|
23 Dec 06 - 07:12 PM (#1917809) Subject: Instrumental fills and early folk music From: GUEST,guest:gleaner I believe that many, perhaps most, folk songs have been created without instrumental accompaniment. I doubt that leaving spaces for fills was contemplated. I beleve that an analysis of early balladry would back this up. Instrumental fills by skilled musicians can be quite enjoyable, and they're almost a norm now, but are they a relatively recent development in folk music? |
|
23 Dec 06 - 07:18 PM (#1917817) Subject: RE: Instrumental fills and early folk music From: McGrath of Harlow Traditional music in most cultures is generally either instrumental music, typically played for dancing, or people singing without instruments. |
|
23 Dec 06 - 08:15 PM (#1917863) Subject: RE: Instrumental fills and early folk music From: GUEST,gleaner I believe that I should try the Preview option, which might help me catch typographical errors and improve my wording. At least I'm learning early on. In my first post I should have said sung folk songs. It's true that very many folk songs are instrumental. I've not done academic research on the question yet. I got to thinking about the question while trying to write songs as a not very skilled instrumentalist. Now I'm often conscious of the question as I listen to songs, particularly old ballads, songs that accompanied a particular activity, and so-called campfire songs. Many so-called singer-songwriters of recent decades, I've noticed, rely on fills quite heavily; I can't entirely knock the practice, and I like many of the songs, but I find interesting the distinction between songs with and songs without fill spaces. In some cases held notes, such as whole notes, might allow enough time for fills, but that's not a given in the old songs. |
|
23 Dec 06 - 11:47 PM (#1917943) Subject: RE: Instrumental fills and early folk music From: The Fooles Troupe When you play traditional tunes for dances, you get used to playing them so many times that you start to add variations. When singing trad songs repeatedly, having a short rest so that one of your instrumental friends accompanying you can have a short solo while you wet your thirst seems logical too. :-) |
|
24 Dec 06 - 03:48 AM (#1917988) Subject: RE: Instrumental fills and early folk music From: GUEST,Alexis no cookie This is straying into the trad jazz thread of earlier. Foolestroupe - you seem to be suggesting that the instrumental fills came in after the song. whereas in trad jazz, the fills were fundamental, to allow musicians to improvise their version of the melody, or the chord sequence. More cross-over than I had realised (not that I given it much thought) There must also be a commercial element. The need to get a song up to the "desired" 3 mins duration. Alex |
|
24 Dec 06 - 06:44 AM (#1918047) Subject: RE: Instrumental fills and early folk music From: Scrump I'm not sure whether the OP was referring to an instrumental break in the middle of a song, or just the short instrumental 'fills' between verses that you often get, for example playing the last couple of bars of the tune again before going into the next verse. I sometimes do play (ability permitting) an instrumental break in the middle of a song to hopefully add a bit of variety for the listener, and possibly give my voice a break at the same time. I think some songs benefit from the short fills in between verses, as it allows the audience time to think about what's been sung. For example, if it's a humorous song, the 'fill' allows for laughter, which would otherwise drown out the first few words of the next verse. |
|
24 Dec 06 - 10:34 AM (#1918145) Subject: RE: Instrumental fills and early folk music From: Uncle Phil Also straying away from balladry for a moment. American styles (blues/gospel/jazz/rock) frequently use instrumental bits within the verse, which is different than instrumental breaks or short instrumental 'fills' between verses. The instrument plays the response part of a Call and Response pattern… If I'd a known that my captain was blind, bud dah duh dot dah, If I'd a known that my captain was blind, bud dahda duh dumb … taking the place of the second voice. This style may be an exception to the Songs for Singing/Tunes for Dancing rule, or maybe not since the instrument is playing a vocal part. - Phil |
|
24 Dec 06 - 11:38 AM (#1918170) Subject: RE: Instrumental fills and early folk music From: JohnInKansas Most of the "Irish Traditional" practicioners, even the wannabees, are fairly consistent in using "song" to mean something you sing, and "tune" to mean something played on an instrument. This distinction is not quite as apparent in other traditions, but probably is followed to some extent. Early Irish, that I've seen, seems to have both kinds of "song" traditions. Large parts of the repertoire are considered, at least by purists, songs to be sung unaccompanied. Other kinds (e.g. Carolan's odes) were quite obviously composed by persons who accompanied themselves, or were accompanied. "... leaving spaces for fills" is a bit ambiguous, since it could refer to an "instrumental break" or could refer just to "ornamentations" within a tune. Of course neither is applicable to unacompanied singing. Where an instrument is appropriate, one would suspect that an instrumental break - "playing through" a verse without the vocal - quite probably would have been sometimes part of the performance, if it was a nice tune; but I'll defer to more knowledgeable comment on that. Any instrumental part is likely to have included "ornaments" such as trills, grace notes, etc., since these are essential to being able to play some instruments smoothly. The particular embellishments vary with the instrument, and likely would vary depending on the skill and preferences of the performer, so saying that a specific trill, turn, or gliss is "part of the tune" is akin to saying that tune should only be played on the instrument for which that bit of fancy works.