What proportion of the sets played at your session are fixed? In other words, where you always play Concertina Reel followed by Bank of Ireland followed by Start of Munster, for example?
Or do you mainly rely on inspiration for the next tune in the set?
Most of them are set in stone. Theoretically we could agree / initiate different tunes in a sequence by making faces, gestures or pre-emptive notes, etc., but that would demand the reactions of a hover-fly and developing these is probably beyond me.
Depends on who shows up for session. Most of the regulars are familiar with each other's favorite sets by now and try to accommodate; but when others grace our presence we play tunes in whatever order the newcomers prefer.
We all try to make it reasonable for the most people to participate. Last night an excellent fiddler who doesn't attend every week played three tunes just once apiece until he got more than two other melody people to join in with him, then played the better known tune the requisite three times before going on to others. We would have been happy to hear the unfamiliar tunes (just to hear him play), but he wanted more people to join in.
The answer is both. If you have experienced people who have played together for years, mixed with newer people, mixed with couples and bandmates in and out. Both fixed, and variable sets occur in a dynamic session. The good news is when it's one I don't know I can sip a beer, if its 3 or more I don't know I can go socialize elsewhere in the room. I like to be flexible and enjoy myself. I have sets I practice at home different from what anyone plays in town, sometimes they play them my way, most of the time I play their sets if I am out. I enjoy the social part of the session the most.
In the sessions I attend the organizer sends us MP3 and score sheets of the "tune(s) of the week" in advance, so when we get together we play the material that we rehearsed individually before hand. At the session we then play these first, then other tunes that we already worked on before. This way, at every session, we learn 2 or 3 new tunes.
We tend to let whoever starts a set lead the way. Some folks have their set sets, others prefer to figure it out on the fly. But even in the "on-the-fly" sets, somewhere within the set we 'll get "the one that follows the other" more often than not.
Some nights are odd and we'll tend to play only sets of 2 or 3 tunes at a time and they are typically the same 2 or 3 tunes in set. Some nights its marathon set night and we'll bust through 7 or 8 or more jigs or reels or polkas in a set. And once we get past the 2nd or 3rd set in a tune, there is no plan - anything goes. I'd guess we're roughly 50/50.
Yep, depends on who's shown up that night, and who has started the set. In our circle, the less experienced players tend to stick with pre-ordained sets, and I'm happy to play along on those. But several of us old farts who've frittered our lives away in this music tend to just launch into a tune, not knowing ourselves what will come next. And the tune I veer into next depends on my mood, who's sitting in the circle (and what tunes they know), whether people are dancing at the time, etc.
Not that I really pay a lot of attention, but I haven't noticed any particular sets at all. Seems like most of the time it's whatever comes to mind that comes next. Sometimes it seems somebody has a set in mind but it's in THEIR mind and the rest of us have to jump back in as soon as we recognize the next one.
Here in Donegal we just turn up to the pub and play whatever we like, it's never the same order or anything, most people can pick up what you are playing and where you are heading pretty quickly.
As many have answered, "both" is an acceptable answer. Will mentioned that more inexperienced players tend to rely on being able to play tunes in pre-determined sets. But even experienced players sometimes fall into that trap.
Part of that is that there are often some stunning tune transitions that can be hard to pass up, because a good transition can be a major factor in the fun. But in my experience, the novelty of finding good transitions on the fly can be even better.
About a year ago, llig described it as "letting tunes bubble to the surface", and I have often used that as a guideline. The problem with that idea, for those of us that haven't been playing for all our lives, is that the most likely things to "bubble up" are things that are very similar to what you're currently playing. (Same key is the biggest downfall). I have gotten to the point where I can get beyond that, and the results are often pleasantly surprising.
If you always play tunes in the same set, it can also hinder your ability to start different tunes on the fly. I actively practice starting different things at different times, and it's a gratifying experience
Hmm...Reverend... now this HAS become a bit more interesting, with the point you've made consciously or not - consciously I imagine.
So, Survival of the Fittest Sets:
>there are often some stunning tune transitions that can be hard to pass up....
