Accepted chords for traditional tunes

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 06:44 PM

I'm surprised to find myself on here, in that I generally don't do tunes as such.

What does appear somewhat threatening, however, is that at Tenterden John Barden is double booked with a (well deserved but it should be higher up the bill) concert slot as well as chairing the English tunes session in the Lion - so for maybe half an hour I may be "in charge". This thread makes me more determined than ever simply to say "Here we are: you get on with it!"

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 06:27 PM

If in doubt, stick to only what chords could be formed on a diatonic harp and work outwards from that if necessary.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Marje
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 04:31 AM

Oh, I bet the guy who wrote that piece has an Irish granny. Doesn't everyone in the US have an Irish relative? And yet hardly anyone has English antecedents. Funny, that.

But it's true what you say, Dick, the English are partly to blame for the way they're so often air-brushed out ofthe picture - they often contribute to this themselves.

Marje

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 02:06 PM

But ,I doubt if the author of that piece on the session is even Irish,most of the people that contribute to the discussions are not either irish,or living in Ireland.Quite alot of them are not irish but have certain fixed ideas about Irish music.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 01:44 PM

Some Irish musicians are honest about the connection. Look at Alois Fleischmann's "Sources of Irish Traditional Music".

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 01:22 PM

you are quite right ,Marje,and it is hardly surprising that Irish and English music are so close.
A brief look at history,reveals that Ireland was ruled by England until 1921,and part of Ireland is stillpart of the UK,this probably explains a lot.
some Irish people do not realise,that England has any other traditional music other than Morris dancing and shanties,but then a lot of English people have no knowledge or respect for their own musical heritage,either.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Marje
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 01:09 PM

I know the article we were discussing was mainly about Irish music, dancing and sessions, and I've no problem with that; I just get a bit weary with the uninformed dismissal of any notion that Irish tradition and culture could be just as closely related to English as it is to Scottish/Breton/Welsh (or indeed that England even has any traditional culture).

For anyone who's the least bit interested in the origins and background of Irish music, dance and sessions, the connections and overlaps with English musical traditions, both now and in the past, are hugely significant, and to suggest otherwise or omit to mention such connections is very misleading. I can only suppose the motivation is socio-political, but there's really no rational excuse for the constant insistence that words like "session" and "crack" are ancient "celtic" words and concepts, or that many thoroughly and typically English tunes are in fact completely Irish.

It would have been helpful, for instance, when he was explaining the difference between single and double jigs, to point out that double jigs are much the commonest type of jig in Irish music, whereas single jigs are more typical of English music, but there seems to be some kind of taboo on mentioning anything English.


Marje

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Stu
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 10:48 AM

Amen.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Will Fly
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 10:08 AM

The folk process surely demands use of personal aesthetic criteria rather than formulaic accompaniment.

So it does, George, so it does. It's when one person's aesthetic criteria clash with anothers that the problems can start...!

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 09:58 AM

So much science! The folk process surely demands use of personal aesthetic criteria rather than formulaic accompaniment. Or, as Richard Digance described it in his "Drinking with Rosie", when describing the septagenarian piano player:

"... she grabbed handfuls of notes in no particular key..."

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 09:45 AM

Scottish music doesn't get much better treatment on The Session than English. (For some aspects of Scottish music, Footstompin is the place to go, but it's not much like Mudcat).

That article had some mistakes about rhythm. Reels are duple time (2/4 or 2/2), strathspeys are 4/4. For strathspeys that matters - they're actually going twice as fast as they sound, and if you never accent anything but beats 1 and 3 your accompaniment will sound draggy.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Stu
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 09:18 AM

Marje - As has been said, it's a trad Irish site primarily (which is the music I love) but much of the information is relevant, especially to the original poster who was asking about playing in sessions. I know the session gets some stick, but in my opinion it's true to the music and offers some excellent insight into playing Irish traditional music.

Perhaps there are English music sites that offer similar insight into accompaniment for English tunes (although I suspect there is some crossover)? I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 08:15 AM

www session org, is a very good resource,but most of the contibutors to the discussions have avery narrow perspective of both Irish and other traditional musics,some of them are virulently anti Irish traditional songs at Irish sessions.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Will Fly
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 07:47 AM

Hi Marje - you would probably get a non-English bias in the linked article because TheSession.org is a great site devoted almost exclusively to Irish and Scottish music - as I discovered when I tried to get info on some English tunes. That's not to say that there aren't Enlgish tunes on the site - masquerading under other names - but the purpose of the site is predominantly what's know as (ugh) Celtic...

