty goals, but aspire to rise above the tired old hippy "kumbaya" school of accompaniment. Most the smack "melody" players talk about guitars in sessions is rooted in the idea that the accompanists don't "know" the tunes and thus make mistakes in mode and/or key - or that the accompanists don't suffer sufficiently in the learning of the tunes because they only learn the changes.
Chris Smith's "Accompanying Celtic Music for All Instrumentalists" is an excellent source for learning to do more with your accompaniment than just banging on block chords all night.
It's amazing how effective a "vague harmonic noise" can be as a flavoring for the tunes if said noise is applied sparingly and with intimate knowledge of the tune you're playing.
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by KC Gross
Re: ITM and Guitars
Aye, picking on us guitarists again? Nothing on the telly tonight, eh?
Part of being a halfway decent musician of any stripe is knowing how to play sensitively with other musicians, and knowing when NOT to play. As a long-time ITM guitarist who has played with a few of the big names in ITM now and then, I'll freely admit there are some tunes that don't really like accompaniment. For those, unless I really know what the melody is doing, or I've worked out something decent ahead of time, I'll just hang my arms freely and sip my beer. Clueless guitar players drive the clued ones as crazy as anyone else. But for the rest, if you know what you're doing, it doesn't ruin a tune to have some tasteful guitar backup.
And yes, I'm learning melodies on guitar too. And octave mandolin, and banjo, and even fiddle. Helps me understand what the melody is doing, and develops the ear.
Anything good these days is often rare. Good taste and restraint are not restricted to those who play melody, and they are always in demand anywhere. Now go pick on the bodhran players...
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by High-strung
Re: ITM and Guitars
Good on you Stevie!
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by KC Gross
Re: ITM and Guitars
It is always the same every time a discussion on guitar accompaniment rears its head. Anecdotal stories of the 'guitarist from hell' abound and sure there are quite a few around. But then even that is slightly subjective.
I have heard what I thought was a terrible guitar accompaniment only to hear some melody player compliment the playing.
Bad accompaniment is just as frustrating to guitarists who are struggling to get it right every time (or butt out). Generally I feel the standard of accompaniment is improving everywhere.
The age old argument is whether you like music just unaccompanied (regardless of who might be on hand such as Daithi Sproule or the like) or not. This is personal but it does seem that most audiences seem to like a bit of both in concert. In a session a good guitar can help keep everyone together - guitarists are not the only ones who are occasionally guilty of not listening carefully enough to those around them. Nonetheless a good session can really rock on without any guitarists (or bodhrans).
Finally be gentle on us guitarists who are trying our best to add something positive - remember that (according to a gentleman from Mayo) we are all of low self-esteem.
Who was it that said 'harmony is melody stacked vertically and melody is just harmony stretched out horizontally'?
That's it for my 3-chord trick.
Cheers
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Donough
Re: ITM and Guitars
Hear hear Donough.
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Dow
Re: ITM and Guitars
Im a guitarist and Im 50/50 on this one.
There is noething worse than 10 guitars thrashing about @ a session, drowning out the lead instruments, each player desperately watching someonelse for the chord changes [and missing them].
But, a session is no place for a fingerstyle guitarist, unless its a round-the-table amd pretty quiet. That's why I play the mandolin as well - to learn the tunes and positively join in!!
I think backing should be limited to one of each instrument - have as many lead instruments as yopu like.
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by allan21
Re: ITM and Guitars
I (personally) reckon that a session with 10 fiddles, or 10 flutes, or 10 uilleann pipes, or 10 banjos, or 10 bodhrans, or 10 piano accordions would be just as bad as a session with 10 guitars, because they'd all be playing in different rhythms and their own different settings. I'm happier with 5, 6, 7 different instruments, in tune, everybody listening to each other, and a few pints of Guinness on the table. Give me that scenario any day.
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Dow
Re: ITM and Guitars
Yes, you also get lots of "clueless" fiddle and flute players too who either don't, can't, or won't play the tune and insist on "jamming" or improvising their way through it. Sometimes, perhaps, they know the tune very well and find it too boring to play normally. In that case, they should have a rest.
Sorry, I keep bringing this scenario up but it's one of my pet hates in traditional music.
