I'm in a particularly grumpy mood tonight, but I have to get this off my chest:
I have just had a look at the Tunes section to find that out of the most recent fifteen tunes, an astonishing THIRD are vanity submissions. I have no objections to people submitting their own compositions to the web, but I don't think this is the right place for it.
I believe this because The Session has been a valuable resource of traditional tunes, but it is being diluted on a daily basis by vanity tunes. What is the solution? Well, it would be great if there were a similar site (or a sister site?) DEDICATED to newly composed tunes, which would actually welcome any and all works, which in turn could be a resource for those looking for tunes and those punting their own works to the world.
I know there will be many who'll disagree with me, but I'll bet there are plenty who feel as I do. Rant over.
I agree. I have submitted about a half dozen of my own comps here in the time I've been on this board, but I have tried to keep with the 5 to 1 ratio. Evidently everyone isn't making a similar effort and we are unable to police ourselves. Some people are logging on for the first time just to post a comp of their own. Others are shamelessly posting successive original comps disregarding Jeremy's request all together. Perhaps a separate section for original comps is the best solution, so I second Nigel’s recommendation to separate the original tunes from the rest. That way no one has to feel guilty or self-conscious about how many original tunes they post.
Of course I have no idea about what that would mean in the nuts & bolts world of programming that Jeremy would have to deal with. It might be unrealistic.
Absolutely. There were some over-simple definitions of "traditional" on another thread recently, and I'm not going to offer a new one, but there is no way that new compositions are traditional, whatever their style. Only the holders of the tradition, i.e. the music community at large, can, in the course of time, make a tune traditional.
The great resource that has been built up will decay if it loses its focus.
Our sitemaster obviously does have the courage to intervene, but I wonder if he also has the time?
But I am not overly annoyed by all the submissions. It depends on how you use the tunes section. I don't personally use it to randomly find a new "traditional" tune. I use it as a tool to figure out what tune it was that I heard in the session last night, as reference for tunes that I already know, and as a place to pick up a setting of a tune that I want to learn. But I never just surf around it looking for new tunes. There may be people here that do that, but I have no idea.
Another problem is where you draw the line on "traditional" tunes... like a recent discussion pointed out, does this mean that it is only a repository for tunes that the author is unknown? What about the tunes that the author IS known, but the tune has made it into the "tradition"?
Like it or not, the dilution of the resource is inevitable. There is a finite number of traditional tunes (huge, yes, fully represented in the database, no. But finite, nonetheless), whereas the number of potential original tunes (many of which will seep their way into the "tradition") is potentially infinite.
Compositions submitted by their own author should be banned. I've written a fair whack of tunes myself but i'd never submit them here. If what you've written is such a masterpiece, then someone else who picks it up of you (ala folk process b*llocks) should submit it.
I've found the tune section here to be a great resource but all these Vanity tunes (a nice coinage that) have made, esp speculative ABC-fragment, searches a real pain in the preverbial. And if you write tunes for someone else on this site... EMAIL it to them. IF they like it, they can put it up.
(mind you, if you submit someone else's Vanity tune that was written about you, does that make it a vanitiy-vanity tune?)
Reverend said, "What about the tunes [where] the author IS known, but the tune has made it into the "tradition"?"
How many of these composers of tunes which have entered the tradition have submitted the tune here themselves and said "I wrote this because..."? Probably none. If you need a criterion, how about: Tunes That Have Been Recorded? Or something as simple, so that these question need never be asked.
"Of course I have no idea about what that would mean in the nuts & bolts world of programming..."
I think the hardest part of doing a separate original comps section on the site from a technical standpoint, would be how to get all the originals that are currently in the database separated out and put where they belong...
"If you need a criterion, how about: Tunes That Have Been Recorded? Or something as simple, so that these question need never be asked."
But what about all the traditional tunes that haven't been recorded? Or ones that have been recorded, but the current recording list doesn't contain the recording?
The tradition is dynamic and fluid. I don't think there's any simple criteria to determine this.
I would love to see an original comps section on the site, but how to get all the original comps currently in the database separated out is the problem. I guess you could ask the people that submitted the tunes to move them... that would take care of some of the issue.
Reverend said, But what about all the traditional tunes that haven't been recorded?
You were originally talking about _new compositions_ which have been absorbed into the tradition.A criterion for THAT could be Tunes That Have Been Recorded.
As for traditional tunes that haven't been recorded, there was never any problem with them.
My point was that you have to be able to draw the line somewhere. Do you draw the line right here and now, and anything that is already in the database will from now forth be considered "traditional", and then lay down the rule that you can't submit a tune that you picked up at a session if you know who composed it?
It's a big, dynamic problem, and in my view there's no good way to draw a line that allows you to determine what is traditional and what isn't.
Like I said, I'd love to see a section where the new original comps go, and hope that people put them there... But then what criteria do you use to weed out the current tune database then?
I think what we're talking about here is when the person submitting the tune and the composer of the tune are one in the same. But hopefully this wouldn't mean getting your friends and cohorts to submit your tunes for you. If a separate section existed for such tunes then there would be no need to get around the rules. Unless your vanity desired to have your own compositions side by side with the master's I suppose.
Personally I find some of the original tunes interesting, and it would be fun to explore such a section. I hope it's within the realm of possibilities.
Every now and then there is a good original composition but I believe the problem lies when people dont respect the 5-1 rule... which simply needs to be enforced. Jeremy can delete tunes obviously and should probably delete the rule breakers submissions. On the other hand Ive submitted 20 something trad tunes and 2 originals... How about 20 trads to one original? I d like to see that.
I've posted 2 trads and no originals. I've written loads of original tunes, but I'm not posting them - and neither are you, c - at least not til they have a life of their own ... one of them already has ... (not one you've got, c)
I'm totally with SirNose above. Good composers either gig their tunes, record them or, better still, let them drift into the tradition.
The rest is vanity.
Anyway, I should be going to bed - have to be up first thing to catch my 1p Ryanair flight to Dub in the morning. I'll be in Hughes's if you need me.
I've posted 209 tunes so far, and only a handful of them my own compositions.
Several of my tunes have apparently made it into the repertoire of trad sessions--Dreary Plains of Toil showed up in Belgium with no name and in a different key, and a plaer posted it here, not realizing that this site had to be the source for the tune in the first place.
Another tune of mine--Bang Your Frog on the Sofa--has made it into sessions far and wide (at least as big a surprise to me as to anyone else). Someone won gold at the trad music competition in London with it a few years back--he had learned it from somone else, not off this site, and had no idea who the composer was. Zina recently mentioned that in some circles, Bang Your Frog is being credited to Tommy Peoples (for which I am thoroughly embarrassed--poor Tommy).
Another member here has had a tune or two recorded by another artist (one by Kevin Burke). So it does happen.
Much to my surprse, Bang Your Frog has been added to 179 tunebooks so far--more than such stalwart trad tunes as Geese in the Bog, Last Night's Fun, The Flogging Reel, and Trip to Durrow. That flabbergasts me.
I've also picked up some really nice original tunes here from people whose compositions are consistenly good.
So I think the rule of 5 trad tunes for every 1 of your own is fine--if people abide by it. But I wouldn't protest creation of a separate original tunes section. Either way works.
I agree with Will. I've picked up some nice original tunes off this website. I think the solution to it is for Jeremy to police the 5 trad to 1 own comp rule better by simply deleting a tune if someone hasn't followed the rule, instead of creating sheetmusic for it and letting it stay. If he lets it stay, people seem to take it as a sign to continue submitting own comps in a steady stream. Some of these people clearly haven't been playing trad tunes for long enough to be able to write a good tune and it shows.
OK, 5 to 1 rule... how would jeremy go about enforcing this? To estalish a tune is a personal comp you mostly have to check the comments, so there is no way an automatic coding solution would work. Or possibly tax-office-style tune audits on random, tune-submitting members... ?
He could simply go to that person's "history", and then to "tunes submitted", and check the last few tunes they submitted. I just did that for one newly-submitted comp, and unsurprisingly that person had submitted 3 tunes, all of which were own comps. Obviously this person either hasn't read the FAQ and doens't know about the rule, or they're deliberately flouting it. Either way the person has to be told, otherwise it affects other users of the site negatively, like SirNose's example of the abc fragment search.
will, I'm sure it's very gratifying to have your vanity played over a fair distance, but i think this is a drop in the ocean of bad tunes that are clogging up the DB. And if an (allegedly) great player like Kevin Burke records someone's tune, then it's out there and someone else can submit it if they feel so enamored of it. I just don't see why you can't just make a blanket you-can-only-submit-other-peoples-tunes rule.
and dow, my tunes are strictly for me to video myself playing on my snazzy new imac so i can look back and see how magnificently the lagubrious sunshine glints of the silver of my flute and accentuates my highly-defined cheek bones, this dizzying play of light brought to an emotional climax through some of the most beautific flute playing heard by the ears of man.
I believe Phil Cunningham submitted one of his tunes here once. It would just be a shame if we/Jeremy did anything to prevent that kind of thing from happening.
*If* Jeremy is so inclined, it's a fairly straightforward thing to move self-penned tunes to a separate section of the site. First he has to create the new section. Then he needs a list of all the tunes that need to be moved. Anyone wanna volunteer to comb through the 7000 tunes here and compile his list for him?
Appearing on a recording is not an easily enforceable criterion, since a composer could simply choose a name for his/her new tune that is the same as some common tune.
One possibly implementable solution would be to have two tunes sections with tunes moving back and forth between the two sections according to some rule that could be updated frequently and automatically. For example, one section for tunes that are in at least, say, 25 (10?) people's tunebooks, and a section for those that aren't. One could argue that if a tune isn't popular enough here to have a certain minimum number of people (a fraction of one percent) interested enough to put it in their tunebook, then it probably isn't really part of the living tradition anyway and should be relegated to a secondary library where people could mine for hidden gems if they so choose.
A refinement of my suggestion:
One tunes section, but on the search page a check box to choose whether to search only tunes that appear in at least a certain number of members' tunebooks or, to search all tunes.
Actually I didn't check the YouTube clip as my point wasn't really about playing abilities or styles. I just picked him out randomly as he was the most recent person to have submitted an own comp. Incidentally, YouTube is failing me and refuses to play the clip on my pc.
Gary, I'm sorry to break this to you but the tune book listings are not a good indicator of how good a tune is. It's simply proof that people on this website have absolutely no taste in tunes whatsoever. Case in point: Wizard's Walk http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display/885 is in 93 tunebooks despite the fact that it is fecking shocking, whereas the Beech Tree http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display/4335 has been added to only 5 tunebooks, despite the fact that it is one of the most beautiful tunes ever written.
My tunebook submissions have nothing to do with what I think of a tune other than to act as a bookmark when I don't have time to look at it more closely. If I like a tune I copy it to my hard drive and file it there; that record isn't reflected anywhere on this site. I suspect others do similar things.
I still say a separate section would be the easiest and least complicated way. If people still wanted their tunes in the main tune database they'd have to submit them without revealing who wrote them. It would take the vanity out of their tune -- they wouldn't do it. So I say make the separate section and let all the YouTube wannabe and otherwise tune composers submit to their heart's content.