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Marje
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 07:26 AM

The article in the link above is interesting but his cultural background information is somewhat suspect. It's news to me that the sessions are mainly or entirely an Irish and Scottish tradition - there's no mention of England where, if my understanding is correct, the Irish pub session habit originated with the London-Irish, and where lively sessions, including English ones, continue to take place all around the country. The same applies to dance: Scottish dancing is mentioned because of its links with Irish dancing, but Engish dancing (step dancing, country dance etc) which is inextricably connected with both, is not apparently worth mentioning.

Interestingly, the first book recommended is by Dave Mallinson, an Englishman who not only publishes Irish session tunes but is a respected authority on English music and English-style melodeon playing.

Marje

It may seem tiresome to bang on about this, and I don't have a particular bias as I was born in Scotland and raised in Ireland, but I'm now very involved in the English music scene and I get tired of seeing English culture filtered out of so many accounts, especially in other countries like the US.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: GUEST,EricTheOrange
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 03:25 AM


The original question wasn't about "individual takes" but the exact opposite - identifying the way things are usually done so as to fit into to it. How not to be original. Nothing wrong with "individual takes" in other performance contexts, but they aren't what sessions are usually about. (Jack Campin)

I used to go to a session where there was a guy who was without doubt a technically excellent guitarist (who I'll call JJ) but who had the sensitivity of a brick. He'd stomp all over the tune with a wide range of "jazz" chords and in my opinion it'd sound awful. I don't go to that session any more which is a shame as the other people were very nice.

I think a lot of what he did was about his ego. We had a young lad who came along once with his guitar. He was nothing special, just stuck to the three chord trick and simple rhythms and it sounded great just filling out the music under the tune players. We were having a nice time. Then JJ arrived and joined in with more and more extreme arrangements and it seemed obvious to the rest of us that he felt threatened by the other guys presence, despite the obvious difference in technical ability. It reached a head when JJ was so wrapped up in being clever that he played loudly all the way through one tune oblivious to the fact that he was in the wrong key! The new guy got up and left and we never saw him again.

I don't really care what people play in sessions as long as it is sensitive to both the tune and the other musicians present. Surely that's what it's all about?

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 02:28 PM

Ditto. Vey thoughtful and informative piece.But simplistic on Irish/Scottish/English musical relationships, but that's fine. Would recommend anyone to follow the link and have a browse.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Declan
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 02:07 PM

Sugarfoot Jack,

Thanks for posting that link. I don't have time too read the whole thing now, but I agree with a lot of what I read on a quick scan. A lot of good advice in there too.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 12:45 PM

Captain: I did not say a G chord is just a G chord. Though I might well do. I said a G chord is just a chord. Which it is. Of itself, it is neither shit nor not-shit. Neither is it a bookcase or an orange. It is a chord. Which can, as you point out, exist in several different inversions. Which, as an accompanist, I have had plenty of time to think about, while the accordions and fiddles do their thing.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: The Sandman
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 11:35 AM

A G CHORD is not just a G CHORD,In standard tuning it can be gbdgbd,or it can be gbdgdd or it can bethe barred F SHAPE on the third fret,in drop d dddgbg or dbdgbg,or gddgbg   the different inversions give differing flavours.
the problem with a lot of guitarists is: just this attitude,they never find outwhere the different versions of a chord are.
there are for example loads of different inversions of e 7,and they are all very different

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Stu
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 11:26 AM

For what it's worth, there's a grounding on traditional Irish accompaniment here you might be interested in.

As a shit musician, I have no idea if this is any use to you or not.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 11:15 AM

Shaw Farmer: I agree with you, some musicians are shit (thgough we might not agree which ones those are). But a G chord is just a chord. Except the relative minor chords that Peter Paul and Mary played for "Blowin' in the Wind", they really were shit.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Stu
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 10:21 AM

"What have we been talking about then?"

If you're talking about sessions then you need to take note of some of these comments because not everyone wants to play jazz (and some of them hate any accompaniment), and it's an area trad musicians argue about constantly. If you're talking about playing in a band (or 'group') then ignore everything if you wish and fill your boots.

I didn't mean to be condescending so apologise if my post came across like that, just as I'm sure you do really give a damn about the authenticity of what you're playing.

