 sj |
||
|
||
The Song is the Important Thing!
|
|
|
Subject: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Andy7 Date: 15 May 16 - 12:20 PM A while ago, after I'd performed a song at our local club, another member came up and complimented me on my performance. "What I liked," she said, "Is that the guitar was secondary to your singing, you just used it to support the song rather than letting it take over." I didn't mention to her that the main reason for that was that I can't do anything clever on the guitar, and that I'm possibly the least accomplished player at our club! But after that, I started to notice how often, in folk club performances, the song is less prominent than the accompaniment. Maybe the lyrics are not easy to hear, or the singing is rather flat and uninteresting, while brilliant fireworks come flying out of the instrument. It's not that I'm jealous of your skill on the guitar (well, maybe just a bit, haha!), but however good your playing, please remember that the song is still the important thing! |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: mkebenn Date: 15 May 16 - 12:27 PM Andy, I could not agree more. that said I'm a lyric wonk and a luke warm guitarist at best, but unless it's "layla" I remember and rate on the words, and when I knew the words and background to that song, even that changed. Mike |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: punkfolkrocker Date: 15 May 16 - 12:29 PM ie.. the primary principle in Punk Rock... 😎 .. errrrrrm.... not that my ability as a guitarist would have improved much since 1977, even if I could have been bothered trying to learn "Stairway To Heaven" or "Freebird"....... |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: GUEST,padgett Date: 15 May 16 - 01:46 PM The song lyrics are the most important thing ~ the words of the song using phrasing and stops etc are certainly most important in conveying the meaning and sense and message of the song ~ the tune is the vehicle by which the song is conveyed and should be basic, sometimes however the tune and instrumental arrangement can add a great deal no matter what genre you are working in! Ray |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: meself Date: 15 May 16 - 02:14 PM Sorry, guys - the day when the song mattered is long past - all that matters now is the guitar-playing. Well - maybe it's different where you live .... |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: mkebenn Date: 15 May 16 - 03:00 PM Lord,meself, I pray you are wrong. Mike |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: meself Date: 15 May 16 - 05:08 PM Well, I must confess, I have a pretty good record for being wrong about things. Except the origin of the term jew's harp .... |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: GUEST Date: 15 May 16 - 08:03 PM The song's the thing. Quite often better, more accomplished guitarists hide beind their instrument. Or they play the song in the key that makes the guitar sound good, which in many cases is the wrong key for their voice. Seen it dozens of times. I describe my guitar style as, "barely adequate." Yes, I would like to be a better guitarist, but not at the expense of the expression and continuity of the song. |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: BobKnight Date: 15 May 16 - 08:05 PM That was me above as "Guest." I didn't realise I'd been signed out. |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 15 May 16 - 08:28 PM "Song" implies music, yes ? It seems to me that all components should be performed well. I do have to say that a good song done by a " barely adequate" guitarist is seldom a pleasure for me to listen to .if you have a good singing voice and can't play, sing unaccompanied. |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: GUEST,Allan Conn Date: 16 May 16 - 03:28 AM I don't think the original poster said he couldn't play HiLo. He just said his guitar playing was less accomplished and to tell you the truth I am the same. I can play adequately on my own and people seem to quite like it but it is the voice conveying the song that I think is the important factor - and the guitar playing is pretty basic compared to some others at the club. I am lucky in that our night is a two venue, two type of gathering night. The early part is more individual floor spots where I normally do a couple of songs on my own. We then move to the Cobbles Inn which goes on to the wee small hours where I have the pleasure of singing songs often with full guitar, fiddle, accordian, and percussion backing. I love the later part of the evening and it is a pleasure to sing with some really good players but it tends to be crown pleasing songs by then. More the overall sound and atmosphere etc. The early part does tend to be more about the song and I don't find the less than brilliant guitar playing a real hindrance as I do concentrate on the song. |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: GUEST,Mike Yates Date: 16 May 16 - 03:37 AM "Twenty men and boys scythed the corn and sang as they went." "What was the song, Davie?" "Never mind the song - it was the singing that counted." Ronald Blythe - Akenfield |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 May 16 - 04:22 AM We have spent over forty year recording and listening to the older generation of singers and, when we could, we asked them what they considered to be the most important aspect of their songs - each time the reply was "the story" I suppose that meant "the words", but you can sing words without making sense of the story - lots of people do, especially if you allow the accompaniment to dominate the song. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: doc.tom Date: 16 May 16 - 04:40 AM I agree totally with Jim. It's also interesting that the thread talks about the accompaniment: I have as much problem with performers who put themselves in front of the song! The song IS the important thing - not you OR how good an instrumentalist you are. |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: matt milton Date: 16 May 16 - 06:09 AM So many contemporary folk performers sing songs with a kind of "professional smile" in their voice. It seems particularly inappropriate when singing a song about murder. |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Mo the caller Date: 16 May 16 - 06:47 AM I agree about letting the words tell the story, but see nothing wrong with an instrumental break that echos and builds the feeling of the song, and I really enjoy it when the song is followed by a related tune. The tune is the important thing too. And the way things work together. E.g. a story followed by a song, song followed by a tune. Same with dancing. Some bands - particularly some American bands the play 'English' (which in England we call 'Playford') get so complicated with there harmonies, counter melodies and volume changes that it is hard to follow the beat. But some English groups - Assembly Band, Falconers, etc manage to do enough variation to keep things interesting without obtruding or losing the dancers (enough to be noticed when standing out at the top of the set, or your attention isn't needed for a difficult figure). |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Mo the caller Date: 16 May 16 - 06:49 AM Grr. I did preview but the should have been who and there their. |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 May 16 - 07:48 AM "instrumental break that echos and builds the feeling of the song" Sound somewhat like a theatrical rather than a narrative device to me - I have yet to hear instrumental breaks be anything other than interruptions to a narrative and the longer the break, the greater the interruption, but maybe that's just personal taste. Can I add that I feel the same way about the over-use of vocal ornamentation. I now live in Ireland where there can be a tendency to over-decorate, which can be very beautiful, but often strips the song of its narrative qualities. When we started recording the old singers in here in Clare, which is now our home, while, for various reasons, ornamentation tended to be sparse, the repertoires included many narrative songs, including songs and ballads from England and Scotland - particularly ballads. In the latter half of 20th century it was found that 50 Child Ballads were still to be found from source singers, including several that had entirely disappeared in mainland Britain. Nowadays, these narrative songs are rarities, though a recent project by Wexford couple, Aileen Lambert and Michael Fortune, backed by the National Library of Ireland, (Man, Woman and Child) has breathed new life into the old ballads. It seems have been very much a case of "use them or lose them". Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: GUEST,In good company Date: 16 May 16 - 08:20 AM I have yet to hear instrumental breaks be anything other than interruptions to a narrative and the longer the break, the greater the interruption One striking example of using an instrumental break to great effect is in Mr Fox's 'The Gypsy'. The story is quite a simple one but well told in the usual Bob Pegg style. Between the lad learning where the Gypsies are camped and him arriving at the site, the instrumental break portrays his urgency in crossing the Buttertubs Pass pretty well and, in my opinion, enhances the narrative. I am sure there are other examples. Cheers Dave |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Vic Smith Date: 16 May 16 - 08:38 AM " We have spent over forty year recording and listening to the older generation of singers and, when we could, we asked them what they considered to be the most important aspect of their songs - each time the reply was "the story" " " I have yet to hear instrumental breaks be anything other than interruptions to a narrative and the longer the break, the greater the interruption" " Can I add that I feel the same way about the over-use of vocal ornamentation." Three 'likes' by Vic Smith for comments by Jim Carroll! He must be going soft in his old age - nothing to disagree with either. |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 May 16 - 08:46 AM "nothing to disagree with either." Early days yet Vic!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: CupOfTea Date: 16 May 16 - 08:50 AM From the days when I was more audience than singer, the view I acquired was one that became more important and basic as I started to sing out, lead songs, perform: It's not the singer it's the song. Don't remember where that dictum came from, only that it was part of a list of parallel constructions of relative values - " it's not the------ it's the -------, it's not the------ it's the -------, " etc. I dearly wish I could find the rest of the list and the source. NEVERTHELESS this ethic has served me well and informed my taste. It has led me to appreciate singers without "pretty" voices, and value what they have studied, researched, collected. It is also difficult to deal with the frustration when the songs from Peter Bellamy, Frank Harte, or The Copper family don't get much recognition or air play (in the US) until someone with a spectacular voice, like Ann Hills, Connie Dover or Karan Casey cover them. Then you also get the