Huh, slap, slap, scuse me, gotta wake up... Weren't we just jawin' over this one? I could swear it was Nigel too. Oh yeah, that was last week. Maybe we should also ban unoriginal discussions? Or, we could have one for every five original ones? ~ no, that wouldn't work, the discussions would all dry up wouldn't they? Yes Nigel, I also had been checking the percentages of submissions since the start of 2007, the madness in me...
Hey Ben, stop frettin', I liked your tunes enough to ask you if I could post one, but I wouldn't do it without your consent.
As we did jaw this one, I'm not going to repeat what I said before, hopefully, but basically I'm in agreement with the original FAQ and Button and Dow and Will and ~ ~ ~ at least 5-to1. Most of us have been doing better than that on the whole. I did lose it once myself Nigel when one bright spark submitted five or more of his own on the trot. It wasn't that they were shight, that's subjective, but that is what I thought of them, but I wouldn't call for a ban because I found them irritating or boring, that isn't fair and isn't my way, it was that there were so many self-composition-submission on the trot ~ one-right-after-the-other... It wasn't the first time this has happened, but it was the first time I dropped a line to the submitter. Some months are curiously worse than others.
"HIS" response, yeah, mostly it is us males, was that I was an old fogey who was stifling the creative energy inherent in the 'tradition'. I referred him to several submissions I'd made over time of 20th & 21st Century musicians and composers... All I'd asked him to do was to read the FAQs... I did not pass jdgment on his work, but you'd think I'd said something bad about his children ~ very defensive. That seems to be the nature of the beast?
OK, I've relaxed a bit since my apparent "anxiousness"
How 'bout this? One database. But two added fields"
Composer (if known)
Trad/Original
Those could be search criteria, and it would be really interesting to know the known composers of some great tunes that have made it into the tradition. It would also be cool to be able to search for tunes by Ed Reavy, for instance.
The issues of how to get this info into the database still exists. On top of the fact that a lot of tunes attributed to a certain person weren't actually written by them (see Bang your Frog above...)
I think Jeremy's plan has been to let the comments section take care of all these issues. However, that's not searchable...
Yeah, I like that. I am sometimes trying to find the composer, when for example all attempts to search for title or ABC's has failed. It would be great to be able to search for what is here by Reavy, or Keegan, or Crehan, or whoever. I am sometimes in the predicament. I have for a few small collections, like Taylor's, taken to putting links to his other compositions in the 'Comments', not quite right. You couldn't do that with Reavy, as an example, without making one hell of a mess...
There is still the problem of mistaken identity, or when a bit of history and knowledge throws up a composer for something that was without one in the original transcription, not uncommon...
Also, for some composers, something I try to do if I can, I like to see some context, a bit about the composer and about the composition, if available, stories for example. While you might do that with one tune by a given composer, you don't want to necessarily cut-and-paste the same bit for every tune, so finding a collection of tunes by one composer, you might be able to then check the comments for the various related information on the composer and their music. I love those sort of contributions and appreciate them when I accidently come upon them...
Lest I be misunderstood, my "'Nuff said" was written with the style in mind rather than the standard of playing which can probably not be judged from this clip.
Dow, did I say anything about my suggestion filtering for quality? It gives a very rough measurement of how many people express some sort of interest in the tune. It would enable those who wish to avoid having to wade through stacks of tunes that were submitted by the composer but didn't attract or hold the interest of a sufficient number of people.
If enough people are interested in Wizard's Walk, then others should be able to locate it without sifting through pages of stuff that only a few people care about. Conversely, if Kenny hasn't heard the Beech Tree in 20 years and only five people are interested in it (I don't know, maybe the cutoff should be five), maybe it hasn't been absorbed into the tradition yet. Or maybe it had been and has fallen out.
Concerning Jack's comment about how people use their tunebooks, what does it matter, so long as there's no conspiracy of composers to put each others' tunes into their tunebooks simply to get their tunes past the filter? With 33000 members, and a very low cutoff, it shouldn't matter how a few individuals decide to use their tunebooks.
If people want to locate Wizard's Walk, they can follow a simple procedure. Simply type "Wizard's" into the search box and up it comes. If they don't know the title, they can search for the abc. Otherwise they can search for it by reaching down the U-bend of their toilet.
Well, Jeremy's 5:1 rule is sound but it doesn't prevent people submitting new compositions by someone else so, in theory, a member could submit all "new" tunes.
Without getting into the "what is trad" argument again, perhaps some guidelines could be laid down advising us to submit fewer *newer* tunes regardless of who has composed them.
Also, as stated in the other thread, I'm not keen on people submitting songs(As I mentioned in Dow's thread a couple of days back).....Unless they are also tunes which are recognised as such and feature in sessions or recordings. Also, it should be the "tune version" and not the melody of the song which might well be different.
A 2 step transition to having a 'trad' and 'composed' database - add a composer field and allow old entries to be edited to add info to the composed field. Then allow six months for tunes to be edited and 'claimed' by their owners, authors,composers. Then Stage 2... all tunes flagged as composed get pulled into a New Traditions database, and Pure Trad for the rest.
There are enough historians, pedants and police roaming the mustard board for the two databases to settle quickly into side by side cohabitation...and just the occasional full on squabble over the history and evolution of particular tunes. Bizarrely, I sometimes find these quite interesting too!
Well,
I just noticed that a self penned tune submitted yesterday by JACKB called Clonegal Castle has disappeared this morning! I thought it was quite catchy in it's own way - luckily I downloaded ABC before it went 'poof'. I suppose if I learn it and resubmit it, then it'll be acceptable - sounds daft to me!
Isn't that already what is happening, and can't we have faith in ourselves to tell the difference? ~ historians, pedants, tyrants and students alike? Damn, all those apply in my case and some I won't add to that list, between me and the priest, eh? I just don't see the fuss.
I don't have any problem playing through a new submission once or twice, including compositions. I can tell right away if I want to play it a few more times, check it for fit, or if I personally find it cack. I can note it and return later for some more fun, or I move on to the next tune. Though I do sometimes revisit the comps, for example all by one person, if possible. Like looking through someone's book or music collection, it can give me insights.
Whether I like something or not, I enjoy seeing the inspirations of others past and present, and how those develop. Some folks have a higher score mark in interesting tunes and takes, some are obvious copies, confusions or mixes of old standards, others are just plain weird or awful, in my biased opinion... But I definitely get a greater appreciation of the good by having suffered the awful... 'Suffered' is not quite right, I get some perverse pleasure out of seeing the dross produced by others and by myself, at least a chuckle's worth...
There are many times that I would like to search on composer. If this were added, then maybe we can leave the tunes as one big file. For tunes that cannot be attributed to a person, then use "anon" or similar.
To be fair, and Jeremy doesn't need my support, that was the fourth self-composed tune in a row by Jack, after the submission of an 'air'... The other three compositions remain, so I think Jeremy is being more than reasonable. If Jack were to start backing his personal compositions with stock from the tons of other tunes he might know, old or new, or transcribed from recordings, then maybe he could come back and resubmit that tune himself, if it is one he is particularly proud of and would like to share with us... Four in a row is just a bit obsesssive don't you think, whether good or not, whether he the next super piper or not... I've enjoyed some of his tunes too, and look forward to more ~ o - v - e - r t - - i - - - m - - - - e...
Of course, you make a fair point c but it's kind of an arbitrary process what goes and what stays then. Must admit that said tune only caught my eye as I don't live a million miles from said castle. At least he's hanging the tune on a real place and a real memory of an interesting corner of Ireland.
Another issue to consider, just to muddy the waters, is that the database is getting rather comprehensive when it comes to traditional tunes. That makes it very unlikely that most of us even know five traditional tunes that aren't already there.
Several times someone has claimed every 9/8 in the world must be here ~ and I keep refuting that with contributions... There are tons more tunes, Irish and otherwise, tunes that fit the basic nature of this site, and there's all those variations and version, which I'm glad to see arriving more regularly in the 'Comments' on site here, lovely to see and give a try... No, I don't think we've plundered it all, or ever are likely to...
i didnt read the rest of posts yet.
but i object to the term "vanity tunes"
i submitted a couple of tunes because i was interested in how they might sound on other instruments.
all the tunes on this site were composed by someone at some point.
they didnt rise out some weird celtic mist at the dawn of time, people sat down and wrote all these "vanity tunes".
Musicians make music and like to share it.
im sick of people thinking of "traditional" music as an art form that doesnt rely on actual input from individuals who write tunes.
A seperate section for original tunes, would be an improvement though.
DubChieftain, you've got it wrong. Nobody objects to any of the tunes you're talking about (the ones that people sat down and wrote). I'm pretty sure nobody objects to tunes which have known composers. However, all of these tunes should be here out of merit, not speculatively.
It is my belief that The Session is the poorer for vanity publishing, and it's plain you have another opinion. Fair enough, but I'd suggest two things: read the Frequently Asked Questions section, or consider spreading your tunes through MySpace.
The 5:1 rule works well. If it bothers you, email the poster and remind them of the rule. It's easy enough to skip tunes from the same submitter, once they've established their reputation....
Nigel, "merit" is subjective. One person's magnificent opus is another's Athole Highlanders.
Seems to me most original tunes are submitted here with a great deal of humility, in the spirit of "Here's a tune that tumbled out the other day and I enjoy playing it. Hope you do to." I know that's the mindset I see in the original tunes submitted by gian marco, drone, ceolachan, Phanton Button, mad baloney, and many others. I hope it comes through in my own submissions--certainly how they're intended. Nothing to do with vanity. I guarantee I'm more surprised than anyone when a tune takes on a life of its own.
Hussy, just a note on his accusation earlier ~ I caught the cusp! ~ but along with this thread, and for that reason, both are 20th Century sourced, as was the one previous, three in a row...
I have tried that approach Will, when someone has gotten carried away and submitted one self-composition after another, usually after #3, and to be honest, maybe only twice. It was never well recieved ~ or maybe I wasn't diplomatic enough. Maybe it is better to hide over here in the discussions than to take an active role in suggestiong some composer 'ease up' and submit things other than their own output.
If I were to submit everything that's ever come out of the blue to me as a tune ~ well, it would be very embarrassing. Some of it has been awful... Besides, it is a constant part of my life, music is always there, which is nice. In amongst all the traditional things I get regular surprises that perk my notice and later I realize aren't in the greater whole, at least not in that particular grouping of notes. But there's no way in hell I'd submit all that here, it would be too painful and as said ~ embarrassing...
Besides, my greatest respect and love is for the music that has stood the test of time and that has been passed to me via others, including the likes of Will and Dow and Button and GM and ~ others...
Nigel: i totally understand where your coming from.
This is a great site. It provides a great service.
Ive learned a lot of tunes and history here.
I agree it should remain centred round the tunes that have stood the test of time.
I took exception to the term "vanity tunes".
Its condescending to say the least.
If their are going to be people who regularly submit their own compositions then a seperate section is needed.
"Vanity" is a term used in book publishing, meaning self-publishing. That is the meaning I intended.
I would disagree that the 5:1 rule works well, DubChieftain being a case in point.
I'd prefer there to be a separate section for tunes which "tumbled out the other day" but I don't expect the majority of people to agree with me, and I don't expect the site to change because of my opinions.
I do think that this great resource is diminished by the habit which has taken root of people submitting their own compositions. To re-quote the Frequently Asked Questions:
"Can I submit my own compositions?
Well... The Session isn't really intended for that."
To paraphrase, The Session isn't intended for that.
In my opinion, The Session isn't intended for that.