My great-granddad played the bones. I have them here on my desk.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: M.Ted
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 10:16 AM

Thanks for the article, Jack. Did you read it? He takes issue with your viewpoint rather vehemently:

"Nothing is more absurd than the balderdash so common amongst Crow Jim French and British critics, that jazz is "the voice of the downtrodden Negro people...jazz itself appears first as part of the entertainment business, and the enraged proletariat do not frequent night clubs or cabarets"

He also points out, in several places, that jazz music was feature in Broadway shows of the twenties--and, in point of fact, George Gershwin both played and wrote jazz--Many of his songs have been turned into silky cabaret ballads, but were hard driving jazz numbers in the original shows--Berlin, Rodgers and Hart, and the rest wrote songs for the times, it was, after all, "The Jazz Age"--

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Shaw Farmer
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 10:08 AM

Thankyou Guest!

Greg, put it this way. It takes a great musician to make lots of notes/chords sound fantastic, but it takes an even better musician to make two notes/chords sound fantastic. The sad fact is, a lot of musicians are shit.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: johncharles
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 10:07 AM

As someone who plays guitar it is my general impression that once you get above 6/7 people in a session guitarists can play what they like as they are usually inaudible above fiddles mandolins and melodeons.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: The Sandman
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 10:07 AM

Adolf.
Adolf Hitler did not like syncopation in music,he would not have liked some Shetland music,I believe he ordered the destruction of a lot of jazz music during the second world war.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 10:00 AM

Oh those nazis. Adolph did a wonderful Field of Athenry, but I thought Goebbels bleated like a goat.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Shaw Farmer
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 09:57 AM

Jack Campin said:

"If you actually understood the history of this music you'd know that Cecil Sharp never suggested any chords."

I was joking. Shall I edit it and say Dave Mallison instead?

Jack Campin also said:

"If you don't care how folk music came to me - don't give a damn which tunes were meant to be danced to... how on earth can you expect to know anything about what the tune expresses?"

I agree with this when it comes to songs, but also if a song is well written it should tell you everything you need to know in the lyrics. There may be times when I may do some research into archaic words but most of the time the story is there.

Tune wise, I dont think knowing the title and its history will really help me 'express'. I think the way you interpret it is more important than its history.

As for telling me to learn my modes, I have.(I've also learnt how to play simple chord structures over folk melodies thankyou Sugarfoot Jack) I've been playing jazz since I was 8, played in big bands, quintets, even tried a bit of bebop, and then recently taken up folk. I do agree with you about successful fusions of jazz and folk though, its few and far between and something I'll be looking into.

Sugarfoot Jack said:

"All art also has a context, and much folk music is played in sessions where many of the people...find.. a load of jazzy chords...at worse downright disrespectful. Of course, in a group anything goes."

At no point have I suggested everyone should go out and play jazz chords over folk melodies. I only offered my opinion of what was possible (after a long stream of messages saying ignore the minor or major 3rds!)also I'd like you to tell me how playing 'jazzy' chords is disrespecting another musician? then you say 'in a group anything goes' um, What have we been talking about then?

Sugarfoot Jack also said:

"This is a tradition, and it's past is bloody important....How can you understand the music you play if you don't have some idea of where it's come from?"

What does that even mean? do I need to know how the harmonic series works to play a Gmajor chord? Do I need to know the difference between mean temperament and equal temperament to play music after the 18th century? NO. I dont. Music is just sound, its not a tradition, its just clever noises. Real folk musicians (e.g a builder who knows an old song that his grandad used to sing and belts it out in a pub after the rugby) doesn't give a damn about 'the tradition'.

Again, we digress gentlemen. We're not here to talk about the tradition.We're here to talk about how you can play along to a folk melody with other people.

As we're not getting anywhere and you guys are intent on being condascending to my attitudes I bid you farewell. I just wanted to talk to like minded people, instead I've been met by nazi like attitudes towards folk music.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 09:55 AM

Well, I've just picked up a C Sharp book and opened it at random. A G major version of Henry Martin. The 8 bars are harmonised as follows.
/G G/C G/G G/G D/G G7/C G/G C(D7)/G G/

Well, you'd have to try them with the tune, but those chords seem perfectly functional, simple, ideal for the tune.I've just tried them on my guitar. What's not to like? I can think of a great deal wrong with Cecil Sharp's work, and his accompaniments, and have written plenty on the subject myself. But I dont think his G chords are particularly shitty.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 09:27 AM

Well, I certainly don't recall Cecil Sharp telling me what shit chords to play with tunes. Which chords are the shit ones, I wonder? Soldiers Joy, I always play with D and A7, nothing else. Are either of these shit? I think we should be told, maybe there is a C Sharp book I haven't come across.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Marje
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 09:10 AM

This is something I find it hard to explain or quantify, but I don't agree with the allegation (Shaw Farmer, above) that folk music is "sentimental", and I think it's a key point in this discussion. It may be deceptively simple at times, but for me, it's the utter lack of sentimentality that draws me to folk music. I now find that much "classical" orchestral music and a great deal of piano music sounds sentimental to me and turns me right off.