So these are the sets which are most likey to survive in succeeding generations --- or sessions. So some set, that a player either spontaneously led in that session, or one that came to her/him while practicing in the kitchen before s/he came out to the session...if it's a memorable one with "stunning tune transitions" it will survive to another session, could maybe become part of the session's repertoire and maybe even migrate to other sessions...and possibly even ultimately get recorded. I suppose that's how *some* of the "standard" sets have come about...any views?
I like to play sets of tunes all in the same key. I'll often play six or seven reels in G, say. There's something about putting similar tuners together that I like. It makes you listen for the differences, it makes you dwell on the subtleties. And it's even good for strummers too. It makes them work on varying chord voicings and rhythmic accents. It makes them listen to the tune itself, not just chord patterns. (And it stops them stopping to move their bloody capos)
I really tire of the hackneyed old "wow going from such and such into such and such is a great lift isn't it?"
It's something that has occupied my thoughts on this music for some time now. To move it forward from the mere connecting of those snippets of independent musical pieces we call tunes.
I'm looking for ways we can broaden the scope of the music to something more intellectually rewarding. But without, of course, interfering or compromising in any way with that simple structural from that we love so much, namely, the tune.
I'm fascinated and enthralled by the sonata form, especially what Schubert did with it in his piano sonatas. This musing doesn't belong in the "Classical music and Diddley music" thread. I'm not advocating any kind of fusion of convergence. I just love the way a great sonata is constantly referring back and building and moving/modulating and resolving.
I'm looking for ways to use and enjoy the similarities between tunes and the inherent contradictions between what we often refer to as version, variation and decoration.
Yeah...fair enough Michael. But you did make the comment which included provocative terms like "tire of" and "hackneyed".
Suggestion: make up a composite 4 part, eg, reel, by playing A part of 1st one then A part of 2nd one; then respective B parts...and so on, and have them from tunes in the same key. That's been done before, eg, The Flood on the Holm by John Doherty. So maybe it's not exactly intellectually rewarding...but it's a start....
I've been doing that for ages, but it's not really what I'm talking about. For a start, you are messing with the the integrity of the original tune. I'm not saying you shouldn't mess with a tune's integrity, just that I'm looking for ways to expand the music without chopping tunes up.
I've been doing that for ages too, but it's not really what I'm talking about. The whole point is that we already have more than enough tunes. I'm looking for ways to expand the music without adding to it.
I have no choice as I rely on a well known newcastle fiddle /pipe player to decide what tune comes next and since he cannot remember his own sets ...................
As for capo's if I know in advance what key is coming it takes no time to change .
I think I like your idea llig but would like to hear it some day to be sure what you mean.
So assume there are somewhere between 5,000 and 20,000 tunes in the overall traditional Irish session repertoire. Let's be conservative and say that a "typical" (in name only ) circle of musicians has, collectively, in the neighborhood of 800 tunes between them. Even accounting for the general trend of not mixing tunes of different meters, that still gives us approximately 64.7 brazillian possible sets. Add one new tune, and you instantly jump to 74.6 brazillian possibilities....
These careful calculations lead me to think no "expansion" of the music is needed. As for an "intellectual" approach, we can cogitate all sorts of guidelines for combining tunes:
1. Go into a tune whose lead bar could not be more different than the previous tune's lead bar.
2. Go into a tune whose lead bar melodically echoes the last bar of the previous tune.
3. Go into a tune whose lead bar melodically echoes the lead bar of the previous tune.
4. Hang onto the last note of the previous tune, and find a tune that starts on the same note, but in a different mode.
5. Go into a tune whose title links to the previous tune.
6. Go up a half step to the next tune.
7. Go up a whole step to the next tune.
8. Go up a third to the next tune.
9. Go up a fourth to the next tune.
10. Go up a fifth to the next tune.
11. Go down a half step to the next tune.
12. Go down a whole step to the next tune.
13. Etc.,
14. Go into a tune that you associate with the previous tune because you learned them both from the same person.
15. Go into a tune that is the favorite of the cute melodeon player across the circle. Wink when you say hup.
16. Go into a tune that has the obverse contour of the previous tune.
17. Go into a tune whose name is an anagram of the previous tune.
18.......
