folk music not suitable for the guitar?

Subject: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: GUEST,Folklorist
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 02:45 PM

I've been told that the guitar was not used in folk music before the 60s because it was not suitable. Why is that? If songs have chords and a tune, then it should be suitable for any instrument, including guitars?

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 02:49 PM

possibly they meant that before the 60's "folk scare" revival guitars were not used with folk music because folk was mostly sung un-accompianied.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 03:12 PM

People played and accompanied themselves with whatever they had. To say guitars weren't apprpriate is a little too snobbish.

Don Meixner

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Mooh
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 03:19 PM

Without getting into the "what is folk" argument, it does depend on what sort of folk music one is playing. There's a big difference between trad Irish tunes, cowboy songs, African polyrhythmic tunes, blues, sea shanties...etc...and maybe a bigger difference in the minds of folk who would exclude whatever instrumentation. I like guitars, sometimes in anything, so I'm biased. But there's more than one way to skin a cat, and sometimes a guitar works and sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it depends on how the guitar is played. Lots too many variables to make such a general statement as the thread topic suggests.

My 2 cents.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Mary Humphreys
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 03:28 PM

Here I assume we are talking about traditional songs, not modern composed ones, which is a totally different genre.
English and Welsh traditional song came from communities that had no guitars. There may have been harps, fiddles, crwths and at a later date melodeons or concertinas. But in general English music is melodic and requires no accompaniment. Nevertheless many of today's performers like to have accompaniment for their songs in order that newcomers to trad song are not put off by the rather stark sound of an unaccompanied voice.
My own preference is for an instrument that does not have a long reverberation time, so the banjo is ideal. For lyrical songs there is nothing to beat the cello, but I am biased, having such an accompanist as Anahata. A melodeon or concertina played with a very light and almost staccato touch is fine too.
A guitar has a long reverberation time from one chord to the next, which makes for a very muzzy sound.
On the other hand, masters of guitar technique such as Martin Carthy have worked wonders and have made it an instrumental option for those who are not completely dyed-in-the-wool traditionalists.
Mary

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Mark Ross
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 03:47 PM

Thell that to Lead Belly who started playing guitar in the 1890's, or Woody Guthrie who started pl;aying guitar in the "30's, Carl Sandburg, Haywire Mac McClintock, Carl T.Sprague, Jules Verne Allan,
Big Bill Broonzy, and hundreds of others I could name who started playing way before the Great Folk Music Scare of the '60's.

Mark Ross

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 03:49 PM

I'm willing to bet that GUEST,Folklorist was in Ireland or the UK, not in America, when told of the unsuitability of the guitar for folk music.

I know that in the Irish/Celtic folk tradition, songs were traditionally sung unaccompanied, and even instrumental tunes were usually played without any chord structure, using "one-note-at-a-time" instruments like the fiddle and whistle. I know less about British traditions, but suspect that the history there is similar if not exactly the same.

The introduction of guitars, banjos, etc., into Irish "trad" music and similar repertoires is quite recent, very likely in response to the '60's American folk revival (which was heard, to some extent, around the world). The introduction of "chording" intruments into these traditions has generally required a thoughtful approach and good ear for modal scales to preserve the essential qualities of the original non-harmonic sound.

In the US, on the other hand, there is no similar tradition of music played without guitars and similar instruments. The banjo is an American invention, developed from earlier West African instruments, and has been part of the US folk heritage pretty much from the beginning; it probably played a role in the development of song structures that are usually built upon chords. The guitar is only a little newer, perhaps making its earliest appearances in areas originally colonized by Spain. In some American folk forms/traditions (notably the blues), guitar is probably the *original* instrument.

In the US, the *electric* guitar may have been newly introduced in the mid-20th century, but the basic acoustic box has been an essential American folk-music instrument for much longer than that.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 03:51 PM

Re: the thread title. Amazing.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Dave Sutherland
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 04:01 PM

A.L Lloyd once stated that any portable instrument would have accompanied folk music over the ages.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Once Famous
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 04:04 PM

Thank God for guitars.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: treewind
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 05:12 PM

The guitar is as good an instrument as any for folk music (sometimes), but following on from Mary's post we routinely go to gigs with 7 instruments* and none of them is a guitar. It's certainly not a necessity and I find it amusing that some people assume that in folk music an "instrument" has to mean a guitar, or even less comprehensibly, that a guy with a guitar is a typical traditional singer.

Anahata

* that includes two concertinas (different systems) and three melodeons. But I didn't include pipes, which I could justifiably add to the list on the basis of rare appearances.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 06:33 PM

To add to Mary's post , in Britain the tradition was that Songs were sung unaccompanied and instruments were used for dancing or in Church Music . Court Music had instrumental accompaniment , but this was NOT 'Folk'Music . Incidentally , harmony singing was NOT traditional in 'Folk' either .
   America had a totally different view of songs , and more available
influences to make and play accompanying instruments .

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: biglappy
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 06:50 PM

I'm not sure you guys have the right ideas here. I like a guitar and it really is the instrument of the blues.

For traditional songs, though, the chords are often too "thick". Those traditional ballads often had pentatonic or hexatonic scales and it is difficult to play guitar chords that really belong without playing notes that are not in the scale of the ballad. This will feel "wrong", to asensitive musician.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 06:57 PM

Given the appropriate tuning, which might be standard , open, or DADGAD, and a sensitive guitarist, there is no folk song anywhere, any time, which will not benefit from an intelligent guitar accompaniment.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 07:29 PM

"Folk music" is a term rather like "wild animals" - tigers and squirrels and tarantula spiders and turtle doves are all "wild anumals", but they have some important differences. The guitar has been used in some types of folk music for centuries, in others only for decades, and in yet others not at all.

It's relatively cheap and portable, and it's pretty versatile, being adaptable tomplay a wide range of types of music - and that's really the right way to do it, adapting the way of playing the instrument to match the type of music, not the other way round; unfortunately that is what often happens, with the music being adjusted to fit in with a style of guitar accompaniment that was developed for a completely different type of music.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 07:31 PM

If it's just about scales, retune the guitar.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: pdq
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 07:43 PM

Don't we need to answer the question "what is Folk Music" first?

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 07:44 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 08:04 PM

This is one of those ,I think we all agree, it just depends on where we are from, and what kind of music we all do, things

Folklorists has two questions going.

The answer to the first one is "Yes, that is correct." depending on what songs you are singing from what culture at what stage of develpment. It wasn't very long ago at all that guitars where assimilated into the music of the British Islands.

Many people consider the Uke to be a traditional Hawaiiam instrument.
The interesting thing is we know the year if not the day and maybe even the name of the Portugese Sailor who brought the first Uke to the islands.

In my opinion the second answer about chords and suitability is also "Yes they should be suitable for any chorded instrument. How good or bad the song songs is a matter of taste." That being said there are a number of songs that I know that I would never use a guitar on and would just as likely sing them accapella because I think thats the only way to do them justice.
(Skibbereen, The Valley of Knocknure, Rue,...)

I perform with what I can play and it is still folkmusic when I'm done.

Don

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 10:42 PM

I'm always a little taken aback by people who ask for "the chords" for traditional songs. As a general rule, there aren't any (for reasons mentioned above), but the majority are so conditioned to commercial pop music, typically guitar-accompanied, that they are unable easily to imagine a song that doesn't have built-in "chords" or, for that matter, a "bridge" (see any number of DT files which actually interrupt the song text to say "bridge", though I don't think a single one was posted by someone who was able to provide the music for whatever it might have been).