Profuce? Perhaps that glass of wine with dinner wasn't a good idea!
Bob himself said, "Vanity", in the publishing industry, is a pejorative term"
Nowadays it's an accepted term for authors financing publication of their own book which may not have been published otherwise. It seemed to work very well in this instance: people publishing thei own tunes which may not have surfaced any other place. Pejorative? Well, yes, I did mean it slightly pejoratively. I was rather grumpy last night! And you're right, perhaps I should apologise for my devilment...
And there's a big difference between publishing your own book (because no one else will) to make money off it, and posting a tune here as a way to share s slice of fun among friends.
Sorry Phase-o-tron, er Phantom, sometimes I type faster than I think....
There's also a difference between submitting a few tunes that you and your session mates have played over time and found that they stick, versus just throwing cheesy note omelettes at the tune section just to see your "tune" in print.
I usually run my tunes by my friends long before I'd think of submitting them here. And even then, I err on the side of submitting only a few of the more well-received ones.
As in most things, discretion is the better part....
"Vanity Publishing" ~ as I understand it and use the terminology, having been a small press editor and publisher in several previous existences, is about paying someone to have them publish your work ~ without any exposure to critique or editing... "Oh boy, I'm published!" And they, if lucky, get a box full of badly printed copies of their work to keep in their closet and to hand out to friends. ~ It is definitely pejorative and amongst anyone with a serious interest in print and the creative work of others ~ derogatory too, a put-down, and often accompanied with a snigger, though that might be internalized...
I've known folks that spent their own money to take their work to a printer, but we never thought of that as 'vanity press', they took the risk themselves. A number of successful (& unsuccessful) poets and writers have done the same thing over time. I have a certain respect for folks that take such risk, and then flog their work around the bookshops and on the street. There's a lady who does that with her joke book on the promenade in Blackpool. I have to also admit I have a bit of respect for those that make a similar risk here on site. But I do not respec the abuse of the opportunity...
'Vanity Press' was used solely, amongst the folks I knew and myself, to refer to the sharks out there that preyed on the ego and ignorance of others ~ lured them in with adds and then billed them for an amount way above the actual value of the results...
"Note omelettes" eh? Make mine ham and a really pongy extra mature cheddar, Spanish style, with a nice homemade salsa. Oh yeah, and definitely free range ham and eggs, eggs with a dark yolk... Mmmm, mmm, good... Then we'll chew through some tunes...
Of course I have already announced that I agree with Nigel that a section for originals, (tunes we came up with ourselves,) would be handy to keep the main database from being abused or over-run, diluted etc. But there's another point I'd like to address concerning the usefulness of having a place to publish your tunes publicly. Ben Hall, (who is no doubt enjoying dinner somewhere in Dublin as I write this and then heading over to Hughzes for a tune,) has told us how a tune he wrote has managed to enter the trad music circles but has been attributed to a well-known musician other than himself. He tells us that he feels it’s a lost cause and has no intention of clearing it up in this forum. He also tells us he has no intention of posting any of his other original tunes. Here’s what I’m wondering: had he published his tunes, would the one he mentioned continue to be attributed to that other musician, or, would the fact that he published it here end any speculation on the matter. Here’s another example: if Will hadn't published his frog tune it might be forever attributed to Tommy Peoples. So with that in mind, perhaps it would provide a useful service to have a section for people to publish original tunes to protect their authorship. Perhaps this database should also allow a searchable-by-author function.
I get this feeling that Jeremy’s reaching for his aspirin bottle right about now.
I'm sorry and mortfied that Mr. Peoples takes some of the blame for Bang Your Frog.....
But I really don't have any interest in "protecting authorship" either. Unless Mel Gibson plans on using it as the theme for his next wildly successful movie--"Apocelticpo"
ceolachan, Vanity Presses aren't all evil. There is a legitimate business printing and publishing books for people,and this is simply like any other service: a fair price for a fair service. The term began as pejorative, but it's understood to mean a certain service. I have also been a small publisher for many years.
I have offended some people with my use of the term "vanity tunes", and I think it does fit the model to an extent, but people's indignancy is obscuring my point, so I regret it now.
I'm not against people writing tunes; hell, I've written many, some of which have been "taken up" - recorded a few times around the world, published in collections, heard played in a few sessions, and so on. I think there's a place for our own compositions, but I don't happen to believe it's The Session. I know I'm in the monority, but there's my opinion.
How would you feel, Will, if your tune showed up on a high profile recording but it was attributed to Tommy or someone else and had a different name? Would it be egotistical or vain to desire credit due, even in cases where no money was involved. I received an email from Maurice Lennon over this issue because I published a tune he wrote here on thesession.org, (that I also recorded,) without the right name or acknowledgement of his authorship. Maurice didn't stand to make a penny on either this site or my miniscule recording project, but I fully understand why he would want to have the name he intended associated with the tune along with the true author. I think anyone would want the same... and they often express this. Liz Carroll told me that was all she wanted in regards to our recording her tune, and Cyril O'Donaghue as well for his waltz. I don't consider this an unreasonable, vain or egotistical request.
Isn't recording a tune/CD an example of self promotion? If that's part of the criteria for submission, seems just anyone could record & sell. You should add sales numbers to the yardstick too. Then how many CDs or Tunes from iTunes and the like, would count towards the goal of being part of the "tradition" and thus ok to submit?
It is the wrong place for 'vanity tunes' among the original traditionals but then again trad music needs to evolve and these folk that are putting them on are willing to share ideas and that is what keeps the trad alive and evolving. It would be really fascinating if there was a separate section on this same site for putting these new tunes on and we would all have great fun at times and deep insight at others having a look and a chat about what is going on and where we think it is all headed. And people who put these tunes on should maybe donate (compulsary) too...
Er, Jack, thanks for the lecture, but I never said or implied any of the things to address in your previous post.
Yes, I expect most people prefer to have credit given where it's due.
In my case, it matters less than many because who the hell knows who Will Harmon is? Might was well credit my tunes to Milo T. Buckyerfuddy. As I tongue-in-cheek hinted at above, there's at least as much trouble to be brewed by "blaming" the wrong person as the composer of a tune (especially one he or she would disavow simply on the tune's lack of merit).
Oh, I get it now. Jack, you thoiught I mean I'm not interested in protecting *anyone's* authorship. No, sorry, what I said was that I don't particularly care if I don't get credit for my own tunes, like Bang Your Frog. It's okay if it happens, but I'm more concerned that Mr. Peoples or someone else might resent being associated with such an odd tune.
As for other people's compositions, I've always asked permission before posting someone's tune here, and I've never been turned down.
Will, it wasn't intended as a "lecture," I was responding to this statement about "authorship."
Will writes: "But I really don't have any interest in "protecting authorship" either. Unless Mel Gibson plans on using it as the theme for his next wildly successful movie--"Apocelticpo"
Nigel, I am most probably in agreement with you, even though it may seem contrary in my postings... As far as 'vanity press', maybe the definition has changed over time and geography? It still holds the negative in my mind. We tended not to consider self-publication as falling under 'vanity press', as mentioned realier, but those presses the preyed on the vulnerable and naive... But I suspect we'll just have to disagree there. It is a put down in my book, but with some sympathy for the mark...
This argument has been raised a few times, probably every year I can remember lurking or posting. Somehow I think the site manages itself. It doesn't set me on edge to see folks being inspired to share their creation, to risk letting it out in the open. Some tunes pass on, a few kilobytes worth, with little or no visible 'strike', others take the half dozen, and some more than that. If there was some worry about what was current and popular, well, there's a slew of tunes on site with hits over 100, none of which are really 'new' tunes...all being well exercised...
I guess, I don't see the problem, except those rare, let's avoid name calling like 'ego-maniac', let's see, exuberant sould who are so possessed with their own genius that they feel the need to post a slew of their self-claimed in a row? Yeah, that does get me a little bit bitchy, and I guess when you have several compositions by different folk, yeah, that too, or someone is brand new to the site just to promote their genius ~ yes, I've seen a few of those over time ~ but they don't last for long, for one reason or the other.
The good tunes are here, we have free choice, we can choose to ignore, though maybe after a day or two of feeling bitchy? As said previously, I quite enjoy the garbage too, it raises my appreciation of a good tune, and what's wrong with that, eh? And sometimes I get a good laugh out of it...or it allows me to let off some built off steam with a bitch and moan, like here...
You've put it in a nutshell, ceolachan: I AM bitching and moaning!
It comes down to the fact that this isn't how _I_ would run this site, but then again, I'm not running this site; I'm just another guy who popped in for a few tunes. I listen politely when someone says "I've written this new tune..." and then when she says "And here's another..." and then "I've got another I wrote..." If that person went through to the back room, where EVERYone is playing new tunes, I'd be the first to applaud.
Ah well, that's it. Back to work tomorrow - it's been a nice couple of days off.
Half the above has appeared since I last looked in, and something further up the thread makes me want to comment. Again, I don't want here to try to give a tight, workable definition of "traditional", but what I do want to strongly suggest is that it is a false dichotomy to set "composed" (or "known composer") against "traditional".
Whatever traditional is, it must have something to do with age, acceptance by a community of musicians of some size (albeit perhaps a small size) and transmission from one generation of players to another (though one might want to define "generation" rather loosely). This can all happen whether or not the composer is known. "Unknown origin" is not synonymous with "traditional".
Finally, however, unless we want to abuse the English language altogether (and not being an advertising copywriter, I don't) it remains a fact that a new tune *cannot* be traditional. If it has been composed in a sufficiently traditional context and becomes accepted by the community it may be reasonable to call it traditional after only a few decades, but "new" and "traditional" are genuinely (if not absolutely) opposed to one another.
Morphonymic Tootler, you have made the same assumption that many here have made, that there is a movement against known composers of tunes. This is far from the case. This whole discussion started when I got fed up of people submitting their OWN tunes. Whether you think I'm right or wrong on that matter doesn't matter, but nobody here is saying that tunes by known composers should be separated.
Morphonymic Tootler, it's late, I'm tired, and I think may have misunderstood you. Sorry. I think I'll call it a day on the evening, and on this discussion. Good night all ZZZzzzzzzzzz....
Where I'd respectfully disagree with Nigel is in allowing the next Paddy Fahey, Sean Ryan, or Ed Reavy to post their own tunes. Seriously, if an Ed Junior were to pop up here and start posting brilliant original tunes in the trad style, I'd be thrilled to see them.
And Fahey, Ryan, and Revay did in fact publish and otherwise disseminate their tunes. The mere act of putting your own tunes out doesn't mean you're being self indulgent or craving praise. Quite the opposite, it can come from a sense of generosity and shared enthusiasm.
I like seeing tunes here posted by the composer because it shows that the tradition is very much alive and kicking, and we get fresh tunes straight from the horse's mouth. Ours to tinker with, as trad musos are wont to do, but at least we get them first in their original inspiration.
I'm willing to sort thru the dross for the few gems. Not much different than flipping pages in O'Neill's come to think of it....
Oh cripes, why did I not go to bed? Will, I'm not against anyone publishing their own works - I've done it myself! However, do you want The Session to be like YouTube, where anything and everything is accepted and welcome? Fine if that's what people want, but it's not the kind of session that interests me very much.
Hey, d'you like this one?