contemporary writers with little to say and precious little traditional song in their background being touted as " folk stars" on the basis of a great voice and/or guitar expertise. I do not know if it is more difficult to let the song shine through when one has the skills and the voice, but I know I cherish it when I hear the likes of Deb Cowan, Cindy Mangusen, Archie Fisher or John McCutcheon. The brilliance of their playing is just a setting for the gem of the song. Joanne in Cleveland |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: mkebenn Date: 16 May 16 - 09:15 AM I in no way meant to say that instrumentation wasn't important. It adds a dimension to a work that would be missing without. I also don't feel that an "all star" voice is vital either, though I recognize them and love them. To me, you need words to tell a story, Wagner not withstanding, to tell the story. Hence the focus of the song. Mike ps meself I now know FAR more about kazoos than I thought there was LOL |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Steve Gardham Date: 16 May 16 - 09:57 AM Like Vic, It's not very often I am 100% in agreement with Jim, but on this occasion, absolutely! That doesn't mean to say I sing totally unaccompanied. I probably nowadays sing more accompanied songs than unaccompanied but I am very careful to make sure the words are clear and nothing is distracting away from them, and the people I sing with do the same. |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: mkebenn Date: 16 May 16 - 10:05 AM meself, meant jew's harps, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: GUEST Date: 16 May 16 - 10:38 AM I'll agree that the words have to be conveyed clearly for anything to make sense but I think there are too many variables (nature of the song, skills of the artist(s), etc.) to try to come up with one "right way". Pondering Jim's I have yet to hear instrumental breaks be anything other than interruptions to a narrative and the longer the break, the greater the interruption, but maybe that's just personal taste. My first thought goes to Planxty's "Jolly Beggarman". I love the short instrumental in the middle and the move to the "Wise Maid" at the end is just "wow!". (But maybe it also really hit's my own personal tastes - I love jigs and reels, Liam O'Flynns playing...) Another thought could go to "The Ballad of St Anne's Reel" as it's something I've tried to do at home. I can scratch out St Anne's Reel melody at sort of "session pace" on guitar and would get away with doing that as a sort of "3rd row session player" but I can't make the transition from playing chords to melody or convey the melody well enough to even consider trying it even in the very easy going, mostly folk, mostly songs type small informal clubs that exist round here. From my own perspective, this song feels naked without the working in of the reel and I can't pull the reel off well enough. |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Steve Gardham Date: 16 May 16 - 11:41 AM If you think it's hard on guitar it's pretty difficult on push pull squeeze-boxes! |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: GUEST Date: 16 May 16 - 11:53 AM OT maybe but thinking instrumentals, etc. One thing I personally can not stand is long intros. You get a few chords and I guess a "build up" but after what feels like a minute into the thing, I'm sort of feeling "for F's sake just get on with it and let me hear the song". Is it just me put off by this? |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Airymouse Date: 16 May 16 - 11:54 AM "I have yet to hear instrumental breaks be anything other than interruptions to a narrative and the longer the break, the greater the interruption." This reminds me of Emperor Joseph II's famous complaint about Mozart's Marriage of Figaro: "too many notes." No doubt Mozart could have improved his opera by taking out all those pesky musical interruptions. |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: GUEST Date: 16 May 16 - 12:04 PM Steve, I'm more mandolin/tenor banjo and it fits easily on them but I'm pretty much single melody and wouldn't find a chordal accompaniment I like - another of my own limitations... As for boxes, I still own a battered Honer Erica. I had a brief spell with a Morris side before Irish sessions became my preferred area (not that when I do get out, I might not try other folk things). I would not get St Anne's to speed on a box - Winster Gallop is more my level. Sometimes I toy with the idea of a (heaven forbid B/C) "Irish Baube" or maybe find out about an old Paulo Soprani... in my dreams, I'd play anything on them but down to earth I think I have to settle for doing as best I can on fretted strings... |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Harmonium Hero Date: 16 May 16 - 12:07 PM To me, as far as song accompaniment is concerned, a good instrumentalist is one who can accompany. The instrument should be playing a supporting role. If you want to show off your stunning dexterity, play some instrumentals, but the songs, if accompanied, should be supported by the accompaniment, and not be in competition with it. As the performer, it is up to you how you accompany the song, and there are no rules about how to accompany a folk song, any more than there are rules about how to accompany anything else. You play what seems appropriate to you, and it is up to the listener what they think about your performance, but I think your guiding principle should be what's appropriate to tell the story. I agree that it seems nowadays that instrumental prowess, and vocal gimmickry (as opposed to