Acoustic vs. Electric

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: Nevada
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 04:07 AM

Never heard of Jim Morrey?

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: NicoleC
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 10:34 PM

ttr -

This'll help snap you out of it. There may have been no noise pollution, but there was also:

Rampant disease including the plague
"Medicine" in Europe mostly consisted of making you worse in vile ways
If you lived to 18, you were one of the lucky ones
If you lived to 40, you were quite old
No sanitation to speak of -- the smell!
No hygiene to speak of -- the smell!
"Nutrition" meant getting enough to eat, and unless you were one of the few rich folks, that was pretty questionable
"War" meant killing and plundering as many civilians as possible in between rare pitched battles
No 5 day/8 hour work week
Potted meat and salted fish

No Bach -- ah, the barbarism!

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 08:39 PM

Yikes! I stand corrected... probably no sqeaky wheels on the sabbath either... but the rest of the week was filled with noisy surprises I imagine... and plenty of smoke in the air...

Ah... but the wilderness back then! Back in the days when you really could 'get away from it all'... and even take natural beauty for granted, 'cause there was so much of it all around!

Gosh, I'm getting all dreamy eyed, and a little choked up... guess I'll put on some Vivaldi and snap out of it...ttr

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: Mark Clark
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 01:58 PM

I think in the U.S. if one admires traditional forms of music and didn't grow up in an environemt where one form or another was played, you wind up wanting to play something from each form. At least I always have. How could one listen to folk and not also want to play country blues? How do you listen to country blues and not want to try electric blues? I have played acoustic guitar, five-string banjo, fiddle, electric guitar and most recently resophonic guitar. The acoustic guitar has always been the main thing but the others are there when I wish to make music appropriate to those instruments.

For this discussion, is the resophonic guitar in the same category as electric ones? They are acoustic but the sound isn't at all wooden. They were devised in order to make the guitarist heard over other instruments or in a loud room. Are they to be eschewed as well?

The odd thing is that the sort of loud electric guitar playing that many of us prefer not to hear wasn't how these instruments were first used. An early electric player was Charlie Christian. Surely his solos fit better with Benny Goodman's quintet and the bebop jams at Minton's than even Django's acoustic brilliance might have. Christian's contemporary and friend Aaron (T-Bone) Walker, also an early electric player, surely treated the music gently. I just can't imagine the music of these giants played on an acoustic instrument.

But, speaking of loud electric guitars, it's hard to beat Jorma Kaukonen and Papa John Creach as Hot Tuna trading licks in front of a fifty-foot wall of amps in Chicago's Auditorium Theater. Talk about a seismic event! “Good though.”

      - Mark

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 01:30 PM

McGrath, perhaps it is something in the translation. Maybe it was your use of the word "expensive" - as if you were saying some people feel they have to spend lots of $$ in order to make music and people who don't spend the dough are doing some other sort of music. Again, it is just my interpretation and it is appears to be somewhat different than what you intended, but perhaps we are just missing the fine shades of grey in each others comments.

Moving forward, I do agree with your last post too - but I think both questions that you pose are valid and maybe connnected. The second question might be asked more frequently by one people who are looking for a career. That may be one of the problems with music - many people look for it as a way to make money and/or gain fame and fortune. Those people might miss the pure joy of making music.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 01:18 PM

So where is the "put down" you objected to? That's where your interpretation diverges from what I was meaning to say.

I don't think there's much significant disagreement though. Maybe I'm thinking about people at an earlier stage - not "what sort of instrument shall I play?", but rather "is this music thing for me, or would I be better following up some other interest?"

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 01:07 PM

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think my interpretation is the same as your explanation.

Regardless of our mis-communication, I do think that I see and agree with your point.   I'm really not sure how many people make a conscious decision when they start playing as to whether they will go acoustic or electric. Everyone I've talked to seem to have a sound in their head that pulls them to their instrument of choice. I don't think people "graduate" to electric as opposed to having a reason to do so. People pick up instruments because they have an interest in doing so, not because it is a pre-ordained path they are supposed to follow.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 12:24 PM

"There really are people who have picked up the notion that singing and making music is not for the likes of them, or at least not unless they can buy a lot of expensive equipment."