X:674
T:Knock, The
C:Nigel Gatherer
Z:Nigel Gatherer
M:4/4
L:1/8
K:Ador
cAeA fAeA | G3 A BcdB | cAeA fAeA | GABd cA A2 :|
ABce a2 ef | g2 dg Bg G2 | ABce a2 ef | gedB BA A2 :|
... and the debate continues on a tough subject... here's twopence... I'd likely have never learned the Winter Queen or Bang Your Frog had this site been set up differently... and more impoverished musically for it. Despite everyone's differing views (pro-vanity or pro-fanity), it's likely that everyone would agree that without evolution within the tradition, it would be moribund, and that new tunes are an essential part of such progress. Or they might not.
But this isn't like YouTube--it's fairly centered on tunes that would fit in most Irish trad sessions. The vast majority of original submissions here (and I've been playing through them since Jeremy first opened the site to all comers) fit well into the "average" session genre. Even the total clunker tunes.
That said, the 5:1 rule does a good job (if it's enforced) of preventing original tune diarhea. Otherwise, it might get out of hand. I think it's more a matter of flogging a few individual abusers than "correcting" the general tone of the tune section.
If a tune is good session music, I don't care how old or recent it is or who submitted it. And I'm willing to wade through the occasional dysmelodic notearhea to find the keepers.
It's not that hard to find the session standards amidst all the noise.
All the more reason to have a separate section that can be searched by both tune name and composer. Since it's session.org members who are submitting the original tunes here, and the tunes would be unknown by their title the same way the tunes in the main database are, you could search for tunes by your favorite member/composer and/or peruse the tunes by title. As it is now, because these tunes have no cross-reference with their title and they aren't spoken in sessions, tunes by session.org members fall into obscurity, (unless people happen to add them to their tunebook.) That's why I listed my original tune submissions in my profile.
Or, going back to my suggestion, if there were some sort of filtering, either by the number of members who have the tune in their tunebook, or whether the tune has been recorded, to flag the more popular tunes at the moment, we could have it both ways. Those who want to filter out the "noise" could click a check box on the search page. Those who want things the way they are now could leave the box unchecked.
Now I see what’s going on… this discussion has all been a carefully crafted ruse by Nigel to get one of us to post his original tunes in the database and have it appear more ‘traditional’ and not be considered a ‘vanity tune’ since it wasn’t he who submitted it. Very tricky Mr. Clever Clogs.
Or just skip to the next tune that interests them... Maybe we all need to get blood pressure monitors and take up meditation if we're going to let something like this wind us up... Obviously some of us start out a bit tight.
PB has his tunes listed in his profile
GM has his way of listing his in his
Dow has his down toward the bottom
Dafydd has made a list
& others too, including myself...
You don't have to go there, you don't have to play any of these, so why be perturbed, unless life is generally being unkind and this is a better way for you to work out your frustrations ~ over 'little' things... Hey, me too, hands up, I am also guilty of being petty at times... But, it will be raised again, and more and more as the site fills up with all the great old standards...and as new members roll in and see an opportunity to be in print... Sheesh!
I'm enjoying a first, Dutch beer, mmm, not bad either... I've also been spending this week torturing myself with Dow's compositions. I don't see any warts forming, no tongue leisions, no dizzyness ~ well, maybe dizzyness...
Nigel, it's just as well you put that here out of the way... We have some understanding and sympathy for senile dementia. That laxative of a tune is more like a musical cuss up and would have made just as much sense as FFF fff | FFF fff | Fff Fff | FFF F3 ~ choose your key, F? ~ O.K., yeah, that'll do...
Patronizing, no, I'm feeling too jolly to be patronizing, but maybe alcohol makes it seem that way? It wasn't intentional. There's no way I'd ever be condescending to you Nigel, I have respect if short of sense at the moment... It is just me reacting to the repetition, like the drone of tinitis. Maybe it was under the influence of beer, or maybe it is just that it is Dutch beer? Maybe that's it, the Dutch influence. You can pass over it, ignore it, as we all have that choice, or freely interpret it as you choose. I'm not sure whether it has anything to do with the Dutch beer? Maybe it is the choice about about whether to keep your thumb in the dyke or not? Wanting to hold back an ocean with a thumb? That is impressive, if a bit mad. Hey, eventually it will make it over the top anyway won't it, what with all the ice caps melting and the sea level rising?
If there was anything 'patronizing', apologies ~ that tends to be more an inward thing, self-cricitism, as I regularly question my own intentions, obsessions and assumptions. As I've said before, I basically agree with your premise Nigel, if unsure about your general attitude and solutions...
I can't do anything about your reduced estimation of me, I've no doubt there are those who think even worse of me, but when you next start this up again, as I suspect you will, I'll just lurk, and maybe a tune will come to me as I watch things unfold and repeat... F2 F F2 F FFF F2 f F2 f F3 F2 F F2 F FFF F2 f F2 f f3 ~
I sympathize with Nigel's concerns, and I've emailed several folks asking them to reconsider posting unoriginal original tunes one after the next. Some left in a huff, and so the specific problem was solved. Others took a breath and mended their ways.
The tune section here remains a valuable reference for tunes. If anything poses a risk, it's the uninformed or untutored posting of traditional tunes. Even then, ceolachan, dow, slainte and others do an admirable job of calling them to Jeremy's attention, and cross-referencing to other (often more informed and informative) postings of the same and related tunes.
Rather than isolate the original tunes, I'd as soon see us police ourselves. Remind newbies of the 5:1 rule. Call them on it when they abuse it. And when someone submits a flagrant fragrant piece of sh*te, tell them so in the comments section. That'll introduce a little humility....
I would like to see all future newly-penned tunes to be placed by the authors into a seperate area from the "traditional" tunes
- and dated, of course.
My vote for what it's worth.
ceolachan said "Patronizing, no...It wasn't intentional..."
OK. Cool, ceol. This morning I conduct a music group of learning disabled adults in Perth. They love it, I love it. Relevance to Irish music? Well, their favourite artists are Westlife and Daniel O'Donnell.
Nigel, that was a regular pastime for us ~ once a week, and 'Celtic' trad music & dance, which they loved ~ simplified ~ sometimes very, like on the whistle, and I had a few 'composed' easy tunes to teach. There was the mental health centre and an old hotel owned by friends that was a home for learning disabled adults, on the Welsh coast... We loved it and they became friends...
I do sometimes slip into that 'voice' of patronizing, but never with them, with myself yes, with other patronizing folks, sadly yes, at times. Print is easy to mislead, but I have been a patronizing git before and probably will be again at some point, but I wasn't in that voice frame last night, honest...
BACK ON TOPIC ~ hopefully ~
I know, I know, they are dead ~ BUT ~ some of the most egomaniacal and OTT music I have ever been subjected to or played was pre-20th Century ~ and a bit of that is on site here... Like 'skill', 'age' isn't enough on its own to win me over...
Some of the 'new' compositions, post 20th Century, I'd choose and prefer to play any day over the acrobatic monstrosities of some of the famous and infamous long dead...
I suspect some of us have beat you to that nicholas, but lack the nerve to post it? ~ No! ~ almost forgot, some may have beat you to it already. I think there are several already here for you to match up to.
Hey, maybe we should start a discussion with links to posts of horror, except I really don't like the potential cruelty of that idea... We have some sensitive souls here...
Tunes Section
Tunes Section
I'm in a particularly grumpy mood tonight, but I have to get this off my chest:
I have just had a look at the Tunes section to find that out of the most recent fifteen tunes, an astonishing THIRD are vanity submissions. I have no objections to people submitting their own compositions to the web, but I don't think this is the right place for it.
I believe this because The Session has been a valuable resource of traditional tunes, but it is being diluted on a daily basis by vanity tunes. What is the solution? Well, it would be great if there were a similar site (or a sister site?) DEDICATED to newly composed tunes, which would actually welcome any and all works, which in turn could be a resource for those looking for tunes and those punting their own works to the world.
I know there will be many who'll disagree with me, but I'll bet there are plenty who feel as I do. Rant over.
# Posted on February 14th 2007 by nigelg
Re: Tunes Section
I agree. I have submitted about a half dozen of my own comps here in the time I've been on this board, but I have tried to keep with the 5 to 1 ratio. Evidently everyone isn't making a similar effort and we are unable to police ourselves. Some people are logging on for the first time just to post a comp of their own. Others are shamelessly posting successive original comps disregarding Jeremy's request all together. Perhaps a separate section for original comps is the best solution, so I second Nigel’s recommendation to separate the original tunes from the rest. That way no one has to feel guilty or self-conscious about how many original tunes they post.
Of course I have no idea about what that would mean in the nuts & bolts world of programming that Jeremy would have to deal with. It might be unrealistic.
# Posted on February 14th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Tunes Section
I agree it is an increasing problem but I guess it is up to Jeremy to decide what to do. A separate section for original/new comps is one way to go.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Donough
Re: Tunes Section
Absolutely. There were some over-simple definitions of "traditional" on another thread recently, and I'm not going to offer a new one, but there is no way that new compositions are traditional, whatever their style. Only the holders of the tradition, i.e. the music community at large, can, in the course of time, make a tune traditional.
The great resource that has been built up will decay if it loses its focus.
Our sitemaster obviously does have the courage to intervene, but I wonder if he also has the time?
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Alex Wilding
Re: Tunes Section
I second the vote for the original comps section.
But I am not overly annoyed by all the submissions. It depends on how you use the tunes section. I don't personally use it to randomly find a new "traditional" tune. I use it as a tool to figure out what tune it was that I heard in the session last night, as reference for tunes that I already know, and as a place to pick up a setting of a tune that I want to learn. But I never just surf around it looking for new tunes. There may be people here that do that, but I have no idea.
Another problem is where you draw the line on "traditional" tunes... like a recent discussion pointed out, does this mean that it is only a repository for tunes that the author is unknown? What about the tunes that the author IS known, but the tune has made it into the "tradition"?
Like it or not, the dilution of the resource is inevitable. There is a finite number of traditional tunes (huge, yes, fully represented in the database, no. But finite, nonetheless), whereas the number of potential original tunes (many of which will seep their way into the "tradition") is potentially infinite.
Pete
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Reverend
Re: Tunes Section
Compositions submitted by their own author should be banned. I've written a fair whack of tunes myself but i'd never submit them here. If what you've written is such a masterpiece, then someone else who picks it up of you (ala folk process b*llocks) should submit it.
I've found the tune section here to be a great resource but all these Vanity tunes (a nice coinage that) have made, esp speculative ABC-fragment, searches a real pain in the preverbial. And if you write tunes for someone else on this site... EMAIL it to them. IF they like it, they can put it up.
(mind you, if you submit someone else's Vanity tune that was written about you, does that make it a vanitiy-vanity tune?)
BAN THE VANITIES!
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by SirNose
Re: Tunes Section
Reverend said, "What about the tunes [where] the author IS known, but the tune has made it into the "tradition"?"
How many of these composers of tunes which have entered the tradition have submitted the tune here themselves and said "I wrote this because..."? Probably none. If you need a criterion, how about: Tunes That Have Been Recorded? Or something as simple, so that these question need never be asked.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by nigelg
Re: Tunes Section
"Of course I have no idea about what that would mean in the nuts & bolts world of programming..."
I think the hardest part of doing a separate original comps section on the site from a technical standpoint, would be how to get all the originals that are currently in the database separated out and put where they belong...