Popular song has been accompanied -from time to time- for hundreds of years, though as a rule the songs which have been retained in oral tradition are those which don't need it: after all, if you can't sing a song without a guitar, or piano, or whatever, you'll not be singing it in the bath, or doing the gardening, or at work... and that is how such songs mostly survived before the advent of commercial recording.

When talking of "folk music" I don't mean, of course, the modern output of the singer-songwriters, much of which is very weak melodically and can't be sung convincingly without accompaniment. Some of it will stand in its own right without support, though; and that is what may in time enter tradition.

There are most certainly plenty of traditional songs for which a guitar accompaniment is unsuitable, but that's partly a question of taste: a competent musician can fit a guitar part to most songs, but it's a sad truth that most people who try it are not competent musicians, and should therefore be quite careful what they attempt.

First, learn the song; naked and unadorned. Once you know and understand it, try to make a suitable accompaniment for it. The best guitar players I've met know their craft well enough to acknowledge that some songs are better un-interfered with; they'll sing those ones unaccompanied if their voices are good enough to manage without the support of "chords"; or they'll leave well alone.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 11:30 PM

"I'm always a little taken aback by people who ask for "the chords" for traditional songs. As a general rule, there aren't any"

Malcolm,

I'll admit that my music traing is very slim. Can't read a note and I wouldn't know a myxolidian from a melodica but your sentence above confuses me. If a song has a melody that repeats at concise intervals and does so for each verse then there must be a key signature and a group of chords that will fit the melody. No matter what instrument it is played on.

Am I wrong? and if so, please explain.

Don

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 11:35 PM

guitars, at least in the US, began to appear in the late 1800s. Traditionally, in the English (and, I believe, Gaelic-speaking world) Songs were almost invariably unaccompanied. Instrummentaldance music, of course, was an entirely different matter.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 02:43 AM

Malcolm, you have shot yourself in the foot there, albeit only a minor flesh wound.

As Don points out above, every melody has a chord structure.

The fact that nobody has ever notated these chords is neither here nor there ..

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 02:45 AM

Sorry, that was me, cookie lapsed

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Mooh
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 05:54 AM

Every melody can have a chord structure, yes. Every melody may have several chordal harmonizations which will sound appropriate, but chord accompaniment is not a requirement. Not all trad music sounds right when squeezed into modern guitar conventions of rhythm, time signature, and chord use. As for the suitability of guitar, it may well be in the ear of the beholder, and most beholders aren't too discriminating.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 06:03 AM

..."As for the suitability of guitar, it may well be in the ear of the beholder, and most beholders aren't too discriminating"...

Mooh, I would paraphrase that to read

As for the suitability of guitar, it may well be in the expertise of the guitarist, and most guitarists aren't too expert

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Hand-Pulled Boy
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 06:07 AM

Guitars are everything. Who needs singing when you can just E-mail people?

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Splott Man
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 06:16 AM

I'm not interested in what is "correct".

I think "the song" comes first, any accompaniment should support that. We want to hear the story.
I think, basically, a guitar is a rhythm instrument, even when picked, and the songs we are talking about come from either a melodic or a harmonic tradition (obviously, work songs are a separate case). Where it can go wrong, even with an accomplished player is that the song becomes slave to the rhythm. Now in a lot of cases, that isn't an issue, but a lot of trad songs have subtle internal rhythms that can get buried by rhythmic playing.

Once I learned that I didn't have to use all the strings, I got better.

Still learning, mind.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: treewind
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 06:42 AM

Malcolm has not shot himself in the foot; he has put into words something I've often thought myself.

Of course it's possible to force some chords that "fit" the melody of a traditional song but with some songs they don't really follow any logical sequence. Songs that were written more recently with chords in mind are different.

When accompanying a song there are more approaches than just what chords to play. We've got a couple of songs that work with spine-chilling effect against just a bagpipe drone and which would be utterly ruined by prettifying them with guitar chords. As one of them is in mediaeval Welsh it would be chronologically inappropriate too. And we have lots that work nicely with a 1 row melodeon. The chords are C and G, and you don't get much choice about which to play when, and it doesn't matter much.

The other silly thing about asking for the chords to a song (again especially a trad song) is that there is more than one way to harmonize it, and deciding which "chords" to play is part of making your own arrangement. All you can really ask is what chords a particular performer chose in their performance, maybe a recording, and why should you limit yourself to copying that?

On top of that, there is far more to think about in an accompaniment style than the harmonic structure. Choice of instrument, for me, is one. With a cello one thinks more of another melody line than a sequence of chords, and that approach works with other instruments too. (even the 1 row melodeon)

But all that's not an approach that comes too naturally with a guitar unless the player had had classical guitar training, which is why I'm absolutely certain that it's always guitarists who are asking for "the chords" for a song.

"If all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"

Anahata

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 06:44 AM

AH HA! so that's the mistake we've all been making. Tell your friend we promise not to play the guitar any more. Its amazing how you can all get it wrong, and then some genius visionary points us all in the right direction.

And to think we've been playing guitars all these years, gosh arent we silly?

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Splott Man
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 07:15 AM

Keep playing the guitar weelittledrummer and don't let anyone tell you that you shouldn't.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 07:15 AM

Given the appropriate tuning, which might be standard , open, or DADGAD, and a sensitive guitarist, there is no folk song anywhere, any time, which will not benefit from an intelligent guitar accompaniment.

I suppose it is in the ear of the beholder and you are expressing your own opinion as fact. There are plenty of folksongs, particulary ballads telling a story that I'd much prefer to hear unaccompanied.

Back more to the first post, it is my belief that the guitar at least in terms of folk music of the Brittish Isles is not traditional but that in no way means it should not be used (unless one was trying to claim to be authentic for a particular period - the reason there assuming it exists simply being one of historical accuracy).

In a similar vein, if I happen to like a song best without guitar and Murray happened to like a guitar backed version best, I don't believe one of us would be right and the other wrong.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Davetnova
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 07:30 AM

As bathtubs in most peoples homes are a fairly recent social phenomena perhaps singing in the bath is not suitable for folk music.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 07:31 AM

Well, whatever we think of the question, nobody can deny it's provoked some discussion!

Any idiot can play a guitar, and many do. I, for example, am a singer with a guitar (and without) and wouldn't presume to dispute with my musical betters, but I can still remember the days when anything over three chords was a mystery of Gordian complexity; it's perfectly natural for a tyro to ask for the chords to, say, a modal tune or one that has a tricky minor thrown in. We should encourage them to develop their understanding of the music along with their command of the instrument; they will learn when to play and when to tac.

It's generally accepted in the UK that Lonnie Donegan was responsible for the popularity of the guitar in folk and folk-ish music. It's not an orchestral instrument: it has not enough sustain, unlike a violin or a flute (or a concertina or a bagpipe). It would have been an exotic instrument to your day-to-day 18th or 19th century rural or industrial folk-song-monger. I've heard a story, which I've never had confirmed, about a 19th C piano teacher. Finding that the Spanish guitar was becoming disturbingly popular (it's a damn' sight easier to carry around than a piano) and fearing for his livelihood, he bought a job-lot of cheap guitars. These he donated to local street-urchins and others of the "unfortunate" classes, teaching them the three-chord trick, all free of charge. Result: all kinds of undesirables standing around on street corners singing low and vulgar songs in the hearing of respectable people and their impressionable servants. Soon, guitar lessons were infra dig and the Joanna Ruled OK in the drawing-room. To this day, the guitar is still a bit non-U in decent society.

Steve

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Mooh
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 07:31 AM

Murray...I agree entirely that most guitarists aren't too expert, after all, we're talking about the people's instrument here. Between that and inexpert listeners, who's to know what's suitable? But that's kinda the story here, listening isn't an expertise for most folks, it's enjoyment. Some of us will take the playing and listening aspects to different levels, but most will simply enjoy playing and listening for their base attractions.