(?) A reasonable exposition on ornamentation appears in the preface to Klassen's republication of O'Neill's Music of Ireland (Oak Publications). O'Neill, the collector, was reportedly a good flute player, but didn't read or write music. His collaborator, Sgt. O'Neill (no relation) who actually did the notations, was basically a "non-player" but could do the notation. The original publications of the collection (ca. 1903 - 1920) were criticised by some for including "excessive ornamentation." In part that may have been because O'Neill put in "flute ornaments" when many of the tunes were generally "fiddle tunes," so they were the wrong embellishments for players of other instruments. Klassen's "edited" version was criticized both for removing a lot of ornamentation and for adding ornaments "more appropriate to the fiddle." Klassen provides a reasonable explanation of what he'd done, but apparently a lot of people never read the preface... Ornamenting to suit the individual player presumedly has always been a part of traditional instrumental music, since you can't play the tunes on at least some traditional instruments without the ornaments appropriate to the instrument. John |
|
24 Dec 06 - 02:52 PM (#1918262) Subject: RE: Instrumental fills and early folk music From: McGrath of Harlow I have noticed that with Americans - saying tune when they mean song; and sometimes song when they mean tune. There are probably some places where some kind of instrumental accompaniment for singing is traditional. Flamenco, and North African Music I believe. But not in the British Isles, or indeed in most of Europe. Alongside this there is the more courtly and formally composed types of music and song, such as Carolan, or Elizabethan Lute accompanied songs, such as John Dowland. Musical accompaniment for folk songs and for songs in a similar idiom is a relatively new development, a new tradition. |
|
24 Dec 06 - 04:42 PM (#1918332) Subject: RE: Instrumental fills and early folk music From: Don Firth Well, perhaps not all that recent. Digging into the sources of some of what we now think of as traditional songs and ballads, there is one theory (at least one) that at least some of the older ones sprang from the writings of the early trouvères, troubadours, and minstrels. Some time ago, I thoroughly researched this and wrote a two-part article on it for "Victory Review." The "wandering minstrel" thing was probably going on long before this, but beginning in the eighth century, there was a surge in the number of people, almost entirely young men, who turned to this trade. Without going into the reasons for the increase, which is pretty fascinating stuff in itself, those taking to the road with a headful of songs and poems were among the best educated (young monks who had decided to turn their backs on the Church and the monastic life). Their main aim was to see something of the world, and their means of support was to use their poetic and musical skills to entertain, be it in castles, manor houses, village squares, or wherever they could pick up a few coppers, a meal, or a bed for the night. Most of them carried portable instruments, such as small harps, psalteries, lutes, citterns, rebecs, et al, with which they accompanied their songs, and often, their poetry recitations as well (contemporary poet Robert Bly frequently recites his poems while strumming chords on what looks like a bouzouki). Indeed some Classical scholars maintain that epic poetry, including such as things as recitations from the Iliad and the Odyssey, were commonly chanted to the accompaniment of a lyre or similar instrument. For various reasons, it is conceivable, indeed quite likely, that many songs and ballads, especially those with versions found all over Europe (English, French, German, and Scandinavian versions of "Lord Randal," or ballads telling the exact same story with the exact same dialogue structure, for example—and a number of others we are familiar with) had their origins in the fertile imaginations of some trouvères, troubadours, minstrels, skalds, bards, or minnesingers as far back as a millennium ago. It is an established fact that they were responsible for the early songs and poems dealing with Courtly Love and had a hand in making that a sort of "ideal" form of love. The residue of that has found its way into the folk songs and ballads we sing today (pining away for the unattainable "true love," dying for love, etc.). So instrumental accompaniment is not all that recent. But there was a lot of singing done that was not accompanied as well. There is a long-standing tradition of unaccompanied singing, as we well know. It is not an "either/or" thing, and probably never really was. Unfortunately, with a lot of contemporary singer-songwriters especially, I don't hear too many songs that could actually stand alone, without the inevitable "whack-a whack-a whack-a" on a guitar. Don Firth |
|
25 Dec 06 - 07:14 AM (#1918607) Subject: RE: Instrumental fills and early folk music From: Crane Driver Most of our collected traditional music is, by necessity, in the style of the late 19th century - either collected then, or collected in the early 20th century from people who learnt their songs much earlier. Accounts of traditional singing at that time (such as Bob Copper's books) suggest that singing then was mostly not in the context of performance with an audience, but simply a part of life. People sang while they worked, for example, which automatically precluded any form of instrumental accompanyment. Instrumentalists did exist, of course, but mainly played for dances - and not all the instruments available were suitable for playing while you sing (Bob Copper's father Jim played clarinet, for example). Most traditional singing we know of appears to have been solo - families such as the Coppers were rare - so any intrumental accompanyment would have to be provided by the singer. Bob Roberts the bargeman is an example - one job where you would have time to sit and play along with your own singing. Things is different now. I play accompaniments to my own singing, and for my wife Carole. 'Fills' in the sense of a couple of bars between each verse (is that what you meant, gleaner?) are essential with most songs, for the singer to draw breath and get ready for the next verse. An unaccompanied singer would often pause briefly at that point, for the same reason, but you can't really do that convincingly with an accompaniment - it's best to make it a structured thing. Instumental padding, used to make a song longer without the bother of writing an extra verse, are another thing altogether. Most traditional songs have more than enough words to last, a lot of more modern songs have about 90 seconds of words, padded out to three minutes with instrumentals or by simply repeating the first line or song title over and over. Lazy writing, in my opinion, but hey - what do I know? Andrew |