Sentimentality isn't really a way of expressing feeling and emotion - it bypasses genuine sentiment and true feeling, substituting forms of expression that allow the listener and the performer to allude to emotions without actually experiencing them. I don't think you get that very often in folk music, and for me this makes folk music more powerful and direct, more capable of stirring up real emotion.

If you want an extreme example of the opposite of folk song, listen to some barbershop - I know there will be Mudcatters who do both, but they must know that barbershop is crammed with every sentimental device known to music, while folk song is not. Instrumental folk music, at its best, has similar qualities of spareness and simplicity.

As I said, I find it hard to analyse this, and can't really do any more than say that it's my gut reaction. But it's one reason that many folk musicians do not welcome over-complicated chords and harmonies, or fussy passing-notes, accidentals, and changes in tempo. It also explains why many traditional musicians and singers dislike some "classical" or "parlour" settings of folk tunes and songs - these arrangements are often spoiled by sentimentality.


Marje

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Stu
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 08:53 AM

"LISTEN, JAM, INTEREACT and just PLAY!"

I would add KNOW THE TUNES if you intend to accompany them. If you don't know the tunes well enough to lilt them then you can't accompany them effectively.

"The point is, all music is art, art is free to interpretation, and interpretation should not be governed by anybody."

All art also has a context, and much folk music is played in sessions where many of the people playing find that playing a secondary harmony with a load of jazzy chords is at best distracting, at worse downright disrespectful. Of course, in a group anything goes.

"I dont care about how folk music came to be , HOWEVER I do care what tunes express, and strumming the same shit chords that Cecil Sharp said you should play doesn't express anything to me."

Don't care how it came to be? This is a tradition, and it's past is bloody important. How can you understand the music you play if you don't have some idea of where it's come from? It's a mistake to see traditional music as some sort of vehicle for your own self-indulgence, and there are plenty of players out there who certainly do that. It's a social activity and that means taking into account some of the basic premises of the music, and the most important one to remember is the tune is the key, and at the end of the day it's the tune that matters.

I would check out some the accompanists mentioned on this thread plus one or two others: Dennis Cahill, Alec Finn and John Doyle. Also, if i could venture one piece of advice - for the time being forget the jazz chords and study the modes, accompany using the simple chord structures that provide the basis for any accompaniment of trad music and once you're familiar with them your previous musical knowledge will be a fantastic resource to build your own style of accompanying this incredible, deep music.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Jack Campin
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 08:36 AM

If you actually understood the history of this music you'd know that Cecil Sharp never suggested any chords.

If you don't care how folk music came to me - don't give a damn which tunes were meant to be danced or marched to and how, which are associated with particular stories, particular moods, particular kinds of statement - how on earth can you expect to know anything about what the tune expresses? Good luck playing your arrangement of "Marching through Georgia" in Glasgow.

The original question wasn't about "individual takes" but the exact opposite - identifying the way things are usually done so as to fit into to it. How not to be original. Nothing wrong with "individual takes" in other performance contexts, but they aren't what sessions are usually about.

There is one basic mismatch between the way jazz performances are put together (these days, anyway) and folk tunes, which needs to be sorted out if you're trying to synthesize them. Modern jazz theory uses a "chord/scale" model, where a composition is presented as a chord sequence and a melody over it. The melody is then treated as not much more than a hint of how to continue - as each chord comes along, you can take off melodically into anything that fits the modal scale associated with it (and those modes are often nothing that ever occurs in any folk idiom from anywhere) or harmonically extend the chord in any vaguely compatible direction. Maybe you quote bits of the melody, maybe you mutilate it so much that its own mother couldn't identify the body. This is a very, very long way from folk practice. It's basically an art music discipline, like the Indian raga or Arabic maqam. People who manage to create music that sounds like *both* jazz and real folk music *at the same time* are few and far between and spend a very long time working their music out with a small group of collaborators (Jan Garbarek, Okay Temiz, Bojan Zulfikarpasic, for a few). They also know the folk material they're using very well indeed.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Shaw Farmer
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 07:59 AM

I do get your point, I just think its a bad one.

