fiddleronvermouth wrote:StevieJ wrote:talasiga wrote:Your point about chord generated tension appears non sequitur to my point about modal (melody generated) tension.
Really? You said guitarists dilute modal tension, and I said that in my experience they sometimes create tension where the mode has none. I thought it was an interesting contrast.
I imagine it depends on the guitar player and what tuning s/he's in. IMHO, an unimaginative accompanist in standard tuning completely castrates the modal melodies, whereas a decent player who pushes the envelope in a modal tuning adds a lot. Generally speaking, of course.
Even though I enjoy DADGAD guitar accompaniments, I think they change it to the point where it's no longer traditional but kind of new Agey.. I will continue to play accompaniments, whether its standard tuning or DADGAD, but I do not think it's pure drop with guitar, period. It's fusion.
Not only does it introduce rhythmic tension, albeit interesting and enjoyable, but the chord forms that fall easily under the hand of the guitarist are pushing certain interval combinations and implied bass lines. You hear a lot of II and VI in DADGAD playing, whether it should be there or not.
If you are a guitarist, the easiest thing to point out is the lack of IV chords on a DADGAD guitar, that is, IV chords with a G in the bass (using D Major in this case).
The first thing the standard tuning guitarist notices about Drop D or DADGAD is that you have to work harder to get a G chord with a G in the bass, because its up on the fifth fret. So what do DADGAD guitarist do? They tend to emphasize the II chord instead as a IV substitute. Or they use a IV first or second inversion in the place of a regular IV.
Now follow close because here is a subtle point. This is what happened at first. DADGAD players have become VERY skillful, to the point that they no longer avoid that chord form (using the G). But it's my belief that the early users of the style set a harmonic standard that influenced everything that followed.
Back to not playing the IV: To me, they are implying a modal sound even when the tune is in D Major, and leading listeners to hear modal "quality" whether it was meant to be or not. Once your ears are used to the sound of DADGAD accompaniment, a straight IV chord begins to sound in-authentic, which is mind-boggling, since nobody ever decided whether the tune should be harmonized in either fashion. Many non-Irish folk songs (in major keys) are heavy on regular IV chords, but recent harmonizations of Irtrad tend not to be.
Also, the use of the GDAD tuning of bouzouki types of instruments, instead of standard mando GDAE has further reinforced the "modal" sound. Hey, I like it, but it's still an imposition on top of a clear melody.
I think this is a real delicate area in terms of prerogatives. If you are an expert DADGAD player, you have a lot invested in that style. If you are avoiding DADGAD, because you don't want to take the trouble, you can find arguments (like mine above) to stick with maybe just a drop D tuning , and I have met players that feel that way. And what is really interesting is that we now have players who started on DADGAD only. They are really out-of-touch with mainstream guitarists, which adds a further gap in understanding of this harmonization process.
My approach is to readily admit that adding a guitar is a construct, no matter what tuning I personally like, and to be big enough to admit that it is a construct. Period.
The only other clue as to stamping "valid ITM" on top of it, becomes what native Irish players have gravitated towards. THe fact is, some of the best players have allowed the DADGAD into the tent, so some can argue it's more authentic. This after the early tune collectors had thrown 19th century piano parts on top of the tunes, which the early recordings somewhat continued and ceili bands reinforced. In that context, DADGAD becomes a refreshing reform of sorts. But, just because this "reform" occurred doesn't make it a bit more authentic.
If anything, some of the real popular bands continue to push the harmonic envelope and add more and more complex and changeable harmonizations to tunes, to whatever end, because they are bored with the usual. I can't remember if its Wooden Flute Obsession or a Lunasa recording, but I remember hearing a harmonization of Maid of Mt. Kisco that was all over the place, compared to the usual fairly simple harmonization heard on most recordings. It was great, it was pretty, but not my notion of "pure drop" for a moment. And the audacity of such a harmonization sends some listeners into instant rejection mode because it's not traditional.
What a can of worms.