I have pretty firm opinions on when a guitar suits or doesn't suit the music, and guitar is my living, but most folks don't care so long as it sounds pleasing to them. I have heard people exclaim on first hearing sean nos singing, "How come the music stopped?", as if singing wasn't music without instrumentation. That's an extreme example, but there doesn't have to be a guitar strumming all the time to make it music. Once heard someone strum an open G chord all the way through the first section of Jesu Joy Of Man's Desiring to the general acceptance of the dining room.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 07:31 AM

I think the time has come for concrete examples.

I want a definitive list of all traditional songs which should NOT be done with any guitar accompaniment.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 07:46 AM

As the Malcolm character in Jurrasic Park says, " Just because you can do something is no reason to go ahead and do it." or words that effect.

I am not questioning that some songs shouldn't be accompanied. I agree with that entirely. And to do an evening of early Welsh )or English, or Breton or___________) mid-winter carrols on the guitar and banjo would be possible but very not correct.

The bagpipe drone used as an underlying set of tones to sing against is very effective and very eerie. But isn't that chord? Neither minor nor major but a chord none the less?

Don

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: gigix
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:38 AM

We can rack our minds, dispute, elaborate; we can come with brilliant ideas, give the best of our mind and sensibility, and finally reach our point about what can and what cannot be done in music. But, whatever our idea might be, soon or later someone will demonstrate that we were wrong. That's one fascinating thing about music.
Luigi

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: GUEST,Joe
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:57 AM

Take the guitar away
Watch the folk fade away

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 09:33 AM

Well, it won't worry us at the Stony Stratford a capella session ... but that's not exclusively folk.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Snuffy
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 09:40 AM

I want a definitive list of all traditional songs which should NOT be done with any guitar accompaniment.

As a personal view, how about this for starters:
Anything English over 100 years old
Anything Scottish over 100 years old
Anything Welsh over 100 years old
Anything Irish over 100 years old

YMMV (and probably does)

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: GUEST,Deano
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 09:49 AM

Let's be under no illusions here - but for the guitar in folk music, there'd be no discussion here (obviously).
There'd be some discussion, maybe.............. amongst 5 or 6 "folks"

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: treewind
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 09:49 AM

It won't worry the middle bar singers at the Anchor in the Sidmouth festival either. Nor the lunchtime session at the Volunteer (also Sidmouth, always packed). And as mentioned before, it doesn't seem to affect Mary and me, and we have played at folk clubs where none of the floor spots used a guitar either.

I'm not suggesting banning it (I have seen that done too, but that's another story entirely) - but the guitar is just another instrument, nothing unique or indispensable.

Anahata

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: GUEST,Joe
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 09:54 AM

Snuffy's obviously into History and numerical significance - could do with that kind of expertise in working out my diminished 7th's and augmented 13th's

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: GUEST,Deano
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 09:58 AM

Maybe Snuffy's over 100 years old - you sure you'd benefit Joe?

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: GUEST,Hugh Jampton
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 10:01 AM

We are told and there seems to be ample written and pictorial evidence to show that the lute or an instrument closely associated to it was widely used by the minstrels to accompany their songs as far back as the court of Richard 1st at least.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: GUEST,Joe
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 10:07 AM

Now that's what I call history! Hugh knows his stuff way back beyond 100 years - Snuffy take note: Get some history lessons from Hugh.
I'm not ageist - gettin' old miself Deano

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Splott Man
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 10:19 AM

Ask Derek Brimstone. He was probably there. Les Barker says.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Pete_Standing
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 11:01 AM

Traditional folk singers didn't use instruments, in the main, because there were few affordable instruments to be had, but they would use anything they could. Also, lots of traditional songs would be sung in the workplace - hardly the place for an instrument. To say that a fiddle, concertina, harmonica or anything else is a traditional instrument is probably wrong. So I reckon that any instrument could be used as long as it is used sensitively or as Murray stated, intelligently. Players such as Carthy show that even for unphrased songs, the guitar can be effective.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: John in Brisbane
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 11:35 AM

Just as a general observation I'm often amused and sometimes astonished at how British/Irish/American centric we are at this forum.

There's a whole 'world' of folk music out there that we rarely acknowledge. Much of it can't be easily shoe-horned into Western notation, cannot be played on a fretted instrument. I love guitar but I'd never be daft enough to play along with a Gamelan orchestra or to try to add harmony to most Australian aboriginal songs. The singular lack of harmony applied to almost all Persian music.

If I had to make an estimate I'd guess that the folk music of most of the world's population could not be readily accompanied by guitar as far as harmony is concerned.

Put it to the test and try and find a source of notation or Midis for any Arabic or Asian countries on the Web. Anywhere East of Turkey or South of the Mediterranean won't be there unless the population went through a proloned period of European subjugation.

Regards, John

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 11:48 AM

"Just as a general observation I'm often amused and sometimes astonished at how British/Irish/American centric we are at this forum."

Yup it's true John we are. And while I don't mean to malign other folk idioms and I truly do enjoy Spainish and most al latin music, I don't speak the languages in 99% of the world. My interest is in my tradional roots.

I appreciate many other types of folkmusic and respect it enough not to try and perform it. But I do greatly enjoy it.

At the risk of sounding typically North American I wouldn't dream of performing a song from another culture in a language I do not speak or understand.


Don

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Pete_Standing
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 11:48 AM

- I'm often amused and sometimes astonished at how British/Irish/American centric we are at this forum -

Yep you're right there.

- I'd guess that the folk music of most of the world's population could not be readily accompanied by guitar -

Who was the chap that invented DADGAD? I understood that he did it on the hippy trail when he found out that the guitar didn't fit in with all those exotic modes that rootsy people use. Well that's what Martin Simpson claims.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Jess A
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 11:48 AM


"I can still remember the days when anything over three chords was a mystery of Gordian complexity; it's perfectly natural for a tyro to ask for the chords to, say, a modal tune or one that has a tricky minor thrown in. We should encourage them to develop their understanding of the music along with their command of the instrument; they will learn when to play and when to tac."


Wasn't the point that Malcolm & Anahata & various others were making that asking for or giving out the chords implies that there is only one set of correct chords? As Anahata said, choice of chords is part of the arrangement so if a beginner asks for chords you'd be fine saying "here are some chords" or "here are the chords that I play" but that's as far as it goes? Nowt wrong with that!

btw what's a tyro??

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 11:50 AM

PLEASE!!!!! DADGAD has been used in flamenco for at least a century, along with other more exotic tunings!

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 12:32 PM

Super ted, I don't doubt for a minute that you are right, but it comes as news to me that DADGAD has been used by flamenco guitarists for over a century.

Do you have any links to articles on the net about the use of DADGAD in flamenco?

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 12:58 PM

I want to reiterate the point made by Hugh Jampton back at 10:01 AM -- the guitar may be a comparative newcomer, but what about older and very similar instruments like the lute, the cittern, etc., not to mention the mandolin, balalaika, bouzouki, etc.?

One might object, I suppose, that old-time lutenists may have played arpeggios and countermelodies rather than rhythmic chord progressions in the style of beginning guitarists. However, as many above have noted, a sophisticated musician can use the guitar in any number of different ways, not only as a chord-comping machine.

Backing off to the more basic question of "What is folk music?":

One school of thought is that a "folk" player's mission is to duplicate, as closely as possible, the sound and flavor of some long-gone historical time and place. An admirable goal, to be sure, and the main impetus for collecting and preserving many wonderful songs and tunes.