Wow, Will, I was with you until 17, but that's way too much brain power to be devoting to what to play next! (Got any examples of that one?)
I don't mind playing back to back tunes in the same key and finding the nuances as Michael notes, but I think it can also lead to boredom of a sort, so in general, my preference is to switch keys, or at least modes. Actually, modal switches can be some of the most stunning transitions.
Don't get me wrong, I like the music just the way it is too. I'm not looking to add to it. I'm looking for ways to play it that will expand my enjoyment and understanding of it. Going up a step does not do that.
LOL Pete, what, you mean you can't play reels at 130 bpm, chat up the cutie in the seat next to you, order the next pint, and do anagrams in your head all at the same time? And you call yourself a session player?
At sessions, I usually find "the next tune" based on two things. First, if I know the people in the circle, I shoot for tunes they know, aiming in particular to get people playing who've otherwise been sitting on their hands. Second, I go for tunes that share some melodic or rhythmic theme, or that have echoes of the same mood. With those broad sideboards in place, I'm often happy to let my subconscious land on a tune. If "obvious" choices come to mind first, I shelve them and keep pondering.
Later, I'll think about how certain tunes went together and glean what insights I can from that. I also like to just play stream of consciousness at home, alone, so my tune choices aren't limited by what anyone else knows or wants to play. And this is when I learn the most about how this music all fits together. That can later be applied in sessions, so it forms a tidy little feedback loop, playing at home informing playing at sessions, and playing at sessions informing playing at home.
And all of this explains why I prefer not to play the same sets, week in, week out--too few opportunities for learning something new that way. Much better to explore other sounds, other connections, and so many possibilities.
Okay, for the most part sessions represented here do not have a lot of "standard" sets.
Players at our session tend to have some favourite combinations of tunes and you can predict what's going to come next about 20% of the time. I've heard about (but not experienced) sessions where that proportion is closer to 100% - and I thought those might be lacking a bit of spark and adventure, though they probably suffer fewer train wrecks.
One way I think about "standard" sets is hat it can be useful to know them, but that doesn't mean you have to play them often or at all, except when someone else trots them out. Good pre-arranged sets also come in handy when you and your session mates are thrust onto a stage for a gig or as the driving force behind a ceili.
But unpredictability is a big part of what I enjoy in a session.
Odd enough, I tend to play tunes singly, even in ceilis and some sessions. It seems to me that sometimes, people ONLY play tunes for the transitions; they don't appreciate the tunes in and of themselves. I know that key changes and modulations and this and that are well and good, and I enjoy them myself when they pop up, but I can't help but cringe any time I hear, "Man, that D to A switch did it!". Either they were good tunes, or they weren't; going up or down or sideways or brighter or darker shouldn't have snot to do with it, right?
Nope, sorry Dan, for myself at least, the changes put each tune into a larger context, and that itself is interesting.
That said, there's nothing wrong with savoring a single tune. We do this too, particularly playing for step dancers, or just digging deep inside a tune during a session.
Whether you explore one tune or put two or more tunes together to see what happens--these are different but not incompatible ways of getting the most out of the tunes. It's good to do some of both, eh?
I've often wondered what to do with tunes that have very similar parts, such as The Miller Of Glanmire / The Fair Haired Boy or Out On The Ocean / Saddle The Pony. I don't like playing them back to back as I have trouble not going into the wrong B part as it is.
Perhaps they could be used to bracket a set? Play one at the start, one at the end? Or even pair them up with other similar sounding tunes but alternate them, A,B,A',B'?
I'm gonna disagree with you Will. I think that the vast majority of changes do not put each tune into a larger context. I think the changes do the opposite, they isolate the tunes.
I don't think that what I'm looking for can be done in a set of two, three or four tunes. I think it would take a concerted effort of maybe 10 or 20 or more tunes. At least half an hour's worth anyway, maybe more. Maybe an hour's worth of concentrated effort. And I don't mean working out a set of an hours worth of tunes. I mean using both your memory of what tunes go well together and your bubbling subconscious ... and even a bit of randomness.
Well, Michael, I don't know what vapors have gotten into your bloodstream, but they be potent ones. You've lost me.