Where do you get this idea that Music Hall is for the white middle classes? a lot of the origins of music hall came from east end pubs in london, where most of the time the format was very similiar to folk clubs, pay a few quid to sit around and sing, dance, tell stories.. before that it was performed in rural communitys as part of the gypsy and travelling fayre, hardly white middle class music. YES, I agree it developed into a leisure persuit, but the performers were still working class.

Anyway.. we're digressing.The point is, all music is art, art is free to interpretation, and interpretation should not be governed by anybody.

Jack Campin said:

"Seems like you care nothing for either what the tunes express or how they came to be. And you expect us to listen to you?"

Again, whats with the 'Us' - who are you speaking for?

You got one thing correct- I dont care about how folk music came to be , HOWEVER I do care what tunes express, and strumming the same shit chords that Cecil Sharp said you should play doesn't express anything to me. When I play along to these tunes, I try to express an aspect of the song/tune with my own individual take on the harmony.

Like I said at the start- LISTEN, JAM, INTEREACT and just PLAY!

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Jack Campin
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 07:11 AM

You are missing the point by a very long way. The jazz musicians who adopted Broadway showtunes in the middle of the 20th century instead of what they were doing before were mostly black and working class, and suddenly they were playing white middle-class music instead of their own. Showtunes are no sort of folk music for anybody, by even the most lenient categorization. And the way the jazzers treated them showed absolutely zero respect for them. Understandably - they didn't deserve that respect, and jazz got wonderful results by utterly ignoring whatever the tunes were actually saying.

Kenneth Rexroth has some interesting things to say about this:
http://www.bopsecrets.org/rexroth/jazz.htm

I don't know what Cole Porter or Rodgers & Hart thought about what the bebop generation did to their music. I imagine they were outraged.

A jazz musician today, coming to traditional music with a condescending attitude like "it's all based around 5 notes", is if anything, showing even greater hostility to their raw material. At least the bebop generation took the trouble to understand the musical structures of the showtunes before disembowelling them. Seems like you care nothing for either what the tunes express or how they came to be. And you expect us to listen to you?

Take a look at the modes tutorial on my website:
www.campin.me.uk/Music/Modes/

Some of it's based around five notes. Most of it isn't, and whether it is or not, there is a great deal more than just that going on.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 07:09 AM

To revert to an earlier bit, Eddie Lang's roots. He was the consummate jazz accompanist, but the roots are definitely in Americanised popular European(Italian) dance music. The interface between jazz, folk and popular was always a shifting and kaleidoscopic thing. As has ben pointed out, Texas swing is a big source for this kind of guitar playing. If you listen to early New Orleans guitarists, for example, they don't tend to sound like Eddie Lang. But white dance musicians, eg Texas swing band rhythm section men, do tend to.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Shaw Farmer
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 06:16 AM

Jack Campin said:

"No you CAN'T play whatever you like. Folktunes have their own expressive world, we do NOT see them as simply something to egotrip over. They are tiny, but each one has been be shaped to say something unique."

I can't play whatever I like? Thats weird, because last time I checked, traditional tunes are in the PUBLIC domain, and not kept under lock and key in your museum. Do you really think 200 years ago troubadours, entertainers and alike all played tunes the same? No.. if they did there wouldn't be the diversity in folk tunes and songs we see today. What a ridiculous attitude to take to 'the music of the PEOPLE'.

Jack Campin also said:

" We do NOT appreciate our tradition being treated as if it was Cole Porter or Lerner & Loewe, thanks."

First of all... We? is Jack Campin a band? Society of folk protectors? or do you believe you speak for the majority of folk music enthusiasts?

I think your point about slushy, simple, music hall songs being turned into something different is interesting, but sadly contradicts your previous attitudes towards arranging folk material...NEWSFLASH... folk music is simple, sentimental material..(I could be controversal and say also for the white middle classes too) and its the job of the musician/singer to bring life to the material, which is exactly what jazz musicians do, they encourage diversity and experimentation, where your attitude is to let the music stagnate and die. Most folk tunes are based around 5 notes, its simple harmonically but that gives plenty of scope for the performer to make it there own.