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Johannes J
Re: ITM and Guitars
Well,it aint gona change,in fact it`s something that`s being developed
gradually.It doesn`t not suit every playing situation,due to the sensitive,conservative nature of the supposed,shoulds and shouldn`ts of this music,but it has to be a collective thing to work right or,it can sound pretty shetty.But,as a player,I cannot,not improvise,and the extent one would do it would be to do with either taste,ability to do so,and who you are playing with.
So,tell it to Tommy Potts.
Improvisation has always been a part of this music ,and as the music changes,as it always has ,and will,so will the things people do with it, as new opportunities arise from it,a natural human reaction to a situation,oh ,and back to guitarists...............
Sometimes you have to go through a period of bad taste to get to the place you want to be,blah,blah,blllaaaaaaahhhh
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by P.browne
Re: ITM and Guitars
"taste, ability to do so, and who you are playing with".
This is all important. I'm not against improvisation or innovation as such but it has to be appropriate and tasteful.
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Johannes J
Re: ITM and Guitars
I guess the distinction here is between "improvising variations on a tune you know", and "trying to improvise in the sense of 'noodle' a tune you don't".
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Dow
Re: ITM and Guitars
One thing that Donough touched on briefly - the one who suffers most from too many guitarists is the guitarist trying to play something good!
I quite like the sound of guitarists flatpicking a fiddle tune for example, you can hear them OK on a good guitar in a quiet session, but one loud strummer can kill a single note player. However a few guitars playing single notes in unison can be quite a strong sound.
It's very nice if you get to a session early when the place is quiet or perhaps late when there's just a few at a lock in, to hear what some of these beautiful guitars you see at sessions really sound like. That's the shame of it : sometimes when I look round at a session, there's more money tied up in guitars than all the rest of the instruments put together.
If I had a rule for guitars in groups, it would be "many leads (playing the same tune of course!), one rhythm"
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Bren
Re: ITM and Guitars
Yes, I agree with that. However, there are cases where some players will turn a tune into something which is almost unrecognizable-almost a different tune. I find this particularly annoying with "slow airs" where they add lots of unecessary "twiddly bits". If they think that the original tune is so boring, they shouldn't play it at all.
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Johannes J
Re: ITM and Guitars
Sorry, Bren. We must have posted at the same time.
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Johannes J
Re: ITM and Guitars
Oh, you mean "going over the top trying too hard to improvise exotically naff variations on a tune you know", that's no.3 - I missed it out
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Dow
Re: ITM and Guitars
Yeah, No 3 is the worst.
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Johannes J
Re: ITM and Guitars
Ooffff, you reckon worse than 2? I reckon you could be right y'know, cuz with no.3 there's probably also show-off-look-at-me-factor in the mixture, which compounds the naffness of the tasteless variations themselves.
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Dow
Re: ITM and Guitars
Nobody mentioned Ed Boyd yet - he's a lovely sensitive player. Beautiful ear for harmony. (Plays with Flook and Tola Custy, among others.)
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Nell
Re: ITM and Guitars
taste etc.?
I`ve realised that over the years i`ve ruined sessions for some other people as a musician that improvises and that was interested in improvisation jazz/classical,and what I and some people around me at the time played,was pretty much chaos and technical bullshit.But taste is different for everyone.what is too much for one person is perfectly ok for another,
so the challenge then becomes political.Being able to gauge the situation,who you are playing with,and in some cases there would be very little room to move outside the tune,depending on,lets say,the conversation at hand.When you`re young,this kinda stuff can be quite testosteronic,but if treated as carefully as learning the tune itself,it
can become something worth looking into.You have to know what the guitarist/bouzouki player is doing chordally/or the mode(s)the tune is/are in,this means having a knowledge or sense of harmony,something thats a big problem and major divide between chordal and melody players,and in most cases both partys have a limited knowledge of the harmony of the music they are playing,offtimes leading to harmonically incorrect w§§king...
(3,2,1??)
I can only imagine.
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by P.browne
Re: ITM and Guitars
What instrument do you play? Or is that something we should be able to guess
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Dow
Re: ITM and Guitars
My not-so-wild-stab-in-the-dark is button accordion.
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Conán McDonnell
Re: ITM and Guitars
LOL
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Dow
Re: ITM and Guitars
That's absolutely right though, "taste/tasteful/tasteless" is subjective, and therefore kind of meaningless.