By larger context, I merely mean that putting two or more tunes next to each other leads us to hear each in a different light than if one tune stood alone. Rather than being "isolated," we hear one tune's tonal center played off another tune's tonal center, and it can change our understanding of both tunes. That's one reason that, as Reverend points out above, a subtle shift in mode can often produce "stunning" results. (Of course, you don't need to change tunes to do this--just play the same tune in a different mode.)
I do get that a long series of tunes--40 minutes or more--can create a sonata-like "whole" that goes well beyond any single tune. I even enjoy doing this on occasion in a session. It's a way of knitting what once seemed like disparate pieces of music together into a single unit of musical experience. But it's different from a sonata because it's not pre-planned. The sequence is improvised, ad libbed, based simultaneousely on a good handle on the breadth of tunes available, and also on a sharp sense of the qualities that connect certain tunes.
Just a week or so ago, I stumbled onto a long string of jigs that created a distinct sense of beginning, middle, reprise, and end. I had no idea where I was going with it, but each hup brought just the "right" tune forward. When it finally stopped, all of us sat back smiling like we'd just enjoyed a fine seven course meal. It certainly was a mix of memory, bubbling subconsciousness, and even abrupt randomness.
We're getting there Will. Well, we're getting somewhere anyway. I don't mean to recreate the sonata form. As I said, I don't want this discussion to be associated with the classical diddley fusion thread that's still going on.
But I think tthe way a sonata sets up themes and tonal centres, modulates and makes variations, then returns to trasformed thems is an interesting model with which to play diddley tunes. I kind of mean construct sets, but I'd like it to be more than that. For example, you could move through a series of tunes that take you from a major version of a tune, via some other tunes, to a minor version of the orriginal tune, then via some more, on to another setting of the tune in a different key, but modulate back to your orriginal centre. And all the tunes you play, maybe 30 or 40, should have some connection that ties them. And some tunes you could play 7 or 8 times, others only once. Have some big 6 part tunes and some single reels. Hand the reigns over, take them back. Play a jig version of a tune on top of the reel version. Go into a tune and play it as quetly as you possibly can, just a whisper. Go into a tune and really crank up the speed, Then go into the next one and pull it right back again.
Another approach could be to use a long set dance as a template for a tune set, but I think in order to do it well you would have first to understand the dance and what the dancers want.
One example is the High Cauled Cap set dance. It has about 750 bars (I'm not sure of the exact number). Matt Cunningham does it with reels (it's track 10 in Vol 2 of his Dance Music of Ireland in the Recordings Section http://www.thesession.org/recordings/display/2466), and a ceili band leader I know has done that particular set dance with slides.
Okay, Michael. That pretty much describes what happens when I take my fiddle into our basement laundry room late at night and close the door. Just me and the tunes, cutting loose.
Funny, but I've never made the connection to anything remotely analogous to a sonata before, yet I've often though, while listening to classical music, how similar some pieces are to a rambling, dreamy set of fiddle tunes....
It did, though, bring to the front of my brain what I'm trying to get at. It's the difference between a piece of music and a medley. The vast majority of "sets" of tunes are mere medleys. I'd rather they were pieces in there own right. They can still unfold without so much intellectualising (s not z), but they have to cross refer.
Fixed or variable sets?
Fixed or variable sets?
What proportion of the sets played at your session are fixed? In other words, where you always play Concertina Reel followed by Bank of Ireland followed by Start of Munster, for example?
Or do you mainly rely on inspiration for the next tune in the set?
# Posted on April 3rd 2008 by grego
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Most of them are set in stone. Theoretically we could agree / initiate different tunes in a sequence by making faces, gestures or pre-emptive notes, etc., but that would demand the reactions of a hover-fly and developing these is probably beyond me.
# Posted on April 3rd 2008 by nicholas
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
I prefer to let the mind wander and pull next tunes out of the air in mid set, just let myself be influenced by everything and see what comes out.
However, locally, as in all localities, there is always "the one that goes next" for certain tunes.
...and actually, often that's the name of the tune, too.
"...so what was that last one called?"
"Er...um...you know, it's the one that goes next..."