"You made it sound that some people would only make music if they boughg expensive equipement and it sounded like a put down."

Can't see how you got that meaning out of it, Ron. I was regretting the way that some people pick up the notion that you can't make music without spending a lot of money and getting expensive equipment, so they get put off the idea. I'm not putting them down for that, there is enough pressure around to make them feel that way, about music and about a lot of other things.

Obviously, as has been pointed out, you can spend as much or more on acoustic instruments as on electric, even allowing for the amplifiers and such. But generally people, especially in the folk context, don't do that until well on in their playing, and they start off with relatively low price instruments. Which can produce pretty good music.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: Mark Clark
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 11:33 AM

I no longer own what is still my favorite electric (actually electrified) guitar. It was an old National flattop I picked up in a pawn shop for $20. Someone had painted the top with ugly gold paint, made a new pick guard from kitchen Formica®' (mother of toilet seat pattern), and filed the frets for faster action but across the sound hole was a vintage DeArmond pickup very like the one in pictures of Brownie McGhee. Brownie was and is one of my heros and the guitar was love at first site. I used play it through my father's tape recorder amplifier. I think I was 18 at the time.

My current electric guitar is a Telecaster copy put together by a local musician from high-quality commercial parts. It has a humbucker at the neck position and I keep it configured for more of a jazz sound than country or Texas blues. I once owned a Martin hollow-body double-cutaway electric guitar with two humbuckers and and Bixby® tremelo tailpiece. I played it through a Fender Twin Reverb amp and fooled around with Merle Travis tunes. I finally sold the outfit and did without any electric guitar for a time. But I still think about that old National from time to time. It may have been funky but it was very cool. And I've often wished I could have met the person who modified it to suit his music. I'll bet he could play.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 10:14 AM

That is why I asked you to explain the last sentence McGrath. The way I interpreted it, you were disparaging people for using electrical gear.   You made it sound that some people would only make music if they boughg expensive equipement and it sounded like a put down.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 10:08 AM

Where did anything I said indicate I was disparaging people for using electrical gear, Ron, or had anything particularly against the sound?

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: GUEST,Davetnova
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 09:53 AM

Heres a man makes good use of them Jimi McRae

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: kitchen piper
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 09:34 AM

ooh, yes I have an electronic chanter. I use it on planes and times when I can't play my set. Very good question as to whether or not it should be used to perform with though. Unless I was incapacitated I probably wouldn't!

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: GUEST,Davetnova
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 09:03 AM

An interesting thread but it seems to have slipped from electric to amplified. This isn't neccesseraly the case. I have a friend who plays Highland bagpipes, she owns and often plays an elecronic set because it allows her to play and practice quietly. Its not only about volume.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: kitchen piper
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 07:03 AM

Hello!
We've discussed what is folk music, but maybe it'd be just as appropriate to discuss what is meant by electric. I play bagpipes (obviously by my name, lol!) When I play with my guitarist we try to craft our tunes, which often means that Jonny picks a counter melody. The only way he can be heard is if he uses a little amp. We use it incredibly subtly, turning it off with a pedal when he's strumming.
We do often get asked not to use the amp at clubs (getting disqualified once from a competition because of it). We will always use it and afterwards get any number of people saying wow, that's an amazing guitar, it's so resonant, showing that most of the time people don't even notice it!
My point is really, yes, a lot of the time amplification is a pain on the neck and done badly really gives electric a bad name.
We like to play nice music with counter melody and harmony, but it just can't be done with guitar and bagpipes without some kind of amplification on the part of the guitar.
I ask this in the nicest possible way, what would you do?

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: NicoleC
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 11:24 PM

ttr -

Bells and traffic? On the SABBATH?!