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Dow
Re: ITM and Guitars
Some interesting reactions. Contrary to the impressions of one or two, I'm not interested in picking on people. My remarks are concern the music itself, and my view of what works and what doesn't.
Maybe some concrete examples are useful as an illustration. Consider the following recordings:
"The Star above the Garter" Dennis Murphy and Julia Clifford
"The South West Wind" Peadar O'Loughlin and Ronan Browne
"Kitty Lie Over" Mick O'Brien and Caoimhin O Raghallaigh
"I gCnoc na Grai" Noel Hill and Tony MacMahon
"The Sliabh Luachra Fiddle Master" Padraig O'Keeffe
As well as the absence of guitar (or any other) accompaniment what links these recordings is the great rhythm in the music. But specifically this is a rhythm and feel that comes from the playing of the tunes themselves - not from some outside source. In my view the music is the better for it.
Does anyone think these recordings would (or could) have been improved by the addition of guitar accompaniment?
I suppose my difficulty is with the sheer ubiquity of such accompaniment. If it's applied sparingly and sensitively it can work. But too often guitar is seen as an essential component. Which acts to render the music bland and samey. I like gravy with a Sunday roast. But gravy on everything just gets tedious.
Comments?
Ed.
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Presumin Ed
Re: ITM and Guitars
It boils down to personal likes and dislikes in the end. I play mandola (backing) in sessions, and some of the people I play with hate backing and play with me because they're tolerating me cuz I can go to the bar to get their drinks while they're playing tunes. Others in the session seem just to like backing and will kick me in the shins if I'm not accompanying, even if I don't know what I'm doing and just playing a pile of scheidt.
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Dow
Re: ITM and Guitars
Ed, it's an interesting choice of recordings you made to illustrate your point. In each one there is a certain amount of "accompaniment", so to speak, to the actual melody on these discs. With Denis Murphy, Julia Clifford and Padraig O'Keefe you have exponents of the "singing" Kerry style of fiddling where there is a lot of double-stopping/droning. Indeed this is precisely the style emulated by Caoimhín O'Raghallaigh. Coupled with Mick O'Brien's drones and regulators, you could say that there is a lot more than just the melody going on here. The same could be said for the Noel Hill/Tony McMahon recording.
So it seems there is a place for accompaniment or harmony even in the absence of a guitar.
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Conán McDonnell
Re: ITM and Guitars
Yeah. I've never got the whole melody _versus_ harmony thing. They go together and always have done. The melodies are based around a harmonic system. Like for example K:Ador |A2eA cAeA| is melody based round a chord of A minor... oh dear I'm starting to have deja-pedantic-vu with this thread...
# Posted on July 26th 2004 by Dow
Re: ITM and Guitars
I suppose I could have picked a better pseudonym.
yes,some people play in way that needs no accompaniment,
and would be worse off with it.
Tommy Peoples loves to play with a guitar etc.but he`s incredibly difficult to back ,according to sources.
I`m going to disappear and re-appear as somebody new,
someone i can love,someone untracable,
Sam O`skip ,heavily loaded ,or something
# Posted on July 27th 2004 by P.browne
Re: ITM and Guitars
Conan: Actually this was a random(ish) sample of recordings which I happen to have listened to recently.
My point is not to do with harmony in music. This music obviously has innate harmony. Even in O'Keeffe's recording (which, barring one or two tracks, is solo) this is clear. And as you point out, devices such as the use of drones / regs will also contribute to this.
To me these recordings are good examples of what happens when you let the music itself carry the rhythm. To my ears what emerges is more subtle and vibrant. To overlay these performances with guitar accompaniment would, I suggest, have been superfluous at best. At worst it would have muddied and obcured these aspects of the music.
# Posted on July 27th 2004 by Presumin Ed
Re: ITM and Guitars
Conan
You are comeing close to the truth about ITM. The drone is the thing. I try to emulate a drone when I play backup. I think that special something, that bit of nyah is the drone. Your Sean Nos singers create a drone as they sing. Pipers of all types have drones and are judged by thier use of them. Your fiddles try to create a drone with certain techniques. Besides the on the fly embelishment, the drone is what makes it ITM. I think that is why the more slack tuned instrument are more widely prefered because they are more droney than what your typical guitarist plays. Your alternate tuneings are often refered to as droney. So when playing backup guitar think DRONE and you will find yourself much more appreciated.