# Posted on April 3rd 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Depends on who shows up for session. Most of the regulars are familiar with each other's favorite sets by now and try to accommodate; but when others grace our presence we play tunes in whatever order the newcomers prefer.
We all try to make it reasonable for the most people to participate. Last night an excellent fiddler who doesn't attend every week played three tunes just once apiece until he got more than two other melody people to join in with him, then played the better known tune the requisite three times before going on to others. We would have been happy to hear the unfamiliar tunes (just to hear him play), but he wanted more people to join in.
# Posted on April 3rd 2008 by vonnieestes
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
The answer is both. If you have experienced people who have played together for years, mixed with newer people, mixed with couples and bandmates in and out. Both fixed, and variable sets occur in a dynamic session. The good news is when it's one I don't know I can sip a beer, if its 3 or more I don't know I can go socialize elsewhere in the room. I like to be flexible and enjoy myself. I have sets I practice at home different from what anyone plays in town, sometimes they play them my way, most of the time I play their sets if I am out. I enjoy the social part of the session the most.
# Posted on April 3rd 2008 by SandyBottoms
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
In the sessions I attend the organizer sends us MP3 and score sheets of the "tune(s) of the week" in advance, so when we get together we play the material that we rehearsed individually before hand. At the session we then play these first, then other tunes that we already worked on before. This way, at every session, we learn 2 or 3 new tunes.
# Posted on April 3rd 2008 by québécois
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Qúebécois, that's not a session, but a music class!
# Posted on April 3rd 2008 by MacCruiskeen
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
We tend to let whoever starts a set lead the way. Some folks have their set sets, others prefer to figure it out on the fly. But even in the "on-the-fly" sets, somewhere within the set we 'll get "the one that follows the other" more often than not.
Some nights are odd and we'll tend to play only sets of 2 or 3 tunes at a time and they are typically the same 2 or 3 tunes in set. Some nights its marathon set night and we'll bust through 7 or 8 or more jigs or reels or polkas in a set. And once we get past the 2nd or 3rd set in a tune, there is no plan - anything goes. I'd guess we're roughly 50/50.
# Posted on April 3rd 2008 by daddae
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Related thread: http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/15418
# Posted on April 3rd 2008 by Phantom Button
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Yep, depends on who's shown up that night, and who has started the set. In our circle, the less experienced players tend to stick with pre-ordained sets, and I'm happy to play along on those. But several of us old farts who've frittered our lives away in this music tend to just launch into a tune, not knowing ourselves what will come next. And the tune I veer into next depends on my mood, who's sitting in the circle (and what tunes they know), whether people are dancing at the time, etc.
# Posted on April 3rd 2008 by Will Harmon
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Not that I really pay a lot of attention, but I haven't noticed any particular sets at all. Seems like most of the time it's whatever comes to mind that comes next. Sometimes it seems somebody has a set in mind but it's in THEIR mind and the rest of us have to jump back in as soon as we recognize the next one.
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by sbhikes
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
both.
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by Rudall the time
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Here in Donegal we just turn up to the pub and play whatever we like, it's never the same order or anything, most people can pick up what you are playing and where you are heading pretty quickly.
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by Stíofán
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
This should answer most of your questions: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SetTheory.html
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by Joe CSS
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Now just wait a second Joe, if reading the dots is verboten how do you think using algebra to build sets is going to be received?
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
As many have answered, "both" is an acceptable answer. Will mentioned that more inexperienced players tend to rely on being able to play tunes in pre-determined sets. But even experienced players sometimes fall into that trap.
Part of that is that there are often some stunning tune transitions that can be hard to pass up, because a good transition can be a major factor in the fun. But in my experience, the novelty of finding good transitions on the fly can be even better.
About a year ago, llig described it as "letting tunes bubble to the surface", and I have often used that as a guideline. The problem with that idea, for those of us that haven't been playing for all our lives, is that the most likely things to "bubble up" are things that are very similar to what you're currently playing. (Same key is the biggest downfall). I have gotten to the point where I can get beyond that, and the results are often pleasantly surprising.
If you always play tunes in the same set, it can also hinder your ability to start different tunes on the fly. I actively practice starting different things at different times, and it's a gratifying experience
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by Reverend
Darwinian view of Fixed or variable sets?