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 07:23 PM

No, you're right NicoleC... but they did have bells all over the place, chickens and horses with their neighing and cackeling, donkeys and mules...oh my, cover your ears, blacksmiths, and plenty of squeeky wheels (who, me?)... not to mention Fire and Brimstone, and the associated thunder and lightning...;^) People yelled alot back then... so they were intrinsicly more able to sing out loudly... and then there is the small matter of dogs, coyotes, and wolves... which would sometimes make a wee bit of noise by chasing down and eating up small screaming children... Yep! Just as serene as ever... ;^)ttr

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 06:53 PM

Check an Elderly catalog Graham, I do not "jest".

You are right Graham, it is "not the same" when an electric instrument plays a traditional tune, but that is the point the artist is trying to make isn't it?

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: GUEST,Grab
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 06:24 PM

"Can be as expensive"?!?! You jest, surely? You have to *really* look to find a high-end factory-made electric guitar much over £800, whereas you've hardly even got into the price range for a good factory-made acoustic.

Re Misophist's argument about amplification covering up mistakes, I think he's dead wrong - it's the other way around, particularly as far as left-hand technique goes. String noise, fret squeak, buzzes, brushing an unfretted string, etc are basically imperceptible on an acoustic bcos the strings being played are much louder. If you put it through some gain on an electric though, and every little noise like that comes through the speakers like God's footsteps! Acoustic players can get away with stuff which electric players can't.

I've got no argument if you say that a high-gain electric has no place in playing a slow Irish air. However I'd also stipulate that neither do the bodhran, banjo, melodeon or hurdy-gurdy, and bagpipes certainly aren't a good idea in an enclosed room either! Choose your music and choose your instruments to suit. And for the record, there's some damn good folk-rock outfits out there who *can* make electrics work in traditional tunes, basically bcos they're skillful. It's not the same as a traditional tune played acoustically, but it's no better or worse for that.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 05:26 PM

McGrath, I'm not sure if your word processor analogy is fair. I see your point, but I don't think you are giving the artist enough credit. Electric instruments have a sound all their own and their use of them and amplification is NOT a coverup for lack of skills.

I also don't understand your last sentence.   People who think they can't make music unless they have expensive equipment? Yes, the voice is probably the cheapest instrument available, but the price of a acoustic guitar, banjo or a violin can be just as expensive as electric versions. You aren't giving the individuals the credit for having their own vision to use these tools.   You may not like the sound, and I respect that and agree with some of it, but it really isn't fair to discredit someone for thinking differently than you.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 05:15 PM

It's handy having a fancy word processor - but if people startied feeling that they couldn't possibly write a letter...or a story....or anything else because they only had a pen and paper, that'd be a sad day.

That's what I meant. There really are people who have picked up the notion that singing and making music is not for the likes of them, or at least not unless they can buy a lot of expensive equipment.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 05:10 PM

I'm not sure how you do it over in the U.K., but on this side of the Atlantic if the club books an artist they usually have a contract that stipulates what the artist needs or will be bringing. Clubs normally provide the sound system.   I am guessing Peter that YOU are the one who feels it is inappropriate since it doesn't appear that the venue or it's organizers did anything to prevent this supposed "inappropriate" amplification.   I'm guessing that it probably boils down to a matter of taste.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 04:59 PM

Inappropriate? As in you are offended?

Since when did political correctness and folk music go together?

I think it's worse to not be heard! 99.99% of folk clubs aren't dingy little bars and if it is one, who cares if you and your instrument are heard better? Worse is being told what you can and cannot do.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: GUEST,Peter from Essex
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 04:43 PM

>>I disagree McGrath. IF the artist feels he or she needs it, then >>they need it.


If the performer feels that they need it in an inappropriate situation (eg 99.99% of folk clubs) then I think that "artist" is not the appropriate term.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: GUEST,Peter from Essex
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 04:38 PM

McGrath, photos from a venue described as an "acoustic club" in Bishops Stortford.

Interestingly Colchester's "acoustic club" is putting on Jim Moray next Saturday.

I have never been to anything calling itself an "acoustic club" but I can assure you that there are plenty that use that term in our part of the world.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 04:29 PM

I disagree McGrath. IF the artist feels he or she needs it, then they need it.

