PB+J wrote:I like what Cahill seems to do, which is stop emphasizing the 'ol "here we go again back to the tonic round and round." I mean there's noting wrong with the relentless here we go round, it's fun and good, but it's not the ONLY thing.
This is why the emphasis on listening to the masters of Trad backup. In Trad, technical expertise won't be enough to make up for not understanding the idiom. I said earlier that in Trad the tune comes first, and this is not idly said. This music is conceived first as solo melody playing, without accompaniment - what in Irish parlance is called the Pure Drop - and there is firm historical basis in this. This is the context that all good, informed Trad playing comes from. Thus, my view is that a good Trad backup player considers him/herself to be in service to the tune. One may, or may not, do what you call the round-and-round, but whatever the case, in the best backup what one does above all is
variation. Sometimes these variations are simply a matter of voicings; sometimes they are a matter of substituting the tonic with a minor sixth, for example; sometimes it's rhythmic shifts, or contrapuntal elements; sometimes it's silences. And so on. Done right, there is certainly room for a touch of ambiguous harmonies, and temporary tonicization too (had to call my educated friend for that term). But it's done with care and with the idiom in mind. Cahill exemplifies this in his own way, but he's not the only one by any means. There are certain fundamental commonalities to be detected in really good Trad backup, but there are also a lot of individual styles to draw from. To be honest, Cahill's not my first choice, but that's just personal taste. You don't get to back up Martin Hayes by being anything less than good, after all, and Cahill does the job very well indeed.
At one session a rather heated discussion was quelled by a friend of mine who wryly said, "It's just dance music for farmers!" A perhaps disappointing assessment to those who want more lofty views, but it
is dance music for farmers (aside from the new stuff, necessarily, but it's still recognizably all one genre). But as you can hear -
based on the melody - neither is it simplistic. It can be, if that's your level, but a good backup player can tie it up with a special bow and add to the enjoyment. Attempting to draw a Trad tune far onto jazz ground, however, is IMO an ill fit, like trying to get a duck to draw a cart. They're two different realms with almost nothing in common but sound waves. Trad is a cultural artifact in its own right, and is best approached that way. It's like so many other things: Just because you can do something, it doesn't make it a good idea.
I've encountered jazz guitarists trying to fit into a Trad situation before. Their skills were quite evident and admirable, but they made the huge mistake of thinking they could simply walk up and plug their skills in seamlessly without knowing the idiom. The fact was they couldn't fit, had no way of knowing how, and they realized it in short order. Music is not music is not music. Idioms count, and the first criterion of Trad backup is knowing the tune, and by extension, its familial group. I really can't say that often enough.
I think that what puts a lot of academically trained non-Trad musicians off is that in getting into Trad, you basically have to become a beginner again, because it's a different language with different groundings. But if you're okay with that, then by all means do some listening to the good backup players and absorb what they're doing and what their goals are.
Here's a local lad, Brian Miller, backing up his wife Norah Rendell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2rjpGSeVm4
This was comparatively restrained and conventional-ish, compared to what he's capable of. Brian's a crack fluteplayer himself, but also plays a lot of backup, and he can always be depended on to do it excellently and in good taste.