Incidentally, most Music Hall songs/tunes that inspired jazz arrangements (especially in the UK) were closely connected to the folk music of the time... in fact I've even heard music hall songs being played as ceilidh sets (Dartmoor Pixie Band?).. so by insulting music hall your tearing apart the music you so eagerly defend.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Will Fly
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 02:11 AM

Hi M.Ted - I'm aware that jazz guitarists commonly use 4-string voicings. I do myself and recommend the technique to young players. What was interesting for me was that Eddie Lang was one of the first persons - as far as I'm aware - to write about it and to propagate the method in print. :-)

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 11:55 PM

Will Fly--The "inside" voicings are pretty much what jazz guitarists use, both for playing chord melody and for playing those call and response chord blocks that are similar to what horn sections play in swing--

My mentor, old Uncle Albert, taught me to play four string voicings on each of the three adjacent sets of four strings, as well as four note voicings that skipped a string. The technique was adapted from jazz banjo--

The early jazz guitarists, including Eddie Lang and Nick Lucas, started out on banjo and made the switch when electronic recording was introduced. This partly because guitar had a wider range, and partly because the sound of the banjo came across as thin and harsh as recording technology improved.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Declan
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 07:52 PM

I love Peerie Willie's style of playing, and while it has jazz roots the thing was that he obviously knew the tune repertoire well and adapted the style to fit. I have no problem with this approach. Where there is often an issue is where people who could well be experts in accompanying other genres assume that they can come in to a session without familaiarising themselves with the tunes, styles etc. attempt to apply a formula for backing tunes which works in the other idiom and assume it will work in the context of a session, often with dire results

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Jack Campin
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 06:42 PM

Just listened to Dick's version of The Wild Hills of Wannie. About the same speed overall as I do it, though I start slower, use a lot more rubato, end more definitely waltz-like and put in a lot more notes, as Billy Pigg did. But the question I wanna ask is... what on earth did you do to get the Japanese gagaku music come up as related???

Actually the gagaku sound would fit a standard folk band quite well:

sho -> moothie, concertina or melodeon
ryuteki -> whistle or flute
hichiriki -> smallpipes or uillean pipes with the drones off
Japanese drum -> bodhran

"Etenraku" for your next Irish session?

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Will Fly
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 06:11 PM

"guitarists - they always all play different chords"

Ah - that's because we can. :-) And "less is more" is a phrase used of many instruments... I was once playing in a pub in Hove with a funk band and the landlord asked the keyboard player to turn it down. Result! :-)

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 06:07 PM

If it sounds appropriate to you, it probably is. Accepted may be different from appropriate, though. I guess it depends on the tune/style/history/and accessibility.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Will Fly
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 06:03 PM

Dick - forgot to mention: I have, in a cupboard somewhere, a rather battered copy, from the late 20s, of a guitar tutorial by Eddie Lang (at least, it has his name on the cover). It's a complex and detailed work - not easy to get through - which shows that Lang was very fond of using "inside voicings", i.e. the inner 4 strings of the guitar, to get dense, subtle and quite fast chord changes. I must dig it out and take a look at it again. I wonder if he ever played tenor guitar as a boy...

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Old Vermin
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 06:03 PM

To more-or-less quote Mr Kevin Gorton, player, inter-alia, of melodeon, fiddle, recorder and Surrey bagpipes - but not all at the same time - "guitarists - they always all play different chords"

Who was it said that with the guitar less is more? Possibly Grant Baynham.

Reckon there's enough material in this thread for a good book.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Will Fly
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 05:58 PM

Dick, I'm sure you're right - I had no idea of which facet of Lang's playing was heard by Peerie Willie Johnson. All I know is that Lang spanned several genres - including those marvellous blues sets (as Blind Willie Dunn) with Lonnie Johnson.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 05:53 PM

agreed Will,but Johnson has publicly stated he learned from listening to short wave radio of EddieLang.
Eddie Lang like Bix Beiderbecke,considered himself a jazz musician,hre only worked with the likes of Whiteman to pay the bills.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: Will Fly
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 05:49 PM

Well, Lang spanned both the world of orchestral dance music (Paul Whiteman, Jean Goldkette, etc.) with small group work with Joe Venuti, Bix Beiderbecke, Adrian Rollini and others. I have no idea what Willie Johnson would have heard on the radio.

As to Western Swing, a study of my extensive collection of Bob Wills recordings reveals that there were a whole range of styles bundled together - not only in the repertoire, but in individual songs. One piece might start off with a traditional country sound - fiddles, etc., - then break into swing with a sax section, then hot jazz with trumpet and guitar solos! Certainly guitarist Eldon Shamblin played all this stuff - but I think he adapted his style to suit the recording.

Subject: RE: Accepted chords for traditional tunes
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 05:37 PM

furthermore,since this thread is titled as it is, lets have alook at Western Swing:American traditional tunes using Jazz Chording.