You don't need apples to make a pie, but if you are looking to create a certain taste, you better add the ingredient.   It's in the cook's hands - and we get to judge the taste. You may not care for apple pie, but it wouldn't be fair to say that the apples ruined an apple pie and pecan is better.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 03:35 PM

No problem with amplified music if it is done right.

Just so long as it is never assumed that you need that stuff if you are to make music.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 03:10 PM

No problem Martin. I do agree with you. There is nothing wrong with amplified music if it enables the audience to hear the music.

IF the music is amplified, it is usually done so at the request of the artist. It is their vision and prerogative to use amplification. Judge their performance on their performance, not how you wish it would sound if it were acoustic. IF the mix is bad, that is usually the fault of a the mixer, equipment, or the acoustics of the room. You may not like their style and that is your choice.

It is easy to be Monday morning quarterback and say that an artist would have done better with an acoustic guitar as opposed to electric. You could say that if Bob Dylan played tuba, then we wouldn't have to listen to his voice, which irriates some people. Just imagine the words we would have lost. Let the artist make their own choice.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 02:59 PM

Yeah, Ron

You are right. I'm thinking of his last post which spawned this one. My apology.

However, I'll take an amplified guitar anytime in any room over one that I can't hear that's not amplified.

I remember in the old days when country singers would stand up and sing with an accoustic guitar and play rhythm guitar with a back-up band and you would never hear it. Why bother? Today's amplified accoustics solve that problem.

PA systems in any size room, run by the right technician always improve sound and mix. but you need the right technician.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 02:16 PM

I tend to agree with Willie-O, that it's really a question of good musicianship, not the instruments that are used. As he correctly points out, there are any number of electric guitarists that play with great nuance and subtlety. Unfortunately, so much of the music that we hear in public is played in bars, where there is a lot of noise and little opportunity for the more subtle nuances to come through. It's like trying to carry on a conversation in the middle of a football game; you basically have to shout to be heard, and forget conveying your underlying sentiments with subtle vocal inflections.

I do think that amplification -- of vocals, acoustic instruments, and electric instruments -- can open up some opportunities for more nuanced playing to be heard, in ways that would not be possible without amplification. For instance, if I am playing lead guitar breaks unamplified with a bluegrass band, I have to play as loud as I can just to be heard over the other instruments; even though I'm playing an acoustic guitar that has great potential for subtlety when played solo, that potential is masked by the competition from other instruments. Some subtle amplification can allow the more sensitive side of my playing to shine through.

In a way, preferences for unamplified vs. amplified music are like preferences for stage dramas vs. film. On stage, one has to project, vocally as well as with gestures and facial expressions, in order to be appreciated by those in the back row. When film first came in, stage actors who were trying out the new medium tended to over-act, because they weren't accustomed to the way their stage-based styles would seem excessively emotive on film. Conversely, film actors who try acting on stage need to learn how to project to the back rows, because their subtle expressions just don't carry on stage like they do on film. But both the stage and film have their place, and great art can be created on both. I think the same can be said of amplified music (whether played on instruments originally designed to be amplified, or not) and unamplified music.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: NicoleC
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 01:59 PM

500 years ago, churches didn't have major highways out the front door, construction sites down the street, planes going overhead, and any number of other elements of noise pollution preventing the audience from hearing. It's wrong, IMO, to blame the acoustic vs. electric (or PA vs. non-PA) decision entirely on "bad" audiences.

Amplification is often critical. Bad amplification sometimes results, particulary in the hands of amateurs in places like churches and small bars. Too loud amplification, a sub-set of bad amplification, also sometimes results, usually due to half deaf musicians and sound engineers (or those that think the entire venue is about THEM) :)

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 01:00 PM

Martin - If you re-read the original post, Misophist's comments are very much related.   Unless I'm reading it wrong, I don't think country music was the intended topic. All you have to do is scroll back to the top.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 11:51 AM

Misophist

Your arguement really has very little to do with where the original topic was, which if I recall was if country music was ruined by electric instruments.