One problem inherent to this approach is that we have no idea what any musical performance actually sounded like prior to the introduction of recording technology. Traditionalists who are aware of this limitation can do an excellent job when they try to imagine and to recreate a plausible facsimile of how a piece might have been performed and how it might have sounded sometime back in the distant past. However, many more naive individuals feel it is necessary to slavishly imitate the oldest ("most authentic") recorded version of a given number, which necessarily dates back only to the first quarter of the twentieth century.

The opposite point of view is that "folk" music is whatever music is familiar to one's own culture, to the folks to whom and/or with whom one is playing. This theory is based upon the observation that music (of any kind) exists ONLY IN THE PRESENT MOMENT. Since we all live in the modern, industrial, internet-connected world, our shared musical world is ridiculously eclectic and inclusive.

From this point of view, our current real-world "folk" heritage includes Beatles songs and garage-rock stuff like "Louie Louie" as well as Child ballads and 1930s Delta blues -- and the truest folk musicians are the buskers, today's "songsters," who have to give the people what they want (usually a mix of the player's own favorite pieces, many of which may be unfamilar to the audience, along with crowdpleasing pop-culture faves).

Then there's a sort of middle ground, where traditionalists play time-tested old music from a particular well-defined national (or other) heritage, using contemporary instrumentation and *some* degree of modern accompaniment style, but making a strong effort to retain the overall flavor (e.g., a "modal" sound) of what we know of the old or "original" style.

Finally, returning to the original question, what *about* the guitar?Someone above mentioned (was it you, Mooh?) that the guitar is "the people's instrument," easily playable at a very basic level but also capable of great subtlety in the hands of a true artist.

So, while guitar accompaniment is certainly not *always* desirable or appropriate, it certainly cannot be ruled out as automatically "inappropriate" for whatever might be defined as "folk music."

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 02:35 PM

Basically, if you can't sing it without an instrumental acompaniment, you don't really know it well enough to sing it with an instrumental accompaniment.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Mooh
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 02:35 PM

Poppa...Yeah, it was me. Usually I think nobody reads what I post. Thanks for listening. Mooh.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 03:29 PM

Yo Mooh,

I don't read all the threads, but once I select one that might interest me, I certainly read all the posts. I've read *plenty* of your contributions.

Kevin,

I think I appreciate what you mean when you contend that...

"Basically, if you can't sing it without an instrumental acompaniment, you don't really know it well enough to sing it with an instrumental accompaniment."

..but I have to take issue with you:

Unaccompanied singing is a very rare skill, at least on this side of the Atlantic where there is not the same active tradition as in your neighborhood. I don't think there are many songs I could sing as well without accompaniment as I can with it, even though I'm sure I'm a much better a capella vocalist than the average anybody.

Without instrumental accompaniment, very few people seem able to rest for an appropriate interval between lines and verses, even making allowances for working in "free rhythm." And the even the basic ability to actually sing each note at the correct pitch, without accompaniment, seems to be relatively rare.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 03:53 PM

Unaccompanied singing is a very rare skill, at least on this side of the Atlantic"

If that's so, it's just because people don't do it enough so that tehy feel easy about doing it. The ability to sing is as common among human beings as the abloity to talk, wherever you live.

And I'm not even sure it's true that it's a rare skill, even when people feel shy about doing it in public - don't Americans sing in the bath, or sing while driving along?   

The right guitar accompaniment can indeed add something to many songs, and I probably sing with a guitar as often as without, or even more often. But I wouldn't feel I really knew a song if I couldn't sing it unaccompanied, and if I haven't sung it unnacompanied, not necessarily in public.

It seems to me the best way is to learn how to sing a song, and than to add an accompaniment, or have someone else do that. The other way round, where the singer accompanies the instrument, seems the wrong way round, and I think doing it that way explains quite a lot of things that go wrong - for example, when you can't even hear the words over the instrument.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 04:03 PM

Popagator Without instrumental accompaniment, very few people seem able to rest for an appropriate interval between lines and verses

Sometimes I find exactly the opposite, ie. that instrumental accompaniment can force a rythym where taking rests of variable lenghts may seem to me more appropriate. For want of being able to come up with a better description, I tend to view some songs as music with words attached and others as words with music attached and with the second case I think there should be licence to tell the story.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 04:26 PM

"PLEASE!!!!! DADGAD has been used in flamenco for at least a century, along with other more exotic tunings!"

super ted, I am sorry, but I can't let that stand. That just isn't true.

In 1956, I met a fellow named Chuck Drysdale who had studied music at the University of Madrid and took lessons from a flamenco guitarist during the years he was there. I had been messing with flamenco before I met Chuck (trying to pick it up from written music in the Vincente Gomez folios while listening to Gomez's records), but he got a lot of what I was trying to do straightened out. In summer of 1962, I had an opportunity to take a whole batch of flamenco guitar lessons from a genuine flamenco guitarist named Antonio Zori (he was in Seattle playing at the Spanish Village at the Seattle World's Fair, and he gave lessons on the side). Once I knew the forms, rhythms, and techniques, then I was able to pick up a lot of stuff from written music, e.g., technique books such as Ivor Mairants's and others. I have a whole stack of technique manuals and several books on flamenco.

Flamenco uses standard guitar tuning almost exclusively. Flamenco guitarists freely make use of the çejilla (capo), but they rarely—extremely rarely—alter the tuning from standard E A D G B E. In all of the manuals and books I have on flamenco, nowhere have I found any instructions about or references to special tunings. The only reference I have ever found is on a web site, "Introduction to Flamenco" by Charles H. Keyser, Jr.:

Note that some of the keys near the top of the Circle of Fifths are not generally used with these rhythms (except as related keys). There are a number of reasons; for example, the tonic D chord (D Major, Minor) has its root on the 4th string, and therefore lacks a solid "bottom"; the G Major chord is slightly awkward to make in the open position, so is not commonly used as a basis for toques.

I've included B Phrygian (in the open position use a B7 as the tonic chord) because of its common use in Rumba solos. In addition, the key of D Minor and D Phrygian Mode is sometimes used for Farruca and Zambra with the 6th string tuned to D (a step lower than E) to provide the bottom; an additional re-tuning of the 3rd string to F# (a half step lower than G) is characteristic of the Rondena solo guitar toque. (Note: some contemporary guitarists are experimenting with different tunings; open G or open D tuning, so be careful if the solo has special effects not traditional to Flamenco) [Emphasis mine].

I do a Farruca that I learned from Antonio, but it is not in D minor, it is in A minor and uses Am, Dm, and E. The falsettos use a mixture of the A natural minor and the A harmonic minor, giving it a somewhat Middle Eastern sound, which squares with the fact that much of flamenco was influenced by Moorish music. I have never encountered the Farruca form in any key but A minor.

Because the forms are built around first position chords and scales, they stick pretty close to what is easy to play in that position (not all flamenco guitarists are as facile as Montoya or Sabicas). Faster than hell, but still simple chords and simple scales. Special tunings would require relearning all of that, and they are generally not very inclined to depart from the traditional forms.

Within the last two or three decades, flamenco, which used to be strongly, almost rigidly traditional, with the singing, dancing, and guitar playing done almost exclusively by gypsies, has been subjected to various "fusions," and what has been emerging within recent years could no longer be regarded as flamenco puro, any more than performances by Pentangle or Steeleye Span can be regarded as pure traditional music in a traditional style. This, however, is not to say that it isn't valid. Music of all kinds evolve.