Pete
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Reverend
Re: Tunes Section
"If you need a criterion, how about: Tunes That Have Been Recorded? Or something as simple, so that these question need never be asked."
But what about all the traditional tunes that haven't been recorded? Or ones that have been recorded, but the current recording list doesn't contain the recording?
The tradition is dynamic and fluid. I don't think there's any simple criteria to determine this.
I would love to see an original comps section on the site, but how to get all the original comps currently in the database separated out is the problem. I guess you could ask the people that submitted the tunes to move them... that would take care of some of the issue.
Pete
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Reverend
Re: Tunes Section
Any volunteers (young and with time on their hands) to compile a list?
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Tunes Section
Reverend said, But what about all the traditional tunes that haven't been recorded?
You were originally talking about _new compositions_ which have been absorbed into the tradition.A criterion for THAT could be Tunes That Have Been Recorded.
As for traditional tunes that haven't been recorded, there was never any problem with them.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by nigelg
Re: Tunes Section
My point was that you have to be able to draw the line somewhere. Do you draw the line right here and now, and anything that is already in the database will from now forth be considered "traditional", and then lay down the rule that you can't submit a tune that you picked up at a session if you know who composed it?
It's a big, dynamic problem, and in my view there's no good way to draw a line that allows you to determine what is traditional and what isn't.
Like I said, I'd love to see a section where the new original comps go, and hope that people put them there... But then what criteria do you use to weed out the current tune database then?
Pete
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Reverend
Re: Tunes Section
I think what we're talking about here is when the person submitting the tune and the composer of the tune are one in the same. But hopefully this wouldn't mean getting your friends and cohorts to submit your tunes for you. If a separate section existed for such tunes then there would be no need to get around the rules. Unless your vanity desired to have your own compositions side by side with the master's I suppose.
Personally I find some of the original tunes interesting, and it would be fun to explore such a section. I hope it's within the realm of possibilities.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Tunes Section
Reverend, I respect your anxiousness, but I see the situation as something simpler:
"I learned this from my local session/a record/the radio/my teacher..." goes into thesession.
"I wrote this when my goldfish..." goes into the vanity tunes section.
As for the current database, you're right. I got narked tonight, and I felt like opening a debate.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by nigelg
Re: Tunes Section
Every now and then there is a good original composition but I believe the problem lies when people dont respect the 5-1 rule... which simply needs to be enforced. Jeremy can delete tunes obviously and should probably delete the rule breakers submissions. On the other hand Ive submitted 20 something trad tunes and 2 originals... How about 20 trads to one original? I d like to see that.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by The Merry Highlander
Re: Tunes Section
I've posted 2 trads and no originals. I've written loads of original tunes, but I'm not posting them - and neither are you, c
- at least not til they have a life of their own ... one of them already has ... (not one you've got, c)
I'm totally with SirNose above. Good composers either gig their tunes, record them or, better still, let them drift into the tradition.
The rest is vanity.
Anyway, I should be going to bed - have to be up first thing to catch my 1p Ryanair flight to Dub in the morning. I'll be in Hughes's if you need me.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by ethical blend
Re: Tunes Section
Luck you, Ben. Say hello to Paul D. and the rest of the gang for me.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Tunes Section
Will do, if I recognise them! And thanks.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by ethical blend
Re: Tunes Section
I've posted 209 tunes so far, and only a handful of them my own compositions.
Several of my tunes have apparently made it into the repertoire of trad sessions--Dreary Plains of Toil showed up in Belgium with no name and in a different key, and a plaer posted it here, not realizing that this site had to be the source for the tune in the first place.
Another tune of mine--Bang Your Frog on the Sofa--has made it into sessions far and wide (at least as big a surprise to me as to anyone else). Someone won gold at the trad music competition in London with it a few years back--he had learned it from somone else, not off this site, and had no idea who the composer was. Zina recently mentioned that in some circles, Bang Your Frog is being credited to Tommy Peoples (for which I am thoroughly embarrassed--poor Tommy).
Another member here has had a tune or two recorded by another artist (one by Kevin Burke). So it does happen.
Much to my surprse, Bang Your Frog has been added to 179 tunebooks so far--more than such stalwart trad tunes as Geese in the Bog, Last Night's Fun, The Flogging Reel, and Trip to Durrow. That flabbergasts me.
I've also picked up some really nice original tunes here from people whose compositions are consistenly good.
So I think the rule of 5 trad tunes for every 1 of your own is fine--if people abide by it. But I wouldn't protest creation of a separate original tunes section. Either way works.
The music of the people comes from us people, eh?
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: Tunes Section
I agree with Will. I've picked up some nice original tunes off this website. I think the solution to it is for Jeremy to police the 5 trad to 1 own comp rule better by simply deleting a tune if someone hasn't followed the rule, instead of creating sheetmusic for it and letting it stay. If he lets it stay, people seem to take it as a sign to continue submitting own comps in a steady stream. Some of these people clearly haven't been playing trad tunes for long enough to be able to write a good tune and it shows.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Dr. Dow
Re: Tunes Section
Burn the Vanities !
We could have a bonfire......
We could call it The Bonfire of the Vanities.
What a great name for a new tune.....
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Guernsey Pete
Re: Tunes Section
OK, 5 to 1 rule... how would jeremy go about enforcing this? To estalish a tune is a personal comp you mostly have to check the comments, so there is no way an automatic coding solution would work. Or possibly tax-office-style tune audits on random, tune-submitting members... ?
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by SirNose
Re: Tunes Section
He could simply go to that person's "history", and then to "tunes submitted", and check the last few tunes they submitted. I just did that for one newly-submitted comp, and unsurprisingly that person had submitted 3 tunes, all of which were own comps. Obviously this person either hasn't read the FAQ and doens't know about the rule, or they're deliberately flouting it. Either way the person has to be told, otherwise it affects other users of the site negatively, like SirNose's example of the abc fragment search.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Dr. Dow
Re: Tunes Section
PS SirNose I wish you *would* submit one of your own comps one of these days. I'd be interested to try one out.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Dr. Dow
Re: Tunes Section
LOL @ "tune audits"
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Dr. Dow
Re: Tunes Section
will, I'm sure it's very gratifying to have your vanity played over a fair distance, but i think this is a drop in the ocean of bad tunes that are clogging up the DB. And if an (allegedly) great player like Kevin Burke records someone's tune, then it's out there and someone else can submit it if they feel so enamored of it. I just don't see why you can't just make a blanket you-can-only-submit-other-peoples-tunes rule.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by SirNose
Re: Tunes Section
(dow - hehe, maybe at the end of the year Jeremy can send out "tune returns"... )
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by SirNose
Re: Tunes Section
and dow, my tunes are strictly for me to video myself playing on my snazzy new imac so i can look back and see how magnificently the lagubrious sunshine glints of the silver of my flute and accentuates my highly-defined cheek bones, this dizzying play of light brought to an emotional climax through some of the most beautific flute playing heard by the ears of man.
Vanity, thy name is benno.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by SirNose
Re: Tunes Section
I believe Phil Cunningham submitted one of his tunes here once. It would just be a shame if we/Jeremy did anything to prevent that kind of thing from happening.
*If* Jeremy is so inclined, it's a fairly straightforward thing to move self-penned tunes to a separate section of the site. First he has to create the new section. Then he needs a list of all the tunes that need to be moved. Anyone wanna volunteer to comb through the 7000 tunes here and compile his list for him?
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by kennedy
Re: Tunes Section
Now all you have to do is have a child so people in the street will say "he looks just like his father"
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Dr. Dow
Re: Tunes Section
That was to SirNose
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Dr. Dow
Re: Tunes Section
(or should that be, "Vanity, thy name is youtube?")
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by SirNose
Re: Tunes Section
Appearing on a recording is not an easily enforceable criterion, since a composer could simply choose a name for his/her new tune that is the same as some common tune.
One possibly implementable solution would be to have two tunes sections with tunes moving back and forth between the two sections according to some rule that could be updated frequently and automatically. For example, one section for tunes that are in at least, say, 25 (10?) people's tunebooks, and a section for those that aren't. One could argue that if a tune isn't popular enough here to have a certain minimum number of people (a fraction of one percent) interested enough to put it in their tunebook, then it probably isn't really part of the living tradition anyway and should be relegated to a secondary library where people could mine for hidden gems if they so choose.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by GaryAMartin
Re: Tunes Section
A refinement of my suggestion:
One tunes section, but on the search page a check box to choose whether to search only tunes that appear in at least a certain number of members' tunebooks or, to search all tunes.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by GaryAMartin
Re: Tunes Section
Mark, you were talking about DubChieftain, weren't you? Did you check the YouTube clip? 'Nuff said.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Alex Wilding
Re: Tunes Section
Actually I didn't check the YouTube clip as my point wasn't really about playing abilities or styles. I just picked him out randomly as he was the most recent person to have submitted an own comp. Incidentally, YouTube is failing me and refuses to play the clip on my pc.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Dr. Dow
Re: Tunes Section
Gary, I'm sorry to break this to you but the tune book listings are not a good indicator of how good a tune is. It's simply proof that people on this website have absolutely no taste in tunes whatsoever. Case in point: Wizard's Walk http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display/885 is in 93 tunebooks despite the fact that it is fecking shocking, whereas the Beech Tree http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display/4335 has been added to only 5 tunebooks, despite the fact that it is one of the most beautiful tunes ever written.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Dr. Dow
Re: Tunes Section
My tunebook submissions have nothing to do with what I think of a tune other than to act as a bookmark when I don't have time to look at it more closely. If I like a tune I copy it to my hard drive and file it there; that record isn't reflected anywhere on this site. I suspect others do similar things.
I still say a separate section would be the easiest and least complicated way. If people still wanted their tunes in the main tune database they'd have to submit them without revealing who wrote them. It would take the vanity out of their tune -- they wouldn't do it. So I say make the separate section and let all the YouTube wannabe and otherwise tune composers submit to their heart's content.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Tunes Section
Huh, slap, slap, scuse me, gotta wake up... Weren't we just jawin' over this one? I could swear it was Nigel too. Oh yeah, that was last week. Maybe we should also ban unoriginal discussions? Or, we could have one for every five original ones? ~ no, that wouldn't work, the discussions would all dry up wouldn't they? Yes Nigel, I also had been checking the percentages of submissions since the start of 2007, the madness in me...
Hey Ben, stop frettin', I liked your tunes enough to ask you if I could post one, but I wouldn't do it without your consent.
As we did jaw this one, I'm not going to repeat what I said before, hopefully, but basically I'm in agreement with the original FAQ and Button and Dow and Will and ~ ~ ~ at least 5-to1. Most of us have been doing better than that on the whole. I did lose it once myself Nigel when one bright spark submitted five or more of his own on the trot. It wasn't that they were shight, that's subjective, but that is what I thought of them, but I wouldn't call for a ban because I found them irritating or boring, that isn't fair and isn't my way, it was that there were so many self-composition-submission on the trot ~ one-right-after-the-other... It wasn't the first time this has happened, but it was the first time I dropped a line to the submitter. Some months are curiously worse than others.
"HIS" response, yeah, mostly it is us males, was that I was an old fogey who was stifling the creative energy inherent in the 'tradition'. I referred him to several submissions I'd made over time of 20th & 21st Century musicians and composers... All I'd asked him to do was to read the FAQs... I did not pass jdgment on his work, but you'd think I'd said something bad about his children ~ very defensive. That seems to be the nature of the beast?