To which I say, that's bullshit.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: Willie-O
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 10:15 AM

I dunno McGrath, all the singers I've ever known weren't trained by a PA system, but by other singers. It would be great if everyone sang out--maybe--but everyone doesn't. I've heard some very good singing through a PA system that I wouldn't have heard at all, otherwise, cause the singers didn't project much--but were well worth hearing. And I fully agree with the need for balance as an argument for modest amplification. Sometimes it is necessary so that everyone can be heard.

And (my bias showing here) as the sometime sound tech in a rather small room, it's part of the setup to decide if amplification is appropriate. One rule of thumb is that if alcohol is being served, PA is always appropriate. Nothing more frustrating than amateur performers who are afraid of microphones getting up and blowing their lungs out, in a moderately noisy room, without being comprehended. You can see them making noise up there, but it's not getting across. Shhhh-ing an Oktoberfest is not a solution that works.   

Having said that, I quite agree that those big old echo-ey halls are perfect for using the natural acoustics. On the other hand, the Unitarian church in Ottawa, built in the 60's, is a very nice environment which was designed to be visually and acoustically pleasing with the built-in PA--and has become a favoured venue for folk music concerts because of this.

Best
W-O

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 09:52 AM

"When did you last sit in a church and listen to a sermon that wasn't amplified, even in buildings where people have managed to make themselves heard for several centuries."

Perversely the effect of amplification in such settings is often to make the words a lot less comprehensible. You have sounds coming out of various speakers and bouncing around the hall. The effect can be rather like PA in Railway Stations. They'd often do far better to rely on the natural voice, and speak out. This could be augmented by a microphone, so that people with hearing difficulties could listen on a loop system, but without this being not connected to any speakers.

And the number of times I've heard people using PA in rooms which are easily small enough to do without. The effect is to train singers to use minimal volume, so that they cannot in fact be heard without PA, and this is liable to interfere badly with their ability to produce clear notes at all, because it can be quite difficult to do that when singing very softly. "Sing out" is not just the name of a magazine.

When the volume from the PA is loud, this has the effect of increasing the background noise from others in the room. People tend to feel freer to chatter away, at quite loud volume. Anytime the noise ceases, as when a singer pauses, the voices from the rest of the room boom out.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: Willie-O
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 09:23 AM

I'm tempted to snort at this as all angels-on-a-pinhead stuff. Which is basically how I feel about it. What we learn, really, is that no two people have quite the same tastes, or the same influences.

For example, I disagree with the conclusion of Misophist's rather well-reasoned argument that the sound of an acoustic guitar is somehow superior due to subtle tonal shades. This is theoretically true but getting those extra tonal colours is achieved only at the highest level of musicianship. Most casual acoustic guitar players kind of thrash at it. For my money, the best electric guitarists are those who can use the different ratio of power vs subtlety to create a completely controlled and distinctive tone. Such as Clapton, Duane Allman, B.B. King, Mark Knopfler, and the more obscure Randy California (from the 60's band Spirit). I'd sit on broken glass to listen to any of them play in a club, the smaller the room the better! And I'd certainly do the same to hear Segovia, Leo Kottke, Doc Watson or J.P. Cormier. (Yes, I know who's dead in those lists) FTR I play 99% acoustic guitar myself, generally plugged in when performing...unless its unnecessary. And I wish I had more chances to see great acoustic players up close and undigitized...but I get a thrill out of any great musician's performance.

Ultimately, musicianship has everything to do with the player, and the medium is secondary. That's my opinion anyway, which of course is the ultimate arbiter... (joke).

Whether Vivaldi played on spoons, kazoo and melodica belongs in the Baroque section of the music store, or the Assorted Folk bin, is a problem for the CD store manager. Let's hear it for cross-referencing. Categorizing music is about marketing. (Vivaldi didn't make any recordings or use microphones, so by your definition that rules out baroque music as being authentic when recorded). You are correct Freightdawg, it ain't quite the same "product", but how do you square your tastes in a certain style of folk music--which is non-commercial by definition--with all that marketing terminology?   

It ain't the medium it's the mojo...