But to say that flamenco guitarists have made use of special tunings, especially open tunings, for at least a century, just isn't the case. Twenty or thirty years, maybe, but a century? No.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 05:19 PM

On unaccompanied singing:

Maybe I'm in the wrong, in expecting *every* song to be sung to too strict a 4/4 or 3/4 rhythm, including the rests between verses. I realize that it can be valid -- and may often be more appropriate -- to use a freer approach to rhythm, but I myself am neither well-qualified to sing in such a manner, nor even particularly inclined to even try. However, I do recognize good singing that employes free rhythm *well*, and I think I know just what McGrath has been talking about. (Sorry about using the 3rd person there, Kevin.)

What I object to, and hear only too often, is unaccompanied singing that simply rushes prematurely from the final note of one line or verse to the first note of the next, with *no* appreciation either for the conventional "count" of so-many-beats to a measure, or for *any* kind of dramatic pause or other element of timing that contributes to the performance.

Just as a competant and educated writer knowledgeable about grammer and sytax can effectively employ slang, "street" language, etc., more effectively than a marginally literate boob, a singer/musician must be able to phrase according to basic conventional meter -- or at least to understand such an approach -- before he/she can present a *good* performance that subtly works around the rhythmic conventions.

You have to know the rules in order to break them effectively -- and my observation is that most of the folks I hear trying to sing unaccompanied don't have a clue. (They may do an OK job by themselves when singing in their showers, but opening their mouths in public seems to make many people too nervous to pause as long as they should between notes.)

Now -- I'm am SURE that things are entirely different within the context of a UK Folk Club where participants (and listeners, too) have lifetimes of experience with polished unaccompanied singing. But here in the US, most of us do a terrible job. Even *with* accompaniment (like a church organ), groups of untutored American singers seem absolutely unable to count to four and wait before rushing to start the next verse.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 05:54 PM

No, I'm not suggesting that anyone should feel an obligation to sing unaccompanied, if that's not what they are comfortable with, or what the people listening are comfortable with. My point is that it's a good idea to be able sing that song without any accompaniment before you stick that accompaniment in.

It's a bit like making a cake. Many cakes are improved by iceing, and people used to icing on a cake might think they looked a bit bare on their own, even if was a type of cake that didn't actually need icing.

But you have to make the cake on its own before you put the icing on. You can't do it the other way round.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 06:12 PM

I am mainly a singer anymore. The guitar or banjo gets me in the same key as the rest of the band and it helps me stay there. I can and do very often sing accapella and I generally start in one key and end in the same neighborhood.

Un accompanied singing is an art form that is largely ignored in the US. I think because of the selfconciousness factor. To sing without a guitar,(banjo, concertina, anything reall..) is like being naked in school to a lot of folks.

When I arrange a song just for me to sing I learn the song forst and then I learn an instrument to go with it. Some time I use just a harmonica in between the verses I sing accapella.   (Like Roseanne for instance. And I'm leaning that way for The Lock Tay Boat Song.)

I think still that in the end it is the singing, not the song that is the tradition and everything else is just frosting.

Don

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: greg stephens
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 06:22 PM

I think you will find(though I havent the quote to hand) that one of Samuel Pepys' servants sang English folksongs with the guitar, and that is more than 300 years ago. Probably an English guitar tuned CEGCEG, I think, but a chordal instrument nonetheless. Most English tunes are quite harmonically based, and fairly easy to fit a chordal structure to. Unlike, say, most Kurdish music, where it would be impossible, basically.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 06:37 PM

I definitely agree with McGrath on this. Learn the song first. Be able to sing it without accompaniment. If you can't do that, you really don't know the song. Then work out an accompaniment.

I'm reminded of the time (PC alert! Ethnic joke!) Sven and Oly went to work for a house-building contractor. On their first day on the job, the basement had been dug, but no concrete poured or anything else. Sven walks up to the foreman who is standing there reading the plans and asks, "Do we start with the foundation or the roof?" The foreman stares at Sven, sighs and rolls his eyes, and says patiently but firmly, "It's obvious. You start with the foundation." Sven turns around and shouts, "Hey, Oly! Com'on down!"

You gotta start with the foundation.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: PennyBlack
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 06:57 PM

there's a lot of Lute in english traditional music....

(not that we've seen any of it)

PB

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:01 PM

A lot of songs which later entered oral tradition (cf Pepys and Barbara Allen, for instance) may very well have been sung to a lute or English guitar/cittern (or keyboard, come to that) accompaniment in their early days as stage, "art" or pleasure-garden pieces. That's beside the point, really. Where printed arrangements don't survive, we simply don't know.

Speculation is interesting, but proves nothing one way or the other. The fact is that songs that enter tradition (in Western European contexts; I don't presume to speak for others) generally survive in an unaccompanied form, onto which various kinds of chordal accompaniment can be imposed; some more successfully than others. There is always a series of differing options, and, as several of us have said, the best way to arrive at an intelligent decision is to learn the song with its melody alone before trying to elaborate upon it.

Thanks to Treewind and Jess in particular ("some chords" is exactly what I would have said myself had I been around to reply earlier), for showing that my foot is, so far, unwounded.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:12 PM

Pedantic drift: Actually I believe in some parts of the world, when they were building a house, they used to start by constructing the roof, and then they would heave it up and put in the supports and walls.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:31 PM

Malcolm, I would be willing to bet a substantial amount that if Martin Simpson, Steve Tilston and Nic Jones were to be asked individually to provide an accompaniment to any traditional song which hitherto had never been performed with accompaniment, they would each come up with exactly the same chords.

They would of course each have their own interpretation of how the chords were utilised while playing the accompaniment, but the underlying harmonic structure is uniquely implicit in the melody, and would be recognised as such by the true masters.

Lesser beings, I concede, would bicker endlessly about majors and minors and so on and so forth ...

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:53 PM

They might, but I'm not convinced so far. They have had broadly similar approaches to harmonisation, I suppose, but Nic for one certainly made a point of learning the songs unaccompanied first (or at least he said he did).

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Folk Form # 1
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 11:03 AM

John Of Brisbane: "Just as a general observation I'm often amused and sometimes astonished at how British/Irish/American centric we are at this forum. There's a whole 'world' of folk music out there that we rarely acknowledge."

When we in the West talk about folk music, obviously we are talking about British/Irish/American folk music. It is what we like. Other music in the whole wide world sounds quite different. There is no reason why someone who likes British/Irish/American folk music should like music from Bali or Soweto, or that they should like " our" folk music or each others. This seems obvious to me. I don't why you find it astonishing or amusing. The whole concept of world music, as it is strangly called, is slightly patronising. It is shoehorning music into a marketing category that has nothing to do with the music.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 03:24 PM

This is absolutely stupid. I can't see why anybody is duscussing this.

Christy Moore,Martin Carthy and Dick Gaughan sing songs over a hundred years old with a guitar. Are we supposed to ignore or discount the work of significant artists like this.

Okay you do it , if you want

Anybody fool can play guitar and many fools do - you say.

Sure enough and any fool can have have an idea. Particularly a daft one like this.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Folk Form # 1
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 03:33 PM

This was a significant question at the beginning of the folk revival, or so I understand. It is not a relevant question nowadays, because of such excellent guitarists as Gaughan, Carthy, Jansch, Nic Jones, etc. However, it is interesting to know why it was once asked.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 04:04 PM

OK, I will try to turn some of the questions and comments round a little.

I watched a wonderful documentary on the Copper family last night. Would thier performances have been enhanced or weakend by the use of a guitar? For my part, I loved them as they were.