# Posted on July 27th 2004 by baglady
Re: ITM and Guitars
Ed, I agree - I doubt they could have been improved with the addition of guitar. However there are definitely some solo recordings around which would doubtless have benefited from some accompanying instrument - it depends on the musician in question, and on the taste of the listener.
# Posted on July 27th 2004 by Conán McDonnell
Re: ITM and Guitars
Well Fern, I like the sound of a drone along with a tune. Maybe it helps people to understand where the tune is leading, or emphasises some phrase if the drone isn't a dominant; perhaps it helps people tune in to the harmonics of the melody instrument. Whatever it is, it works for me!
# Posted on July 27th 2004 by Conán McDonnell
Re: ITM and Guitars
That's just daft. How can you say a recording could be improved by adding another instrument. I bet you'd like to add the strumming yourself? Post mortem?
# Posted on July 27th 2004 by llig leahcim
Re: ITM and Guitars
What's you point Michael other than to insult ?
# Posted on July 27th 2004 by BegF
Re: ITM and Guitars
Anyone here heard of Arty McGlynn? Listen to him back a fiddle player or piper and then say you don't agree with guitar accompaniment in ITM. Same goes for Tommy O'Sullivan, Steve Cooney, Denis Cahill and many other.
# Posted on July 27th 2004 by man_dola2
Re: ITM and Guitars
I shut down a guitar wanger myself one night. He was the boyfriend of a local student fiddler. He just didn't have a single clue, so I told him politely but firmly that he needed to stop playing and simply listen to the tune. He smiled and did so.
This was just one night. I'm a scientist by training, and what there's a lot of going on here is the use of isolated anecdotes to draw general conclusions for those who practice an art form: music.
Sure, there's a lot of bad guitar players, just like there's a lot of bad musicians of all stripes and instruments. Just pull them aside--and how did they get into your circle in the first place?--and tell them quietly but firmly the rules of the road. Bad musicians need to be dealt with immediately and firmly, or they'll kill a session, or prevent a good one from even starting. (The guitar player who I had to nip in the bud was at a session attended by none other than Liz Knowles and Kieran O'Kane. They decided to leave their instruments in their cases, which left us all a bit disappointed.)
Taste is not meaningless. Tell that to any decent musician's face, and they'll laugh at you.
# Posted on July 27th 2004 by High-strung
Re: ITM and Guitars
Stevieguitar, the word "taste" itself isn't meaningless of course. It's just that "any decent musician" would define "taste" differently. It's subjective, and so it makes little sense for one musician to use the words "good/bad taste" to make a serious point in a discussion with another musician, like I tried to do in my earlier post.
P.browne, if you are serious about disappearing, do you mind if I ask you about your reasons for doing so? Purely out of interest... Is it because you think people will pick on you, or treat you differently than "just another person with an online opinion"? You don't even have to answer this - I'm just really curious...
# Posted on July 27th 2004 by Dow
Re: ITM and Guitars
Also, stevieguitar, the fact that you wrote "tell that to any _decent_ musician's face..." is a bit dodgy in that it logically implies that:
1) All decent musicians think that "taste is not meaningless", and would laugh in the face of anyone who said otherwise.
2) Anyone of the opinion that "taste is meaningless" has to be something _other_ than a "decent musician"
3) Anyone _other_ than a "decent musician" is someone to be laughed at (derided?) by anyone who _is_ a "decent musician"
4) I am not a "decent musician".
As it happens, I'm not, but that's not the point.
# Posted on July 27th 2004 by Dow
Re: ITM and Guitars
What about the blokes who tap along on the bar with their ring finger...?
# Posted on July 27th 2004 by Leftheris
Re: ITM and Guitars
The point is: ensemble playing is about listening and reacting to what you hear from others. Solo playing is not dependent on this. You can't just add stuff because you think it just might sound nicer. That's daft
# Posted on July 27th 2004 by llig leahcim
Re: ITM and Guitars
Why not. It's all about texture, and likes and dislikes. Daft doesn't come into it. If you have 2 accordion players, one of whom can also play guitar, I would rather listen to the one accordion accompanied by guitar, assuming that the person who could play both was of roughly equal playing ability on both instruments.