|
26 Dec 06 - 08:33 PM (#1919556) Subject: RE: Instrumental fills and early folk music From: GUEST,gleaner As this thread tails off the spool, I the thread-starter (I don't know what OP stands for) should express my thanks and make some remarks. I appreciate the thought and even erudition that went into posts to the thread, especially given the imprecision in my laying out of the subject. In speaking to points well taken, this post may seem a bit disjointed. It is true that we often call "songs" musical pieces that were, to our knowledge, never sung. I believe that I henceforth may tend toward "melody" as the term for such a piece. I accept that the use of ornament, in instrumental and vocal lines, was quite important in many times and places. Convention, gratuitousness, oneupsmanship, and instrument characteristics aside, I haven't begun to find out what particular ornaments signified; I presume there were signified meanings for some of them. The traveling and court minstrels of various types must have been amazing, not only for their instrumental accompaniments and perhaps solos, but for their use of verse forms, sometimes extemporaneously, before very critical audiences. When we marvel at the lyrical output of a Bob Dylan, for instance, perhaps we should reflect on what has changed in our expectations, in that he would stand out even without attempting mastery of verse forms. "Fills" I should have precisely defined as to what I meant; there might be a better term. No harm was done, though, for all of the discussed instrumental interludes, short or long, pertain to how a song is served by the presenters and received by the audience. Granted, the songwriter who composes and performs a song on an instrument may consider some or all instrumental components to be part and parcel of the song. I tend to think of songs that can be sung a cappella, without long gaps, as standalone songs. I tend to think of songs with long rests within the verse and/or refrain structure, to be filled with instrument playing, as fills-dependent songs. I have become a bit partial to the standalone kind, although many of the fills-dependent kind I consider fine, artistic songs. I must hand it to some of the modern string bands and jazz bands. They can take a standalone song, create introductions, endings, fills, and solos comprising improvised variations, without doing disservice to the song. We should not forsake simple delivery of standalone songs, however, even if we expect to never be marooned, quarantined, or imprisoned. I should begin a list of the two kinds, by my lights, whether they be "folk" songs or not, for contrast. For example, "Auld Lang Syne" (sp?) might be performed a cappella or with singing and instruments. If you perform "Knockin' on Heaven's Door," on the other hand, you'd better have your strumming or picking chops ready. |
|
26 Dec 06 - 10:20 PM (#1919623) Subject: RE: Instrumental fills and early folk music From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker self-indulgent lead guitar breaks are complete ego wank.. now.. and also most probably 3 or 4 thousand years ago..!!! i'm too drunk to manage to have read all the big clever posts in this thread.. but a quick search for a special word that means a lot to me failed to reveal it mentioned so far.. to me.. instrumental "drone" riffs underpin the 'folk' structure that the main sung melody floats upon.. drone drone drone drone drone singing some words drone drone drone drone.. etc.. well thats the kinda folk music i like.. |
|
27 Dec 06 - 09:32 AM (#1919824) Subject: RE: Instrumental fills and early folk music From: GUEST,leeneia I challenge the initial premise "I believe that many, perhaps most, folk songs have been created without instrumental accompaniment." Unless a family is so poor as to have absolutely no instruments at even, even a penny whistle, then singers are going to turn to instruments to make their music more interesting and to help keep in tune. An accompaniment is especially helpful when a group is singing, because unison singing by a group is more challenging than most people suspect. |
|
27 Dec 06 - 07:24 PM (#1920189) Subject: RE: Instrumental fills and early folk music From: GUEST,gleaner Those who have had instruments and players have generally used them, I figure, when singing, and individuals or collaborators writing songs or instrumental melodies, or tunes, have used suitable intruments when they could and wished to. But a great many musically-inclined persons have not had instruments when musical inspiration and need came, and many of their songs have been preserved. |
|
28 Dec 06 - 11:44 AM (#1920535) Subject: RE: Instrumental fills and early folk music From: Scoville A lot of those old ballads are considerably longer than they are interesting. I used to know eighteen verses to "Pretty Polly", but does that mean it was better than the shorter version I do now? No. It only means it was longer. The short version gets the point across just fine, and maybe better for being more direct. I wouldn't be so quick to chalk it up to lazy songwriting given that many of them still tell a very good story but without boring the audience or hogging the session time (as is so often complained about here). Mostly, thought, I think it's comparing apples to oranges. They serve different purposes: One is historic, the other is dynamic. |