As for the finding chords and other comments. As long as the notes exist (ie not geting into wierd quarter notes), I suspect there would be someone around somewhere (I don't mean one player for all songs) who could pull off a reasonable accompanyment for any given song. Whether I'd prefer that to an unaccompanied version or not is an entirely different matter.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 05:05 PM

no maybe the copper family didn't need a guitar. certainly the some seminal english albums don't have guitar on them - frost & fire for example.

however for the last thirty years or so british and irish artists of great ability have poured all their spituality, intelligence and imagination, into folk music.

maybe the renaissance would have still have happened without the use of canvas for paintings and marble for statues. But one suspects it would have been a poorer thing. If you fail to see the excitement and creativity with which the english have embraced this instrument - obviously something other than excitement and creativity is drawing you to folk music - maybe a desire to be the propietor of a folk museum where the propieties are observed.

football doesn't need its george bests and it peles and rumeningges, but dull would be a ssoul who pass by a sight so touching in its majesty.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 05:34 PM

When we in the West talk about folk music, obviously we are talking about British/Irish/American folk music.

Absolutely not, or rather, not in any way exclusively. When we use term "folk music" many of us, maybe even most of us (I hope), would be referring to all the variety of traditional and traditional based music around the world, within which the folk music of the British Isles and of North America has an honourable place.

In so far as some particular types of folk music is part of our own tradition, that's likely to be what we play, and to a considerable extent listen to, but that's a different matter.

......................................

The assumption that there is only one appropriate harmonic structure to use with a traditional song is very much open to question. For example, it's perfectly possible to have accompaniments that are non-chordal much of the time or indeed all of the time, even when the guitar is the instrument being used.

Obviously the guitar is a great instrument, flexible, convenient, and capable of enormous variety. But it's only one of many. There is much music where it is probably be the most suitable instrument, but plenty where some other instrument might be better suited.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Bernard
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 06:21 PM

'Traditional' is the word that's causing a lot of the problems here... who can say for certain that the person who originated the song did so unaccompanied? Trying to apply a general rule is just plain daft!!

Even though we may not know the author of a song (or tune), there had to be someone who was the very first to perform it in some form or other!! The term 'Traditional' is applied, in the main, to songs and tunes with no known author, and usually found in many variants. Occasionally the writer is identified when some evidence is found... so does it then cease to be 'traditional'?!

Wandering minstrels are depicted playing lute, harp, or pipe and drum... often they were the newsreaders of their day. Some traditional songs had there origins in these 'news bulletins'.

Folk music is so wide and diverse that it is wrong to say what is right!! Personal preferences must come to bear, and if other people find your preference acceptable (and legal!!!), then it is valid - despite what a so-called 'purist' may have to say on the subject.

Perhaps we should enjoy it rather than dissect it?!

McGrath suggests that other instruments may be better suited to some music. Exactly so! This is the task of the performer - to make best use of the tools available.

I play a variety of instruments, but some songs I prefer to sing without accompaniment... because I like them that way. That is all that matters to me! Not because some misguided pedant says that it must be done that way!!

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 09:15 PM

Bernard,

Ditto.

Don

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 05:24 AM

A lot of what the snobs once called "World Music" has now ended up as "Folk Music"...

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 05:44 AM

Foolestroupe, I don't think world music was a snob term but an invented marketing term devised at least in part to categorise items for sale in music shops. I think if you were to scoure the BBC2 folk and accoustic forum, you would find a post by Ian Anderson on the invention of the term and a meeting which took place where he was one of the ones involved in deciding on the term to use. I also think there was a fairly recent article in the Guardian on it which Ian Anderson was commenting on in the BBC thread.

Sorry my memory seems a bit vague on this but I think you will find I'm right in the general gist.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 05:50 AM

Foolestroup, I have managed to find the Guardian article I was thinking of. It is here

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: GUEST,Peter from Essex
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:59 AM

Over the centuries British traditional music has been reinterpreted in the popular styles of the day. The use of a guitar is neither more nor less valid as "folk music" than is Peter Piers singing Britten's arrangement of Foggey Dew or Vaughan William's orchestral arrangements.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 01:37 PM

I would not be so quick to assert that a song's unaccompanied melody (its "air"?) is always its *foundation.* Depending upon the tradition from which it descends, or upon the individual piece in question, the instrumental part might very well be the more fundamental element of a given piece. Consider, for example, just about any blues number -- e.g., Robert Johnson's "Dust My Broom." And even in cases where no particular intrumental "riff" is truly definitive, there are many cases where a song's basic harmonic structure (the chord progression) is far more elemental, more truly the song's "foundation," than its melody.

There's also the question of the learner/performer's intention; when reinterpreting a *particular version* of a traditional song already well-known in several different guises, one might well start by learning the instrumental part and only later working in the vocal part.

It has been pointed out that different sets of chords can be used for the same melody. Does this mean that a song's harmonic structure is somehow "accidental" whereas its melody is essential? I would say, ceratinly not! A song, in many contexts anyway, is defined both by its melody and its harmony. A single melody played with two different sets of chords can become two different songs -- fundamentally different. (We can assume there'll be different lyrics, too, of course.)

A while back, we had concurrent discussions going on here about Mississippi John Hurt's "Let the Mermaids Flirt with Me" and Singing Brakeman Jimmie Rodgers' "Waiting For a Train," two songs written at about the same time, in the same state, following the same melody. The melody was not brand-new to either artist by any means, but came from some long-ago presumably "traditional" source. One of the songwriters in question is generally acknowledged to be a "folk" artist, while the other is recognized as the "Father of Country Music," and therefore generally classified in a gray area between the "folk" and "commercial country" categories.

"Mermaids" uses a basic three-chord arrangement featuring a fingerpicked melody line. (Pedants can feel free to assign a different chord name for every note added to a chord, but most of us would consider it a 3-chord piece.) "Train," on the other hand, uses a far more complicated chord structure, akin to a trad-jazz tenor banjo part; in fact, it's so complex that the easiest key in which to play it, believe it or not, is F!

I have learned both the above-referenced songs, and in both cases worked out the intrumental part first, or at least at the same time as I practiced the singing. There's no way I would consider the unaccompanied sung melody to be the "foundation" of either one; in fact, on the evidence of the melody alone, they are not two distinct songs at all, just two interchangable sets of verses sung to the same tune!

Of course, the point of view opposite mine, the one I'm arguing against, is undoubtedly correct -- BUT, in another context!

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: greg stephens
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 02:02 PM

Poppagator is absolutely right in saying that the harmonies are the basic structure of some music. I have vast amounts of versions of tunes from old fiddle sources in England, and the "theme and variations" format is extremely common. And it is quite clear from the structure of the variations that it is the harmonic structure (or bass line) underlying the main theme that is the source of inspiration for the variations, not the melodic content of the main tune. The crucial thing, on this sort of question, is what many have said already. There are lots of kinds of folk music. Some come from a harmonic tradition, some dont. Simple.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 02:31 PM

Methinks the question is a little bit nonsensical. Since the 16th century we have sets for folk songs composed for the lute, predecessor of the guitar. It was an instrument thence as popular as the piano is now. D. Martin Luther used it composing his songs to promote reformation, and he used som folk tunes too.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 03:10 PM

Point taken, PoppaGator.

In my dissertation above, I was thinking primarily of songs and ballads. I'm afraid blues hadn't occurred to me because I don't do blues. This is not because I don't like blues, but because I'm lousy at it.