Regards
Willie-O
(in Canada, a grand country indeed and thanks for the compliment)

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 07:49 AM

Aha! The solution to the problem. Instead of louder instruments, better listeners!

What's happened there is that everybody takes music for granted now. You can listen to it anywhere and everywhere if you have a portable stereo; you are subjected to it whether you like it in some places and if you want to hear a live performance you don't have to wait till it comes to you, just jump in the car and drive there. Whereas music in the home was once the privilege of those who could afford to pay a staff of musicians (Like Haydn's orchestra at the Esterhazy court), now you just press a button and you're spoilt for choice.

It still doesn't explain why 500 year old churches suddenly need a PA now.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: dermod in salisbury
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 04:49 AM

It's not only folk music where the acoustic/electric issue arises. When did you last sit in a church and listen to a sermon that wasn't amplified, even in buildings where people have managed to make themselves heard for several centuries. I can't explain this loss of confidence. But I do resent heavy amplification in small venues. A solution to the need for more noise (say, at dances) is more players. Alternatively, what is the matter with more people wanting to listen. A single violin still fills a concert hall if the audience is willing to give it a chance.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: mack/misophist
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 12:16 AM

To GUEST,Martin Gibson: I disagree. I'll skip my background unless you require it. Every amplifier I've ever heard (instrument pickups and run of the mill PA systems, the exceptions are expensive) has a certain amount of fuzz and distortion engineered into it. They smooth out the subtleties of the instrument and replace them, largely with the sound of the amplifier and the pickup. This, of course, doesn't prevent a splendid musician from playing splendidly but it does hide the delicate tonal shadings produced by acoustic instruments. Here's an example. There's a well known storey, told by classical guitarists, about a man who took lessons from Segovia. One day Segovia stopped the lesson, saying "You trimmed your fingernails this morning, didn't you." He answered "Yes, was that wrong to do?" The reply was "No, but now you need to file them". Try the experiment with a good guitar. It can be heard. I defy you to detect it with an electric guitar.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 19 Oct 03 - 04:33 PM

Misophist

Quite biased. A missed note is a missed note whether it's accoustic or electric, a string or a reed.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: mack/misophist
Date: 19 Oct 03 - 04:04 PM

Spike Jones was on the stereo last night; all acoustic, naturally. I have to say that the quality of their playing put anything eletric I've ever heard to shame. The great flaw in electric instruments is that it's so easy to hide your mistakes with overlays. There's no way to hide a split reed. Acoustic instruments are less forgiving, but they offer so much more.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: GUEST,Santa
Date: 19 Oct 03 - 10:37 AM

When I came back into folk music clubs (last decade) after a good few years away, I was struck by two things.

One, people didn't join in the choruses as they used to. My wife and I felt a little exposed, because we did. Strange, I now think that the club I go to does join in the choruses a lot. Maybe it's to drown my attempts?

Two, there was much more PA. There seemed to be very little true acoustic around. I still think that's true, but then the club I go to is in a pub and pure acoustic wouldn't work. I hate having the incessant buzz of conversation - I'm there to listen to the music. There are a few people who walk in and out of the area, go for drinks etc in the middle of songs. I think all this is partly because of the PA - if they had to be quiet to hear the music than they would. Or there'd be more pressure from the folks who do care.

I don't have any particular position on using electric instruments in a way that supports folk music, that enriches it by presenting a new arrangement of familiar songs. This is basically what has happened in the past with the introduction of the guitar, etc. When the electric instrument is used just to drown the music in noise, or to produce something that has no respect for the "feel" of folk, that's another matter. I accept that it can be a matter of taste, round the edges.

Which gets us back to definitions of what is folk. As a non-singer non-musician, I don't accept that folk music can be defined by participation - I join in the choruses but my son joins in with the band at his heavy metal concerts, and I don't see them as possibilities for acoustic-isation!

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 04:35 PM

They generally don't in my part of the world (though we don't use that term)

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 03:54 PM

Why do "acoustic clubs" always seemn to have PA?

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 02:07 PM

I think the thing that is central to the idea of "folk music" is that it challenges the notion that making music and singing and dancing is something that is done by a small number of people who are different from the rest of us, who are just there to watch and listen and buy.