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
OK, I've relaxed a bit since my apparent "anxiousness"
How 'bout this? One database. But two added fields"
Composer (if known)
Trad/Original
Those could be search criteria, and it would be really interesting to know the known composers of some great tunes that have made it into the tradition. It would also be cool to be able to search for tunes by Ed Reavy, for instance.
The issues of how to get this info into the database still exists. On top of the fact that a lot of tunes attributed to a certain person weren't actually written by them (see Bang your Frog above...)
I think Jeremy's plan has been to let the comments section take care of all these issues. However, that's not searchable...
Pete
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Reverend
Re: Tunes Section
""HIS" response, yeah, mostly it is us males, was that I was an old fogey who was stifling the creative energy inherent in the 'tradition'." ~ 'c'
That bit about stifling the creative energy inherent in the 'tradition' is wrong
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Dr. Dow
Re: Tunes Section
Yeah, I like that. I am sometimes trying to find the composer, when for example all attempts to search for title or ABC's has failed. It would be great to be able to search for what is here by Reavy, or Keegan, or Crehan, or whoever. I am sometimes in the predicament. I have for a few small collections, like Taylor's, taken to putting links to his other compositions in the 'Comments', not quite right. You couldn't do that with Reavy, as an example, without making one hell of a mess...
There is still the problem of mistaken identity, or when a bit of history and knowledge throws up a composer for something that was without one in the original transcription, not uncommon...
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
Also, for some composers, something I try to do if I can, I like to see some context, a bit about the composer and about the composition, if available, stories for example. While you might do that with one tune by a given composer, you don't want to necessarily cut-and-paste the same bit for every tune, so finding a collection of tunes by one composer, you might be able to then check the comments for the various related information on the composer and their music. I love those sort of contributions and appreciate them when I accidently come upon them...
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
Like Dow's OCD with obtuse keys...
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
Lest I be misunderstood, my "'Nuff said" was written with the style in mind rather than the standard of playing which can probably not be judged from this clip.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Alex Wilding
Re: Tunes Section
Dow, did I say anything about my suggestion filtering for quality? It gives a very rough measurement of how many people express some sort of interest in the tune. It would enable those who wish to avoid having to wade through stacks of tunes that were submitted by the composer but didn't attract or hold the interest of a sufficient number of people.
If enough people are interested in Wizard's Walk, then others should be able to locate it without sifting through pages of stuff that only a few people care about. Conversely, if Kenny hasn't heard the Beech Tree in 20 years and only five people are interested in it (I don't know, maybe the cutoff should be five), maybe it hasn't been absorbed into the tradition yet. Or maybe it had been and has fallen out.
Concerning Jack's comment about how people use their tunebooks, what does it matter, so long as there's no conspiracy of composers to put each others' tunes into their tunebooks simply to get their tunes past the filter? With 33000 members, and a very low cutoff, it shouldn't matter how a few individuals decide to use their tunebooks.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by GaryAMartin
Re: Tunes Section
If people want to locate Wizard's Walk, they can follow a simple procedure. Simply type "Wizard's" into the search box and up it comes. If they don't know the title, they can search for the abc. Otherwise they can search for it by reaching down the U-bend of their toilet.
Or U-Tube?
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Dr. Dow
Re: Tunes Section
Well, Jeremy's 5:1 rule is sound but it doesn't prevent people submitting new compositions by someone else so, in theory, a member could submit all "new" tunes.
Without getting into the "what is trad" argument again, perhaps some guidelines could be laid down advising us to submit fewer *newer* tunes regardless of who has composed them.
Also, as stated in the other thread, I'm not keen on people submitting songs(As I mentioned in Dow's thread a couple of days back).....Unless they are also tunes which are recognised as such and feature in sessions or recordings. Also, it should be the "tune version" and not the melody of the song which might well be different.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by John J.
Re: Tunes Section
A 2 step transition to having a 'trad' and 'composed' database - add a composer field and allow old entries to be edited to add info to the composed field. Then allow six months for tunes to be edited and 'claimed' by their owners, authors,composers. Then Stage 2... all tunes flagged as composed get pulled into a New Traditions database, and Pure Trad for the rest.
There are enough historians, pedants and police roaming the mustard board for the two databases to settle quickly into side by side cohabitation...and just the occasional full on squabble over the history and evolution of particular tunes. Bizarrely, I sometimes find these quite interesting too!
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by FiddleFancy
Re: Tunes Section
Well,
I just noticed that a self penned tune submitted yesterday by JACKB called Clonegal Castle has disappeared this morning! I thought it was quite catchy in it's own way - luckily I downloaded ABC before it went 'poof'. I suppose if I learn it and resubmit it, then it'll be acceptable - sounds daft to me!
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by the wounded hussar
Re: Tunes Section
Isn't that already what is happening, and can't we have faith in ourselves to tell the difference? ~ historians, pedants, tyrants and students alike? Damn, all those apply in my case and some I won't add to that list, between me and the priest, eh? I just don't see the fuss.
I don't have any problem playing through a new submission once or twice, including compositions. I can tell right away if I want to play it a few more times, check it for fit, or if I personally find it cack. I can note it and return later for some more fun, or I move on to the next tune. Though I do sometimes revisit the comps, for example all by one person, if possible. Like looking through someone's book or music collection, it can give me insights.
Whether I like something or not, I enjoy seeing the inspirations of others past and present, and how those develop. Some folks have a higher score mark in interesting tunes and takes, some are obvious copies, confusions or mixes of old standards, others are just plain weird or awful, in my biased opinion... But I definitely get a greater appreciation of the good by having suffered the awful... 'Suffered' is not quite right, I get some perverse pleasure out of seeing the dross produced by others and by myself, at least a chuckle's worth...
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
"Pure Trad"? ~ that always gives me shivers of discomfort... How can that be 'pure' when 'tradition' is contracted?
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
There are many times that I would like to search on composer. If this were added, then maybe we can leave the tunes as one big file. For tunes that cannot be attributed to a person, then use "anon" or similar.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Cquick
Re: Tunes Section
To be fair, and Jeremy doesn't need my support, that was the fourth self-composed tune in a row by Jack, after the submission of an 'air'... The other three compositions remain, so I think Jeremy is being more than reasonable. If Jack were to start backing his personal compositions with stock from the tons of other tunes he might know, old or new, or transcribed from recordings, then maybe he could come back and resubmit that tune himself, if it is one he is particularly proud of and would like to share with us... Four in a row is just a bit obsesssive don't you think, whether good or not, whether he the next super piper or not... I've enjoyed some of his tunes too, and look forward to more ~ o - v - e - r t - - i - - - m - - - - e...
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
Of course, you make a fair point c but it's kind of an arbitrary process what goes and what stays then. Must admit that said tune only caught my eye as I don't live a million miles from said castle. At least he's hanging the tune on a real place and a real memory of an interesting corner of Ireland.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by the wounded hussar
Re: Tunes Section
Another issue to consider, just to muddy the waters, is that the database is getting rather comprehensive when it comes to traditional tunes. That makes it very unlikely that most of us even know five traditional tunes that aren't already there.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by GaryAMartin
Re: Tunes Section
It was already muddy, our most recent stomp around in the muck:
Discussion: "A Polite Reminder..."
# Posted on January 4th 2007 by nigelg
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/12204
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
Several times someone has claimed every 9/8 in the world must be here ~ and I keep refuting that with contributions... There are tons more tunes, Irish and otherwise, tunes that fit the basic nature of this site, and there's all those variations and version, which I'm glad to see arriving more regularly in the 'Comments' on site here, lovely to see and give a try... No, I don't think we've plundered it all, or ever are likely to...
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
Naughty, naughty you are c. I see that you've submitted 2 tunes within one day - 15th Feb!!!! That's agin the rules!!
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by the wounded hussar
Re: Tunes Section
i didnt read the rest of posts yet.
but i object to the term "vanity tunes"
i submitted a couple of tunes because i was interested in how they might sound on other instruments.
all the tunes on this site were composed by someone at some point.
they didnt rise out some weird celtic mist at the dawn of time, people sat down and wrote all these "vanity tunes".
Musicians make music and like to share it.
im sick of people thinking of "traditional" music as an art form that doesnt rely on actual input from individuals who write tunes.
A seperate section for original tunes, would be an improvement though.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by DubChieftain
Re: Tunes Section
PS: this type of snobbery is the reason why virtually no-one under 30 is interested in traditional music anymore.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by DubChieftain
Re: Tunes Section
I don't think its snobbery, rather a matter of taste.
I'm under 30
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Hugo Chavez
Re: Tunes Section
DubChieftain, you've got it wrong. Nobody objects to any of the tunes you're talking about (the ones that people sat down and wrote). I'm pretty sure nobody objects to tunes which have known composers. However, all of these tunes should be here out of merit, not speculatively.
It is my belief that The Session is the poorer for vanity publishing, and it's plain you have another opinion. Fair enough, but I'd suggest two things: read the Frequently Asked Questions section, or consider spreading your tunes through MySpace.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by nigelg
Re: Tunes Section
The 5:1 rule works well. If it bothers you, email the poster and remind them of the rule. It's easy enough to skip tunes from the same submitter, once they've established their reputation....
Nigel, "merit" is subjective. One person's magnificent opus is another's Athole Highlanders.
Seems to me most original tunes are submitted here with a great deal of humility, in the spirit of "Here's a tune that tumbled out the other day and I enjoy playing it. Hope you do to." I know that's the mindset I see in the original tunes submitted by gian marco, drone, ceolachan, Phanton Button, mad baloney, and many others. I hope it comes through in my own submissions--certainly how they're intended. Nothing to do with vanity. I guarantee I'm more surprised than anyone when a tune takes on a life of its own.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: Tunes Section
It does Will...
~ but along with this thread, and for that reason, both are 20th Century sourced, as was the one previous, three in a row...
Hussy, just a note on his accusation earlier ~ I caught the cusp!
I have tried that approach Will, when someone has gotten carried away and submitted one self-composition after another, usually after #3, and to be honest, maybe only twice. It was never well recieved ~ or maybe I wasn't diplomatic enough. Maybe it is better to hide over here in the discussions than to take an active role in suggestiong some composer 'ease up' and submit things other than their own output.
If I were to submit everything that's ever come out of the blue to me as a tune ~ well, it would be very embarrassing. Some of it has been awful... Besides, it is a constant part of my life, music is always there, which is nice. In amongst all the traditional things I get regular surprises that perk my notice and later I realize aren't in the greater whole, at least not in that particular grouping of notes. But there's no way in hell I'd submit all that here, it would be too painful and as said ~ embarrassing...
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by ceolachan
Besides, my greatest respect and love is for the music that has stood the test of time and that has been passed to me via others, including the likes of Will and Dow and Button and GM and ~ others...
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
Phanton? And it has a button? Scary!
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Tunes Section
Nigel: i totally understand where your coming from.
This is a great site. It provides a great service.
Ive learned a lot of tunes and history here.
I agree it should remain centred round the tunes that have stood the test of time.
I took exception to the term "vanity tunes".
Its condescending to say the least.
If their are going to be people who regularly submit their own compositions then a seperate section is needed.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by DubChieftain
Re: Tunes Section
Okay, I've asked Jeremy to remove my vainglorious tune submission. Can I come back into the clubhouse?