As you point out, though, there are pieces that are very much instrument dependent. Something like Libba Cotton's Freight Train is more of an instrumental piece—specifically guitar—than a song. As just a song, it's okay, but it's the guitar work characteristic to it that really makes it work. A simple "bump-chug bump-chug" thumb strum or a classic guitar arrangement simply wouldn't do it. And there are lots of songs like this. With these songs, the guitar is paramount, and it's the song that accompanies it

Don Firth

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Snuffy
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:47 PM

I don't think anyone's saying that NO folk songs should be accompanied by guitars. Much (most?) traditional American music is almost unthinkable without guitar or banjo.

But the British Isles have a different tradition: basically unaccompanied narrative songs. And ANYTHING that distracts from the narrative does a dis-service to the song. There are the odd Carthys etc whose virtuosity can enhance such a song, but in 99.95% of cases addition of chords/accompaniment is about as effective as using decapitation to cure toothache.

If you MUST use a guitar in such circumstances, do not do it lightly: do so only if you are absolutely certain that the violence you are doing to the tradition is an evil outweighed by the putative improvement you claim to bring to an unadorned jewel

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 07:04 PM

Well, whatever the final resolution of this topic is, and I hope there is none, the tread certainly got us talking about music again and away from nonsensical trivialities.

Thanks Folklorist.

Don

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 07:26 PM

So, you could say, it was a _step_ to greater understanding?

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 07:45 PM

Snuffy, do I take it you have never attended a Martin Simpson concert ?

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:43 AM

Jess: tyro=beginner

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Snuffy
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 08:48 AM

Murray, I said There are the odd Carthys etc whose virtuosity can enhance such a song.

Make what you will of it

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Pete_Standing
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 10:14 AM

If we are to accept that guitarists should either give up or stay in their bedrooms until they have been examined and passed as suitable for accompanying songs, then I can't accept that; that would be true for any instrument. In fact, consider how well most unaccompanied singers deliver, both current (revivalists) and past (traditional). Should they be or have been prevented from singing in case they tarnish the jewel? As Martin Carthy has famously said, "the only way to damage it is not to do it". The beauty of folk music is that it gives people the chance to indulge in their inheritance irrespective of how good they are at it. The important thing is to respect the material, not to leave to those who are considered to be good enough - who would make those decisions anyway? An elitist panel?

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: treewind
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 12:14 PM

No elitist panels, examinations or certificates required!

I accept that America has a pretty full tradition of songs that were conceived with a guitar in mind, especially anything blues-like, but the guitar came to the British folk scene comparatively recently, even if there were precedents centuries before.

It hasn't done any harm, however, to challenge the belief that some seem to have, that a guitar is the only folk instrument and automatically the best instrument to accompany any song. No one instrument fits that definition, and it's an interesting challenge to make a good song accompaniment on an instrument that doesn't fall in in naturally with the song.

By the way, I was recently reading some of the very early journals of the English Folk Song Society (1905-8, before the 'D' was added to EFDSS) where songs that had been collected were perfomed at society meetings invariably with piano accompaniment. That was so much what they were used to that singing unaccompanied would have seemed strange, even though that was how most of the songs were collected.

Anahata

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 02:41 PM

Well, I suppose we're agreed that no one will be prevented from playing guitar, from singing unaccompanied, or from working out accompaniments on any instrument. But we have been having a most instructive dialog, certainly. I have considered points of view that I had not previously imagined, and trust that I'm not the only one.

Here's a related thought that came to me as a sort of corollary to the main thrust of this discussion:

Within a tradition where a song is defined *strictly* by its melody, the singer is not as free to improvise/interpret/embellish as a singer in another tradition where songs are based upon chord structures upon which melodies are superimposed. In the melody-based tradition, the singer's job -- all he/she *can* do, and the basis upon which the performance is appeciated and judged -- is simply to render the notes of the melody as clearly and purely as possible.

I think this explains why, when we were discussing "voice lessons vs man of the soil," the British/Celtic contingent leaned more towards a preference for trained voices while the Americans were more likely to voice their appreciation for "ragged but right" interpretive singing.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 03:02 PM

I'd say it often works precisely the other way PoppaGator - an unaccompanied singer is free to adjust the tune from verse to verse, both timing and notes. It happens instinctively, when you are focusing your attention on the words. A guitar tends to limit that kind of thing, for good or ill.

The idea that each verse must have precisely the same tune is quite out of line with traditional singing in the British Isles (and elsewhere). The old collectors used to complain about this, and the way these country folk couldn't settle to a single tune.

And if, in that thread you mention, "the British/Celtic contingent leaned more towards a preference for trained voices while the Americans were more likely to voice their appreciation for 'ragged but right' interpretive singing," then that certainly wasn't a very representative "British/Celtic contingent". The most admired and respected traditional singers have been completely untrained in a formal sense.

It may be that when you are dealing with revival singers who have grown to assume the tunes don't vary, the process PoppaGator suggests, might come into play - picking some other note from the chord. But the notes that aren't in the chord are ruled out, and often those are the notes that traditionally might have been brought into play.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:24 PM

One of the problems with putting guitar behind a british traditional - or rather an ENGLISH traditional song is that a lot of 'trad' songs dont have a steady rhythm as they rarely are 'work' songs , so the staedy chords of a basic guitar accompaniment effectively kills the song . here is where your Carthys and simpsons get away with it as they can vary the rhythm to make it all fit .

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:25 PM

And has El Ted given up on the 100th post thing ??

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 05:15 PM

all these six string vandals despoiling the unadorned jewels of folksong.....now if you ain't ashamed of yourself for that..

its a wonder yous can live with yourself, you're nothing but beasts!

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 05:20 PM

OK Mr McGrath, I gladly stand corrected -- your explanation sounds absolutely as reasonable as anything else, if not moreso.

Let me try to weasel, er, I mean modify what I was trying to say before. Maybe a pure, clear, unaffected vocal delivery -- whether a product of academic training or of local tradition and lifetime practice -- is more highly valued for certain categories of song, certainly including many of those customarily sung without instrumental accompaniment.

I won't even attempt to express the converse, except to pose this question: How highly would one rate a blues shouter or a cowboy singer attempting an a capella rendition of, say, "She Moved Through the Fair"?

Am I getting any closer?

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Pete_Standing
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 06:01 PM

<- How highly would one rate a blues shouter or a cowboy singer attempting an a capella rendition of, say, "She Moved Through the Fair"?->

Now some people would accuse Peter Bellamy of doing that!

Going back to what Leadfingers was saying about

<- the steady chords of a basic guitar accompaniment effectively kills the song ->

there are/were some folk rock bands that manage(d) to do that - one in particular applied the "Status Quo" approach, shoehorning 6/8 or notionally 6/8 (damn these trad singers!) unphrased songs into 4/4 head bangers. Until guitar players start experimenting with the style of finger style playing that lends itself to unphrased songs (Carthy, Simpson and Foster being examples), just one simple stroke of the correct chord leaving it to ring over the melody works - a bit like playing sustained chords on a concertina (or similar).

I still maintain that had a plentiful supply of affordable instruments and time to play them had been available to the trad singers, they would not have shirked from using them in their leisure time. Songs of the workplace are a different thing.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 06:52 PM

I'd love to hear a high-lonesome Appalachian rendering of "She Moved through the Fair". And if there'd been a Robert Johnson version, just imagine what he might have done with it...

That term "a capella" which is apparently used more in the States than here, is quite an interesting one. The term suggests a pure, clear, trained, voice. The word "unaccompanied" doesn't carry that implication, and most of the time I think that's a more appropriate term for people from folk backgrounds. Sometimes rough, sometimes far from rough, but with an edge generally, and rarely with more than basic hints of training, at most, which they've picked up along the way, after they've been singing for some time.