There's always a Dylan line to fit anything - "Well, anybody can be like me, obviously..."

So the more the music can be made there and then, using what is to hand, the better. Which is the point I was making in my last post about the importance of things being readily portable.

Doesn't rule out fine musicianship, but there's no gulf between what they are doing and what the rest of us do, and what anyone can learn to do. A good distance maybe, but no gulf.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 01:53 PM

"To everything turn turn turn
There is a season turn turn turn"

Better to have more options than less, I says...

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 01:46 PM

I have not heard referrence to "The Nice" for ages... Keith Emerson's 'first' band... classical jazz blues folk fusion... genius! ttr

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 06:29 AM

I'm with you, Lead.. As soon as you set up a "rule", darned if somebody doesn't go ahead and break it. My favorite version of the Boston Burgler is by Cat Mother and the All-Night Newsboys... a minor folk rock band of the 60's. They breathe new life into the song, the vocal is out in front of the electric guitars, but they really add a lot to it (in my not particularly humble opinion IMNPHO.)

I also enjoyed The Nice (an art-rock band of the 60's)seemlessly blending Bach and Dylan's Country Pie into one piece. Was it classical, Baroque, rock, folk or Chamber music? Or Chamber Pot Music? It's all in the ear of the behearer.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: Leadfingers
Date: 17 Oct 03 - 11:16 PM

What a lot of ' folkies' seem to miss out on (and this is BOTH sides of the Pond) is that traditionally SONGS were sung unaccompamied and
Instruments were only used for Dance Music,except in Church, or in the
more upper class environments.It is only in recent times that some
sort of accompaniment has been considered neccessary for songs.
Bearing this in mind, the use of ANY instrument to accompany a 'Folk
Song' has GOT to be superflous, wether the instrument be 'acoustic' or 'electric.So we are back to definitrions of 'What is Folk',or a hell of a variety of personal tastes, which is where I am!
A lot of 'Traddy' songs do NOT work with accompaniment unless the guy playing the instrumnent is a bit Shit Hot,with a very good ear
for ALL the nuances, or has rehearsed exstensively with the singer.
By the same token a lot of contemporary songs lose a lot of their significance if sung unnaccompanied unless the singer has a rare
talemt for the materiel.
This seems to indicate to me that a song can be done a cappella or with any thing up to a full orchestra and it is entirely subjective
wether this is 'Folk' or not. Hence the 'acoustic/electric'argument
is totally superfluous.

Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
From: freightdawg
Date: 17 Oct 03 - 07:43 PM

Mark,

Most humble apologies most humbly accepted.

Your points are true, and I was never really speaking from the artist's point of view. I am speaking as a consumer and afficionado of music. As a specialist in another field I am aware of the "communication gap" that is more a result of language than intent. The layman speaks in broad categories because he is unaware of the nuances a professional has to work with daily. In musical affairs, I am the rankest of laymen.

But coming at the issue from the layman's point of view, can we mix instruments from different styles or eras and still have the same product? As a wild and maybe illogical example, if we played a piece from Vivaldi with bagpipes, a harmonica, a mandolin and a guitar would it still be considered Baroque? In my mind, although I love folk music passionately, Vivaldi would need to be played on instruments he was familiar with in order for his music to be considered Baroque. Now, it would still be Vivaldi, and it would be artistic, and it might even be entertaining (I'd like to hear it). Where my analogy breaks down is that Baroque also refers to a time period, but I hope in a general way I can communicate what I am feeling. I equate electric guitars with modernism, whereas my idea of folk goes back to the industrial age and earlier. Granted, as GuestMartin has pointed out, folk is ever evolving and changing. As an admited traditionalist, it just seems to me that certain sounds are linked to certain genres. To be sure the lines are in varying shades of grey, but as a traditionalist I value keeping them as distinct as possible. In a round-a-bout way that makes crossover artists more valuable - as those who can blend two or more sounds to create a new one in a way that is distinct from the sum of its parts.

humbly,

Freightdawg