# Posted on July 27th 2004 by Dow
Re: ITM and Guitars
But if it's about "listening and reacting to what you hear from others" then surely you have to decide whether or not to add (or remove)a guitar accompaniment. Not so that it might sound "nicer" necessarily but whether or not it was appropriate. The same would apply to other instruments, although I would probably agree that you can't get enough fiddles
If you can decide that there's times when the guitar(or another instrument)should be left out, then surely you have to make a conscious decision to include it on occasion. Sorry, if I'm not making sense.
# Posted on July 27th 2004 by Johannes J
Re: ITM and Guitars
you miss the point. It's not about adding or subtracting instruments because you are fond of their timbre. It's about adding or subtracting musicians because of how they interact
# Posted on July 27th 2004 by llig leahcim
Re: ITM and Guitars
Not serious
# Posted on July 28th 2004 by P.browne
Re: ITM and Guitars
On a guitar playing note,
The best chordal players that I`ve played with,or know,are all proficient tune players aswell,either on another instrument or their guitar or bouzouki,because they know what a melody player looks for in a an accompanist.
I think alot of gtr/bzki players,even reconised good ones can still have an inability to nail or recognise the entire harmony of certain tunes,but just continue to play there own misinterpretation of the mode or harmony at hand,which in turn can be quite frustrating,so either you tell them "it`s an A on that part!",
or you grin and bare.If you say something,three basic things can happen,
1.They are happy to have been told the chord.
2."who is he to tell me what chords to play"and continue to play the wrong chord ,assuming their right.Due to the fact that melody players seldome know much about harmony,and what would they know ?,,other than the shock of being told what chord to play"that`s my job,i`ll not be told what to play"etc.
but ,it is their job to know,but I only know a handful of people who can actualy do accurately.
3.They do believe you ,but continue in spite,coz,again,they aint takin no direction from no melody player,damaged ego etc.
So ,for me,the vast majority of accompanist have an ability to piss me off.
my advice to gtr/bzki ists is "learn your modes and to recognise them instantly,and rapid changes between them,and possible alternative chords for same sections.
and learn to follow the tune closely,every conture,take note of every accidental every possible chord change,this doesnt mean you have to play every possible chord change in a tune,but you should be aware of it.
The responsibility you have is to ,
1.keep the time,and play corosponding rhythms.
2.control the harmonic feel of the tune.bassline etc,as humans hear from the bottom up,so the lowest note in a chord is very important.
3.be sensitive to different types of players,one example being cooney,
listen to him with begley,then hayes,then dermot byrne.
three different approaches.
hope this wasnt too much,
Peter
# Posted on July 28th 2004 by P.browne
Re: ITM and Guitars
sorry contour,
there`s probably more spelling mistakes anyhoo
# Posted on July 28th 2004 by P.browne
Re: ITM and Guitars
i love the sound of a decent guitarist accompning tunes, which is why i now want to learn guitar.
i think the tunes sound pants when there is only a melody line and no backing, especially if different instruments are playing different ornamentations that clash abit together. the guitar strumming etc helps to keep things in time.
i think the guitarists are cool aswell, as if they dont know a tune, they can play very quietly to themselves to work something out, whereas with the pipes or whistle, mistakes stand out like as sore thumb.
its the same with any musician. if they are not profficient, then it can annoy the musicians around them. a poor piper making mistakes is more annoying that a poor guitarist, as the guitar tends to be more subtle.
alot of contempory irish music (is that the right word??) uses guitars which makes the music exciting.
just my oppinion
all the best
andy
# Posted on July 28th 2004 by briggfoot
Re: ITM and Guitars
Taste...aside from my bad writing, it certainly is subjective, rather than objective, much less measureable, but that doesn't make it meaningless. Jazz musicians strive for taste. Blowing a bunch of notes, like many beginners or young hot players do, can be technically proficient, but it can lack a certain "landscape" or pattern that is pleasing to the ear, or says something profound. I think that writers, especially poets, are sensitive to this. Visual artists can do the same. A canvas full of paint can be meaningless, whereas a canvas with certain colors and patterns just so can say something perhaps a more eloquent. One of the best acoustic guitar solos I ever recorded--I am NOT trying to set myself as an judge of taste--was very minimal in its choice of notes and phrasing, and I was quite pleased with the final result.