traditional singing styles) seem to be taking over. Many of the young performers seem to be using more pop oriented singing styles, which I find distracting. This will be seized upon by some mudcatters as me being a curmudgeonly old git. It isn't. We were all young a few years (be honest - decades) back, but I don't seem to remember this kind of delivery being prevalent then. (Although, on reflection, there used to be a kind of 'folksinger's voice' adopted my some, which, thankfully, seems to have pretty well disappeared). In pop and rock music, the singer is pretending that the song is about them; in folk, we are telling someone else's story (which is also why it doesn't matter what gender the singer is). And modern popular music is essentially dance music, and the words are less important. In folk, the songs were traditionally for listening to; the dance music was instrumental. So the instrumental accompaniment, if there is one (and remember that it's only an option) is serving a different function from dance music. Incidentally, I'm also getting somewhat disenchanted with the guitar in folk music. Nothing wrong with the instrument, but just check back through the thread. The assumption seems to be that 'accompaniment' means 'guitar'. Look through a few club websites, or folk magazines, and count the guitars. There are numerous other options, which create different moods. Some people find the guitar a bit bland. And, of course, many people in the folk world find any accompaniment a distraction. It is about the song - the story, but what people appreciate is the way a particular performer draws them into that story. John Kelly. |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 16 May 16 - 12:21 PM In the very brief notes to my CD, I told the reader that I am first a story-teller, second a singer, and third an instrumentalist. That was badly put, though. "First, a story-teller" doesn't mean I speak and tell the story; I mean that the great majority of my songs are story songs, and presentation of an interesting story is the first intention of my performance, in my mind. By "second, a singer", I mean that, while I have an adequate and I hope pleasing singing voice, and, I think, good judgment in the musical vocal presentation of the story's text, the vocal music is decidedly second to the song's story-telling. So I should have said "story-singer" or "song-teller", I guess. And by "third, an instrumentalist" I mean that my technical abilities on the guitar or banjo, while adequate for the way I choose to sing/tell the song's story, the accompaniment is dispensable. If I don't feel up to an instrumental accompaniment that enriches the story-telling, I will sing the song unaccompanied. If I think the song really NEEDS a guitar or banjo accompaniment of a level I can't provide, I just won't perform it. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: GUEST Date: 16 May 16 - 12:35 PM Nicely put, Dave O. |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: The Sandman Date: 16 May 16 - 12:42 PM
From: Steve Gardham - PM Date: 16 May 16 - 11:41 AM If you think it's hard on guitar it's pretty difficult on push pull squeeze-boxes! its down to practice and listening to yourself, play quietly sing louder its VERY SIMPLE, JUST PRACTICE THAT AND REMemBER YOU ARE ACCOMPANYING THE VOICE, keep it simple |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 May 16 - 01:07 PM "This reminds me of Emperor Joseph II's" I know what he meant - I've always had problems following the words of Mozart's concertos and string quartets. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: GUEST Date: 16 May 16 - 01:14 PM Aw Jim, When Mozart used words (operas), my problem is usually the language. I like this one (from Don Giovanni). One day I'll get it right on mandolin... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDPcab-gcYs |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Vic Smith Date: 16 May 16 - 03:04 PM A very interesting and relevant post from Harmonium Hero - John Kelly. My memory was really stirred by his statement:- on reflection, there used to be a kind of 'folksinger's voice' adopted my some, which, thankfully, seems to have pretty well disappeared ...and I can remember a lot of very mannered singing from a group of leading male revivalist singers who all seemed to be influencing one another and those who would emulate them in this small pond of a folk scene. It did seem strange to me at a time when most of my listening was to the rich, varied and distinctive voices of the highly rated traditional singers of these islands, Those main revivalists moved on but we still hear echoes of these mannerisms in some of the lesser older singers. In more recent years a very popular female singer sang in a 'little girlie' voice for a few years which was copied by many followers and made me despair of being able to concentrate on the song & story rather than the voice. Fortunately, the singer in question now sounds like the Yorkshire woman she is and the copyists seem to be following suit. The sound bands make also makes me think that a lot of copying is going on. I suppose that with bands, they have to agree a starting point; the better ones move on quickly to produce their own distinctive sound. |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 May 16 - 03:17 PM "When Mozart used words (operas), my problem is usually the language" But when Joe the Emp made his complaint he was moaning about the music. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Stewart Date: 16 May 16 - 03:52 PM the song is like a picture the accompaniment is like the frame which is most important, the picture or the frame? Cheers, S. in Seattle |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Pete from seven stars link Date: 16 May 16 - 04:06 PM As a songwriter , I certainly hope the words are listened to, but I am always pleased if other gifted musicians accompany, and I am happy to let them do solos. That's my preference, I guess we are all different. |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: GUEST Date: 16 May 16 - 04:37 PM Dick are you suggesting that top level guitar players like Paul Brady, Martin Simpson or Nick Jones at his best or a fiddle player of Tom Mconvilles calibre dumb down their performances so as not to embarrass us lesser mortals. The above artists are able to take a fairly ordinary song and turn it with their embellishments and instrumental interludes into a musical work of art simply because they can, you and I can only wish we could do the same. So yes the song is important. almost as important its presentation. |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: JHW Date: 16 May 16 - 05:02 PM Just copied this from a website (mine) 'I am pedantic about emphasis and placing of words for intelligibility and nuances of meaning (as I see them intended). The timing, perhaps even the melody may give way to the story telling. Unaccompanied songs have that free flexibility but the guitar can bend too. I am a singer with a guitar, not a guitarist who sings.' |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Stewart Date: 16 May 16 - 06:45 PM "A good accompaniment is like a good picture frame. It should merely set the painting off in space. If it distracts from the painting and people go away saying, "Gee, isn't that a great frame?" then, no, it's not a great frame. It has failed its purpose. Same with song accompaniments." - the late Don Firth Cheers, S. in Seattle |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: GUEST,FloraG Date: 17 May 16 - 03:12 AM I thought it was he audience that were the important thing. FloraG. |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: GUEST,padgett Date: 17 May 16 - 03:18 AM Now audiences is a different matter ~ other singers, guitarists, box players and simply interested parties and those who may or may not have paid to see and hear you Audiences too often taken for granted Ray |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Acorn4 Date: 17 May 16 - 11:29 AM What I have seen on several occasions is a guitarist just strumming chords where there is a place for an instrumental break perhaps for an entire verse - pointless and guaranteed to lose any audience. |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: MikeL2 Date: 17 May 16 - 11:44 AM Hi Flora < "I thought it was the audience that were the important thing. FloraG." > I completely agree with you. The song is important but these days in the clubs and sessions etc I have been to, the majority of instrumentalists seem as if they play in competition with the vocalists. The good instrumentalists know how to accompany a song and make it more enjoyable. I think electrification of instruments has been a bad thing for traditional folk music. Cheers Mike |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: GUEST Date: 17 May 16 - 11:55 AM I think electrification of instruments has been a bad thing Oh, dear lord.... Although I suppose it's slightly apt on the 50th anniversary of the 'Judas' gig. |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 May 16 - 12:30 PM Some very cheering comments here - where were you people when you were needed at some of the clubs I have been bored out of my skull with because I couldn't follow the words? I was privileged to attend and record a remarkable two-hour talk given by Peggy Seeger back in the late sixties, in my opinion, one of the best and most sensitive accompanists I have listened to, (not counting her present choice of keyboards (sorry Peggy) which, I'm afraid, leaves me cold and are hernia-causing heavy to help transport back to her van, as I learned nearly to my cost when she visited Clare a few years ago) Peggy describes accompaniment as a background to sing against - you shouldn't notice it, only its absence. She also said that the first question you should ask about accompaniment is "is it necessary" and "if you notice it, it's getting in the way". I have nothing against using instruments in singing - half of my largish repertoire was once accompanied. I stopped singing regularly about thirty years ago when I moved and my accompanist friend didn't (I don't play an instrument). Recently I have become a born-again folkie and have revisited my 300+ songs, most of which I find work perfectly unaccompanied, in some cases, better than they ever did. Happily I have befriended a kindred spirit with a Martin and sensitivity and am gradually breathing new life into all of them - like being young again - now, all I have to do is sort out the sex bit (joking of course Pat!!). Would very much like to hear a response to my comments on ornamentation - pretty relevant here in the West of Ireland where singing is taking off again after a long hibernation (though I doubt it will ever catch up in my lifetime to the unbelievable rise in popularity being enjoyed among young instrumentalists coming to traditional music for the first time) Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: The Song is the Important Thing! From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 May 16 - 12:32 PM Just an additiuonal though - "Judas" - a great title for a Bob Dylan gig - according to Pete Seeger anyway! Jim Carroll |
| Share Thread: |