 sj |
||
|
||
folk music not suitable for the guitar?
|
|
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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,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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:45 AM Sorry, that was me, cookie lapsed |
|
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: 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: 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: 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. |
| Share Thread: |