Riding a bicycle is generally seen as an easier way of getting around, once you've learnt how to stay on. But when you're crossing a river on a tightrope, they say, doing it on a bicycle is trickier than doing it on foot. I think there's a parallel between this and singing accompanied. Sometimes it might make life easier - but there are times when it's quite the reverse. And when it's done well enough on those occasions, it can be spectacular.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 07:29 PM

I'm not about to take the time to do a look-up, but I'm pretty sure I've read that the phrase "a capella" origianlly meant "in the style of the chapel," referring to Gregorian Chant and/or monastic-style plainsong.

Not descriptive of all unaccompanied singing, certainly.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 07:54 PM

I can already hear in my mind's ear Ricky Skaggs singing "She Moved through the Fair" with crosspicked guitar and mandolin ...

I can't quite hear Robert Johnson's version yet, but I will...

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Bernard
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 08:09 PM

Yes, PG, I'd certainly agree it's a phrase used out of its original context... nowt new there, though!

It is listed as being a term in general use in the 20th century as a synonym for the more straightforward term 'unaccompanied', which I prefer - there's no need for the foreign stuff!!

No doubt some pedant will gleefully (hah!) explain the etymology of 'unaccompanied'...!! Okay, I admit it's French in origin ('accompagner')!!

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 09:16 PM

"I will sing this song unaccompanied." And everyone got up and walked out.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 04:16 AM

It's happened to me, Kevin! "Now I'm going to ask Steve up to sing some unaccompanied songs, but first just a reminder that the last bus to town leaves in five minutes." Never work with children, animals or people who don't have their own transport.

I don't know why "a capella" has suddenly become cool and "unaccompanied" not. Maybe we should all start saying "music without instruments"?

Steve

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 04:35 AM

"I don't know why "a capella" has suddenly become cool and "unaccompanied" not.

If that's true it'd be an other case of peole adopting an Americanism. But I can't remember actually hearing anyone use the expression in real life (outside a classical context).

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: GUEST,Joe
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 10:07 AM

In 40 years of living the folk tradition I've heard many an unaccompanied vocalist "kill the song" and despoil the "unadorned jewels of folksong", alongside many "instrumentalists" ("playing" concertinas, banjos, accordians, bodhrans, keyboards, flutes, whistles, fiddles etc etc and yes, of course, guitars).

Sure, any idiot can pick up a guitar and strum a few chords in total disharmony and blissful ignorance, but don't blame the guitar. If you take the trouble to learn to play it, and have the sensitivity and ear to know what fits and what doesn't, and when it can make a positive contribution and when not, then there shouldn't be a problem (apart from, that is, to the mental harm it might do to the folk purists).

Eyes and ears are wonderful instruments, too often under-used. If all folk performers used them to see reaction and hear response (and take appropriate action) then quality would improve.

Unfortunately, too many skip the training and workshop stage far too early. Artisan is not just the name of an excellent "a capella" group!

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: GUEST,folklorist
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 10:54 AM

What got me started on this thread was that before the 60s folk revival, the guitar was not part of the instrumentation of folk music, but because the folk revival grew out of the Skiffle scene, people who drifted into folk music wanted to carry on playing their guitars.

Now this is where I get confused: As folk music was not adaptable to the acoustic guitar, musicians, like Carthy, turned to the blues, especially Big Bill Broonzy and Brownie McGee, for tunings. Why was that - or have I got it completly wrong? For the life of me, if a song has chords, and doesnt every song have chords, then it can be played on guitar, or so I would have thought.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 12:44 PM

Anyone following this thread should also be interested in another long-running discussion just reopened today:

TheGuitar and Irish Traditional Music

There's a nice link somewhere in there to an instructional website for the DADGAD-tuned guitar, how to use it effectively in a "trad" context not originally intended for the guitar.

Incidentally: the term "a capella" is pretty commonly used in the US -- I think that even non-musicians are generally familiar with the term, and don't consider it particularly pedantic or affected. There is a newish fad or trend on US college campuses for "a capella" singing clubs -- choruses of a dozen or members singing close harmonies without accompaniment. Freshmen apparently apply to multiple groups, are invited to join one, and maintain their membership for the rest of their four-year stays -- sorta like singing fraternities.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: GUEST,mkebenn
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 11:04 PM

splottman, yea, I agree, stop strumming and it 's different. Mike

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 05:59 AM

Big Bill and Brownie in DADGAD.....I'm not sure they used Open D even.

The reason people like Davy Graham, and Martin started using DADGAD and why it caught on generally was a belief that English folksong is modal in nature - like bagpipe - they weren't using the same major scale as say jazz and classical musical musicians. This idea you will find propounded in a very readable and very influential book by A.L.(sometimes called Bert) LLoyd called Folk song in England.

This was surmised from listening to the early recordings of folksingers like Lincolnshire's Joseph Taylor who left us classics like Brigg Fair and Creeping Jane. This is shooting from the hip - I may have got odd details wrong.

Anyway although Ewan, and Martin and Bert were (and are sorry Martin!)bloody nice guys with very broad minds musically - these truths about folk music in the 1970's were seized upon by pedants of no creativity at all - to persecute and drive out all perceived Americana from the folk clubs.

This was a bloody pity because by and large what started the folk music boom was singer songwriters like Dylan and Donovan saying to kids - you can get a guitar and write songs that have some relevance to your life. Go on , have a go.

It seems to me you have fallen into the hands of one of these pedants, who has filled your head with tripe. Folk music is not a formula to denounce Robespierre like,up other musicians .

I recommend to you to check out a Lincolnshire folksinger, Martin Simpson, raised just a few a few miles away from where Joseph taylor lived and breathed - singing a Lincolnshire folksong Creeping Jane - using a modal tuning on his geetar.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 06:19 AM

"to persecute and drive out all perceived Americana from the folk clubs."

That hasn't actually happened. The thing is, the folk music scene is very local - generalisations like that just don't apply across the board. They might be true in a particular club at a particular time, but go to the next one along and they don't.
....................................

"...doesn't every song have chords" Songs don't have chords as such, but you can always find chords that would suit a song. However these might not be the normal chords, based on the standard major and minor scale. Here is a link through which you can find a few more scales - 2,900 or more of them, in fact.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: Snuffy
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 09:23 AM

to persecute and drive out all perceived Americana from the folk clubs.

Not at all - just an attempt to keep parts of our own tradition alive in the face of unremitting "If there's no guitar then it can't be folk" attitudes that seem to pervade many areas of the folk scene:
"... there is no folk song anywhere, any time, which will not benefit from an intelligent guitar accompaniment." being one of the milder expressions of this.

The guitar is a wonderful instrument, and there are many songs that positively need it. But not ALL songs. At our monthly "session" last night there were two guitarists who accompanied themselves extremely effectively when singing and also played chords when the fiddles and boxes led Irish/Scottish/Morris session tunes. And that was fine.

But they did not join in (nor did the fiddles or boxes) when a lady sang an absolutely magical version of Caledonia with a flute doubling the melody and a harp picking out an accompanying counter-melody; and when unaccompanied singers sang the guitarists joined in the chorus with their voices, not their instruments.

All in all an excellent evening, with none of the Procrustean one-size-fits-all approach of "guitar with everything", just people appreciating each others' different approaches and allowing them room to express it.

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 04:02 PM

That seems like a silly idea nowadays. The guitar has had a place in Folk music for so long. I'm no traditionalist, and I don't play a lot of Trad tunes, but I have used full chords and single or two note chords on my 12-string when it's appropriate for the song.(I actually use them a lot. They sound much better to me.)

Subject: RE: folk music not suitable for the guitar?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 04:10 PM

This is true! The traditionalists who don't really play guitars would like to think that mandolins and banjos can only be used in this music.