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Bob himself
Re: Tunes Section
"Vanity" is a term used in book publishing, meaning self-publishing. That is the meaning I intended.
I would disagree that the 5:1 rule works well, DubChieftain being a case in point.
I'd prefer there to be a separate section for tunes which "tumbled out the other day" but I don't expect the majority of people to agree with me, and I don't expect the site to change because of my opinions.
I do think that this great resource is diminished by the habit which has taken root of people submitting their own compositions. To re-quote the Frequently Asked Questions:
"Can I submit my own compositions?
Well... The Session isn't really intended for that."
To paraphrase, The Session isn't intended for that.
In my opinion, The Session isn't intended for that.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by nigelg
Re: Tunes Section
DubChiefatin said, "Nigel: i totally understand where your coming from...I took exception to the term "vanity tunes".
Hopefully I have explained myself above, Dub.
By the way, I have to say that I really enjoyed listening to your music - you've got some great ideas and sounds on your MySpace page.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by nigelg
Re: Tunes Section
"Vanity", in the publishing industry, is a pejorative term. Not all self-publishing is "vanity".
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Bob himself
Re: Tunes Section
DubChiefatin? Profuce apologies, your Dubness, no offence meant
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by nigelg
Re: Tunes Section
Profuce? Perhaps that glass of wine with dinner wasn't a good idea!
Bob himself said, "Vanity", in the publishing industry, is a pejorative term"
Nowadays it's an accepted term for authors financing publication of their own book which may not have been published otherwise. It seemed to work very well in this instance: people publishing thei own tunes which may not have surfaced any other place. Pejorative? Well, yes, I did mean it slightly pejoratively. I was rather grumpy last night! And you're right, perhaps I should apologise for my devilment...
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by nigelg
Re: Tunes Section
Nigel: i appreciate that a lot, cheers.
i was actually thinking about approaching the GFW
because im interested in learning to play fiddle.
I think my fat head would break the fiddle though. ;)
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by DubChieftain
Re: Tunes Section
And there's a big difference between publishing your own book (because no one else will) to make money off it, and posting a tune here as a way to share s slice of fun among friends.
Sorry Phase-o-tron, er Phantom, sometimes I type faster than I think....
There's also a difference between submitting a few tunes that you and your session mates have played over time and found that they stick, versus just throwing cheesy note omelettes at the tune section just to see your "tune" in print.
I usually run my tunes by my friends long before I'd think of submitting them here. And even then, I err on the side of submitting only a few of the more well-received ones.
As in most things, discretion is the better part....
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: Tunes Section
"Vanity Publishing" ~ as I understand it and use the terminology, having been a small press editor and publisher in several previous existences, is about paying someone to have them publish your work ~ without any exposure to critique or editing... "Oh boy, I'm published!" And they, if lucky, get a box full of badly printed copies of their work to keep in their closet and to hand out to friends. ~ It is definitely pejorative and amongst anyone with a serious interest in print and the creative work of others ~ derogatory too, a put-down, and often accompanied with a snigger, though that might be internalized...
I've known folks that spent their own money to take their work to a printer, but we never thought of that as 'vanity press', they took the risk themselves. A number of successful (& unsuccessful) poets and writers have done the same thing over time. I have a certain respect for folks that take such risk, and then flog their work around the bookshops and on the street. There's a lady who does that with her joke book on the promenade in Blackpool. I have to also admit I have a bit of respect for those that make a similar risk here on site. But I do not respec the abuse of the opportunity...
'Vanity Press' was used solely, amongst the folks I knew and myself, to refer to the sharks out there that preyed on the ego and ignorance of others ~ lured them in with adds and then billed them for an amount way above the actual value of the results...
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
"Note omelettes" eh? Make mine ham and a really pongy extra mature cheddar, Spanish style, with a nice homemade salsa. Oh yeah, and definitely free range ham and eggs, eggs with a dark yolk... Mmmm, mmm, good... Then we'll chew through some tunes...
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
Of course I have already announced that I agree with Nigel that a section for originals, (tunes we came up with ourselves,) would be handy to keep the main database from being abused or over-run, diluted etc. But there's another point I'd like to address concerning the usefulness of having a place to publish your tunes publicly. Ben Hall, (who is no doubt enjoying dinner somewhere in Dublin as I write this and then heading over to Hughzes for a tune,) has told us how a tune he wrote has managed to enter the trad music circles but has been attributed to a well-known musician other than himself. He tells us that he feels it’s a lost cause and has no intention of clearing it up in this forum. He also tells us he has no intention of posting any of his other original tunes. Here’s what I’m wondering: had he published his tunes, would the one he mentioned continue to be attributed to that other musician, or, would the fact that he published it here end any speculation on the matter. Here’s another example: if Will hadn't published his frog tune it might be forever attributed to Tommy Peoples. So with that in mind, perhaps it would provide a useful service to have a section for people to publish original tunes to protect their authorship. Perhaps this database should also allow a searchable-by-author function.
I get this feeling that Jeremy’s reaching for his aspirin bottle right about now.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Tunes Section
An 'author-search' would be a nice addition for the future...
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
I'm sorry and mortfied that Mr. Peoples takes some of the blame for Bang Your Frog.....
But I really don't have any interest in "protecting authorship" either. Unless Mel Gibson plans on using it as the theme for his next wildly successful movie--"Apocelticpo"
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: Tunes Section
ceolachan, Vanity Presses aren't all evil. There is a legitimate business printing and publishing books for people,and this is simply like any other service: a fair price for a fair service. The term began as pejorative, but it's understood to mean a certain service. I have also been a small publisher for many years.
I have offended some people with my use of the term "vanity tunes", and I think it does fit the model to an extent, but people's indignancy is obscuring my point, so I regret it now.
I'm not against people writing tunes; hell, I've written many, some of which have been "taken up" - recorded a few times around the world, published in collections, heard played in a few sessions, and so on. I think there's a place for our own compositions, but I don't happen to believe it's The Session. I know I'm in the monority, but there's my opinion.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by nigelg
Re: Tunes Section
How would you feel, Will, if your tune showed up on a high profile recording but it was attributed to Tommy or someone else and had a different name? Would it be egotistical or vain to desire credit due, even in cases where no money was involved. I received an email from Maurice Lennon over this issue because I published a tune he wrote here on thesession.org, (that I also recorded,) without the right name or acknowledgement of his authorship. Maurice didn't stand to make a penny on either this site or my miniscule recording project, but I fully understand why he would want to have the name he intended associated with the tune along with the true author. I think anyone would want the same... and they often express this. Liz Carroll told me that was all she wanted in regards to our recording her tune, and Cyril O'Donaghue as well for his waltz. I don't consider this an unreasonable, vain or egotistical request.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Tunes Section
Isn't recording a tune/CD an example of self promotion? If that's part of the criteria for submission, seems just anyone could record & sell. You should add sales numbers to the yardstick too.
Then how many CDs or Tunes from iTunes and the like, would count towards the goal of being part of the "tradition" and thus ok to submit?
Just pondering while scanning retinas at work....
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Agnes Nutter
Re: Tunes Section
It is the wrong place for 'vanity tunes' among the original traditionals but then again trad music needs to evolve and these folk that are putting them on are willing to share ideas and that is what keeps the trad alive and evolving. It would be really fascinating if there was a separate section on this same site for putting these new tunes on and we would all have great fun at times and deep insight at others having a look and a chat about what is going on and where we think it is all headed. And people who put these tunes on should maybe donate (compulsary) too...
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by StevieE
Re: Tunes Section
Er, Jack, thanks for the lecture, but I never said or implied any of the things to address in your previous post.
Yes, I expect most people prefer to have credit given where it's due.
In my case, it matters less than many because who the hell knows who Will Harmon is? Might was well credit my tunes to Milo T. Buckyerfuddy. As I tongue-in-cheek hinted at above, there's at least as much trouble to be brewed by "blaming" the wrong person as the composer of a tune (especially one he or she would disavow simply on the tune's lack of merit).
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: Tunes Section
Oh, I get it now. Jack, you thoiught I mean I'm not interested in protecting *anyone's* authorship. No, sorry, what I said was that I don't particularly care if I don't get credit for my own tunes, like Bang Your Frog. It's okay if it happens, but I'm more concerned that Mr. Peoples or someone else might resent being associated with such an odd tune.
As for other people's compositions, I've always asked permission before posting someone's tune here, and I've never been turned down.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: Tunes Section
Will, it wasn't intended as a "lecture," I was responding to this statement about "authorship."
Will writes: "But I really don't have any interest in "protecting authorship" either. Unless Mel Gibson plans on using it as the theme for his next wildly successful movie--"Apocelticpo"
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Tunes Section
Oops... cross-post.
# Posted on February 15th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Tunes Section
Nigel, I am most probably in agreement with you, even though it may seem contrary in my postings... As far as 'vanity press', maybe the definition has changed over time and geography? It still holds the negative in my mind. We tended not to consider self-publication as falling under 'vanity press', as mentioned realier, but those presses the preyed on the vulnerable and naive... But I suspect we'll just have to disagree there. It is a put down in my book, but with some sympathy for the mark...
This argument has been raised a few times, probably every year I can remember lurking or posting. Somehow I think the site manages itself. It doesn't set me on edge to see folks being inspired to share their creation, to risk letting it out in the open. Some tunes pass on, a few kilobytes worth, with little or no visible 'strike', others take the half dozen, and some more than that. If there was some worry about what was current and popular, well, there's a slew of tunes on site with hits over 100, none of which are really 'new' tunes...all being well exercised...
I guess, I don't see the problem, except those rare, let's avoid name calling like 'ego-maniac', let's see, exuberant sould who are so possessed with their own genius that they feel the need to post a slew of their self-claimed in a row? Yeah, that does get me a little bit bitchy, and I guess when you have several compositions by different folk, yeah, that too, or someone is brand new to the site just to promote their genius ~ yes, I've seen a few of those over time ~ but they don't last for long, for one reason or the other.
The good tunes are here, we have free choice, we can choose to ignore, though maybe after a day or two of feeling bitchy? As said previously, I quite enjoy the garbage too, it raises my appreciation of a good tune, and what's wrong with that, eh? And sometimes I get a good laugh out of it...or it allows me to let off some built off steam with a bitch and moan, like here...
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
You've put it in a nutshell, ceolachan: I AM bitching and moaning!
It comes down to the fact that this isn't how _I_ would run this site, but then again, I'm not running this site; I'm just another guy who popped in for a few tunes. I listen politely when someone says "I've written this new tune..." and then when she says "And here's another..." and then "I've got another I wrote..." If that person went through to the back room, where EVERYone is playing new tunes, I'd be the first to applaud.
Ah well, that's it. Back to work tomorrow - it's been a nice couple of days off.
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by nigelg
Re: Tunes Section
Half the above has appeared since I last looked in, and something further up the thread makes me want to comment. Again, I don't want here to try to give a tight, workable definition of "traditional", but what I do want to strongly suggest is that it is a false dichotomy to set "composed" (or "known composer") against "traditional".
Whatever traditional is, it must have something to do with age, acceptance by a community of musicians of some size (albeit perhaps a small size) and transmission from one generation of players to another (though one might want to define "generation" rather loosely). This can all happen whether or not the composer is known. "Unknown origin" is not synonymous with "traditional".