Sensitive, well-trained musicians realize the value of spaces as well as notes, and good guitar players do so equally. They try not to play too much, too loud, or too many chords (all of which I've done on occasion, and hopefully have gotten past). Call it taste, choice, balance, beauty, whatever, but don't call it meaningless. It's what makes music good, in my opinion.
# Posted on July 28th 2004 by High-strung
Re: ITM and Guitars
"i think the tunes sound pants when there is only a melody line and no backing, especially if different instruments are playing different ornamentations that clash abit together. the guitar strumming etc helps to keep things in time."
I think this is why a lot of sessions could do without a guitar player. But that's just my taste, of course.
# Posted on July 28th 2004 by Gzeg
Re: ITM and Guitars
Taste, choice, balance, beauty... we can both use the words Stevie, but we'll not be talking about the same thing. Your "balanced" and "beautiful" might be my "boring" and "twee".
# Posted on July 28th 2004 by Dow
Re: ITM and Guitars
So when I tried to make a point about "tasteless variations", there's a good chance that a lot of readers didn't know what I _meant_ by that. How can anyone else know what I think is or isn't a "tasteless variation"? So, as I said, it's "kind of meaningless" to have said it in the first place. I was talking bullschitt.
# Posted on July 28th 2004 by Dow
Re: ITM and Guitars
KC Gross sez:
"Chris Smith's "Accompanying Celtic Music for All Instrumentalists" is an excellent source for learning to do more with your accompaniment than just banging on block chords all night.
It's amazing how effective a "vague harmonic noise" can be as a flavoring for the tunes if said noise is applied sparingly and with intimate knowledge of the tune you're playing."
Have you heard Chris' guitar playing in session?
stv
# Posted on July 28th 2004 by stv culchie
Re: ITM and Guitars
Ed writes:
"Maybe some concrete examples are useful as an illustration. Consider the following recordings:
"The Star above the Garter" Dennis Murphy and Julia Clifford
"The South West Wind" Peadar O'Loughlin and Ronan Browne
"Kitty Lie Over" Mick O'Brien and Caoimhin O Raghallaigh
"I gCnoc na Grai" Noel Hill and Tony MacMahon
"The Sliabh Luachra Fiddle Master" Padraig O'Keeffe
As well as the absence of guitar (or any other) accompaniment what links these recordings is the great rhythm in the music. But specifically this is a rhythm and feel that comes from the playing of the tunes themselves - not from some outside source. In my view the music is the better for it.
Does anyone think these recordings would (or could) have been improved by the addition of guitar accompaniment?"
Conversely, would the Sliabh Notes' take on the Sliabh Luachra style
be better withouth Tommy O'Sullivan's guitar?
Or would Patrick Street profit from Ged Foley's absence?
Do you listen to Martin Hays and try to tune out Dennis Cahill?
Just curious...
stv
# Posted on July 28th 2004 by stv culchie
Re: ITM and Guitars
STV Culchie asked if I had heard Chris play in a session.
Chris Smith? Can't say I've had the pleasure, but the book is great.
But STV is right in that that post probably should have come in the other thread. My bad.
THIS thread isn't about learning guitar, but rather about melody players bellyaching that their tradition is sullied by upstart accompaniment, which it has suffered under for only, oh, 80 years or so.
And you know, I really miss that two field farming system and those peasants really bolluxed it up about 1000 years ago by adding a third field. I wish we could get back to that lost tradition.
# Posted on July 28th 2004 by KC Gross
Re: ITM and Guitars
SHOOT THEM!
SHOOT THEM ALLLL!!!!
# Posted on July 29th 2004 by P.browne
Re: ITM and Guitars
The point is that taste is subjective, and some people are always going to whine about ITM having chordal accompaniment (piano, mandola, guitar, harp...whatever), and others are going to really love that sound. There is a place for it - as long as people want to play ITM with accompaniment and people want to hear it with accompaniment, it will continue to be done. I think that this tradition is big enough to support both approaches without "deteriorating."
# Posted on July 29th 2004 by violynnsey
Re: ITM and Guitars
I think Randall Bays, who played on the first Martin Hayes album, deserves a mention as a great accompanist. In some respects I prefer him to Denis Cahill.
# Posted on August 3rd 2004 by dave73