Finally, however, unless we want to abuse the English language altogether (and not being an advertising copywriter, I don't) it remains a fact that a new tune *cannot* be traditional. If it has been composed in a sufficiently traditional context and becomes accepted by the community it may be reasonable to call it traditional after only a few decades, but "new" and "traditional" are genuinely (if not absolutely) opposed to one another.
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by Alex Wilding
Re: Tunes Section
Morphonymic Tootler, you have made the same assumption that many here have made, that there is a movement against known composers of tunes. This is far from the case. This whole discussion started when I got fed up of people submitting their OWN tunes. Whether you think I'm right or wrong on that matter doesn't matter, but nobody here is saying that tunes by known composers should be separated.
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by nigelg
Re: Tunes Section
Morphonymic Tootler, it's late, I'm tired, and I think may have misunderstood you. Sorry. I think I'll call it a day on the evening, and on this discussion. Good night all ZZZzzzzzzzzz....
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by nigelg
Re: Tunes Section
Where I'd respectfully disagree with Nigel is in allowing the next Paddy Fahey, Sean Ryan, or Ed Reavy to post their own tunes. Seriously, if an Ed Junior were to pop up here and start posting brilliant original tunes in the trad style, I'd be thrilled to see them.
And Fahey, Ryan, and Revay did in fact publish and otherwise disseminate their tunes. The mere act of putting your own tunes out doesn't mean you're being self indulgent or craving praise. Quite the opposite, it can come from a sense of generosity and shared enthusiasm.
I like seeing tunes here posted by the composer because it shows that the tradition is very much alive and kicking, and we get fresh tunes straight from the horse's mouth. Ours to tinker with, as trad musos are wont to do, but at least we get them first in their original inspiration.
I'm willing to sort thru the dross for the few gems. Not much different than flipping pages in O'Neill's come to think of it....
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: Tunes Section
Oh cripes, why did I not go to bed? Will, I'm not against anyone publishing their own works - I've done it myself! However, do you want The Session to be like YouTube, where anything and everything is accepted and welcome? Fine if that's what people want, but it's not the kind of session that interests me very much.
Hey, d'you like this one?
X:674
T:Knock, The
C:Nigel Gatherer
Z:Nigel Gatherer
M:4/4
L:1/8
K:Ador
cAeA fAeA | G3 A BcdB | cAeA fAeA | GABd cA A2 :|
ABce a2 ef | g2 dg Bg G2 | ABce a2 ef | gedB BA A2 :|
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by nigelg
Re: Tunes Section
... and the debate continues on a tough subject... here's twopence... I'd likely have never learned the Winter Queen or Bang Your Frog had this site been set up differently... and more impoverished musically for it. Despite everyone's differing views (pro-vanity or pro-fanity), it's likely that everyone would agree that without evolution within the tradition, it would be moribund, and that new tunes are an essential part of such progress. Or they might not.
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by drone
Re: Tunes Section
But this isn't like YouTube--it's fairly centered on tunes that would fit in most Irish trad sessions. The vast majority of original submissions here (and I've been playing through them since Jeremy first opened the site to all comers) fit well into the "average" session genre. Even the total clunker tunes.
That said, the 5:1 rule does a good job (if it's enforced) of preventing original tune diarhea. Otherwise, it might get out of hand. I think it's more a matter of flogging a few individual abusers than "correcting" the general tone of the tune section.
If a tune is good session music, I don't care how old or recent it is or who submitted it. And I'm willing to wade through the occasional dysmelodic notearhea to find the keepers.
It's not that hard to find the session standards amidst all the noise.
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: Tunes Section
I need to go learn those two tunes myself one of these days....
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: Tunes Section
BTW, this topic came up before here: http://thesession.org/discussions/display/2664
and resulted in this:
http://members.fortunecity.com/fiddlecrazy/
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: Tunes Section
I admit defeat. Two final statements:
1) I think it's a shame that what could have been a great resource is becoming something else.
2) I'm looking forward to posting some of my own compositions that really you must hear...
X:1
T:Fate of the Goldfishes, The
C:Nigel Gatherer
Z:Nigel Gatherer
M:6/8
L:1/8
K:D
DcF DdB | bAG BcD | DcF DdB | E2 e2 =f2 |
DcF DdB | bAG BcD | ADE FbA | GAe d3 :|
def def | def DEF | def gGB | ^G=GF =FEd |
def def | def DEF | ADE FbA | GAe d3 :|
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by nigelg
Re: Tunes Section
All the more reason to have a separate section that can be searched by both tune name and composer. Since it's session.org members who are submitting the original tunes here, and the tunes would be unknown by their title the same way the tunes in the main database are, you could search for tunes by your favorite member/composer and/or peruse the tunes by title. As it is now, because these tunes have no cross-reference with their title and they aren't spoken in sessions, tunes by session.org members fall into obscurity, (unless people happen to add them to their tunebook.) That's why I listed my original tune submissions in my profile.
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Tunes Section
Ahem... I guess in light of Nigel's last tune submission I would like to add that it might be useful to have a separate section for avant-garde tunes.
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Tunes Section
Or, going back to my suggestion, if there were some sort of filtering, either by the number of members who have the tune in their tunebook, or whether the tune has been recorded, to flag the more popular tunes at the moment, we could have it both ways. Those who want to filter out the "noise" could click a check box on the search page. Those who want things the way they are now could leave the box unchecked.
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by GaryAMartin
Re: Tunes Section
hee hee hee
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Tunes Section
Or just skip to the next tune that interests them... Maybe we all need to get blood pressure monitors and take up meditation if we're going to let something like this wind us up... Obviously some of us start out a bit tight.
PB has his tunes listed in his profile
GM has his way of listing his in his
Dow has his down toward the bottom
Dafydd has made a list
& others too, including myself...
You don't have to go there, you don't have to play any of these, so why be perturbed, unless life is generally being unkind and this is a better way for you to work out your frustrations ~ over 'little' things... Hey, me too, hands up, I am also guilty of being petty at times... But, it will be raised again, and more and more as the site fills up with all the great old standards...and as new members roll in and see an opportunity to be in print... Sheesh!
I'm enjoying a first, Dutch beer, mmm, not bad either... I've also been spending this week torturing myself with Dow's compositions. I don't see any warts forming, no tongue leisions, no dizzyness ~ well, maybe dizzyness...
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
I have been caught and exposed - drat and double drat!! I almost got away with it, didn't I? Blast you, Phantom Button. Curses!
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by nigelg
Re: Tunes Section
Well, ceolachan, you've gone down in my estimation after such a patronising post. Enjoy your beer.
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by nigelg
Re: Tunes Section
Nigel, it's just as well you put that here out of the way... We have some understanding and sympathy for senile dementia. That laxative of a tune is more like a musical cuss up and would have made just as much sense as FFF fff | FFF fff | Fff Fff | FFF F3 ~ choose your key, F? ~ O.K., yeah, that'll do...
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
Patronizing, no, I'm feeling too jolly to be patronizing, but maybe alcohol makes it seem that way? It wasn't intentional. There's no way I'd ever be condescending to you Nigel, I have respect if short of sense at the moment... It is just me reacting to the repetition, like the drone of tinitis. Maybe it was under the influence of beer, or maybe it is just that it is Dutch beer? Maybe that's it, the Dutch influence. You can pass over it, ignore it, as we all have that choice, or freely interpret it as you choose. I'm not sure whether it has anything to do with the Dutch beer? Maybe it is the choice about about whether to keep your thumb in the dyke or not? Wanting to hold back an ocean with a thumb? That is impressive, if a bit mad. Hey, eventually it will make it over the top anyway won't it, what with all the ice caps melting and the sea level rising?
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
It is good to keep an idea alive, in discussion ~ there is a better chance someone will come up with a workable solution and act on it...
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
If there was anything 'patronizing', apologies ~ that tends to be more an inward thing, self-cricitism, as I regularly question my own intentions, obsessions and assumptions. As I've said before, I basically agree with your premise Nigel, if unsure about your general attitude and solutions...
I can't do anything about your reduced estimation of me, I've no doubt there are those who think even worse of me, but when you next start this up again, as I suspect you will, I'll just lurk, and maybe a tune will come to me as I watch things unfold and repeat... F2 F F2 F FFF F2 f F2 f F3 F2 F F2 F FFF F2 f F2 f f3 ~
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
I sympathize with Nigel's concerns, and I've emailed several folks asking them to reconsider posting unoriginal original tunes one after the next. Some left in a huff, and so the specific problem was solved. Others took a breath and mended their ways.
The tune section here remains a valuable reference for tunes. If anything poses a risk, it's the uninformed or untutored posting of traditional tunes. Even then, ceolachan, dow, slainte and others do an admirable job of calling them to Jeremy's attention, and cross-referencing to other (often more informed and informative) postings of the same and related tunes.
Rather than isolate the original tunes, I'd as soon see us police ourselves. Remind newbies of the 5:1 rule. Call them on it when they abuse it. And when someone submits a flagrant fragrant piece of sh*te, tell them so in the comments section. That'll introduce a little humility....
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: Tunes Section
I would like to see all future newly-penned tunes to be placed by the authors into a seperate area from the "traditional" tunes
- and dated, of course.
My vote for what it's worth.
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by morning star
Re: Tunes Section
ceolachan said "Patronizing, no...It wasn't intentional..."
OK. Cool, ceol. This morning I conduct a music group of learning disabled adults in Perth. They love it, I love it. Relevance to Irish music? Well, their favourite artists are Westlife and Daniel O'Donnell.
Have a great day, one and all...
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by nigelg
Re: Tunes Section
Nigel, that was a regular pastime for us ~ once a week, and 'Celtic' trad music & dance, which they loved ~ simplified ~ sometimes very, like on the whistle, and I had a few 'composed' easy tunes to teach. There was the mental health centre and an old hotel owned by friends that was a home for learning disabled adults, on the Welsh coast... We loved it and they became friends...
I do sometimes slip into that 'voice' of patronizing, but never with them, with myself yes, with other patronizing folks, sadly yes, at times. Print is easy to mislead, but I have been a patronizing git before and probably will be again at some point, but I wasn't in that voice frame last night, honest...
BACK ON TOPIC ~ hopefully ~
I know, I know, they are dead ~ BUT ~ some of the most egomaniacal and OTT music I have ever been subjected to or played was pre-20th Century ~ and a bit of that is on site here... Like 'skill', 'age' isn't enough on its own to win me over...
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
Some of the 'new' compositions, post 20th Century, I'd choose and prefer to play any day over the acrobatic monstrosities of some of the famous and infamous long dead...
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
That tune "The Fate Of The Goldfishes"... Pibrochs tend to get that sort of name, don't they? Have I heard it before somewhere?
Anyway, tootling through it awakened a sleeping ambition:
To compose the most horrible trad-style tune ever devised.
And then to post it here.
You have been warned.
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by nicholas
Re: Tunes Section
I suspect some of us have beat you to that nicholas, but lack the nerve to post it? ~ No! ~ almost forgot, some may have beat you to it already. I think there are several already here for you to match up to.
Hey, maybe we should start a discussion with links to posts of horror, except I really don't like the potential cruelty of that idea... We have some sensitive souls here...
# Posted on February 16th 2007 by ceolachan
Re: Tunes Section
BAN THE VANITIES!
# Posted on February 19th 2007 by SirNose