Hmm...Reverend... now this HAS become a bit more interesting, with the point you've made consciously or not - consciously I imagine.
So, Survival of the Fittest Sets:
>there are often some stunning tune transitions that can be hard to pass up....
So these are the sets which are most likey to survive in succeeding generations --- or sessions. So some set, that a player either spontaneously led in that session, or one that came to her/him while practicing in the kitchen before s/he came out to the session...if it's a memorable one with "stunning tune transitions" it will survive to another session, could maybe become part of the session's repertoire and maybe even migrate to other sessions...and possibly even ultimately get recorded. I suppose that's how *some* of the "standard" sets have come about...any views?
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by Rudall the time
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
I like to play sets of tunes all in the same key. I'll often play six or seven reels in G, say. There's something about putting similar tuners together that I like. It makes you listen for the differences, it makes you dwell on the subtleties. And it's even good for strummers too. It makes them work on varying chord voicings and rhythmic accents. It makes them listen to the tune itself, not just chord patterns. (And it stops them stopping to move their bloody capos)
I really tire of the hackneyed old "wow going from such and such into such and such is a great lift isn't it?"
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Yep. Agree with every word of that, Michael.
... ooh, except that it's also nice to go into some key like F .... or G min ... and shut the feckers up! (bleeding guitarists, that is)
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by ethical blend
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
We don't have guitarists. And I like key changes because they give a great lift.
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by Rudall the time
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
It's something that has occupied my thoughts on this music for some time now. To move it forward from the mere connecting of those snippets of independent musical pieces we call tunes.
I'm looking for ways we can broaden the scope of the music to something more intellectually rewarding. But without, of course, interfering or compromising in any way with that simple structural from that we love so much, namely, the tune.
I'm fascinated and enthralled by the sonata form, especially what Schubert did with it in his piano sonatas. This musing doesn't belong in the "Classical music and Diddley music" thread. I'm not advocating any kind of fusion of convergence. I just love the way a great sonata is constantly referring back and building and moving/modulating and resolving.
I'm looking for ways to use and enjoy the similarities between tunes and the inherent contradictions between what we often refer to as version, variation and decoration.
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Yeah...fair enough Michael. But you did make the comment which included provocative terms like "tire of" and "hackneyed".
Suggestion: make up a composite 4 part, eg, reel, by playing A part of 1st one then A part of 2nd one; then respective B parts...and so on, and have them from tunes in the same key. That's been done before, eg, The Flood on the Holm by John Doherty. So maybe it's not exactly intellectually rewarding...but it's a start....
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by Rudall the time
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
I've been doing that for ages, but it's not really what I'm talking about. For a start, you are messing with the the integrity of the original tune. I'm not saying you shouldn't mess with a tune's integrity, just that I'm looking for ways to expand the music without chopping tunes up.
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
DIY your own compositions then...no?
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by Rudall the time
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
I've been doing that for ages too, but it's not really what I'm talking about. The whole point is that we already have more than enough tunes. I'm looking for ways to expand the music without adding to it.
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
"I'm looking for ways to expand the music without adding to it."
I like it just the way it is.
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by Phantom Button
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
I have no choice as I rely on a well known newcastle fiddle /pipe player to decide what tune comes next and since he cannot remember his own sets ...................
As for capo's if I know in advance what key is coming it takes no time to change .
I think I like your idea llig but would like to hear it some day to be sure what you mean.
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by bazouki dave
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
I'll go along with Jack, it's great the way it is
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by Rudall the time
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
So assume there are somewhere between 5,000 and 20,000 tunes in the overall traditional Irish session repertoire. Let's be conservative and say that a "typical" (in name only
) circle of musicians has, collectively, in the neighborhood of 800 tunes between them. Even accounting for the general trend of not mixing tunes of different meters, that still gives us approximately 64.7 brazillian possible sets. Add one new tune, and you instantly jump to 74.6 brazillian possibilities....
These careful calculations lead me to think no "expansion" of the music is needed. As for an "intellectual" approach, we can cogitate all sorts of guidelines for combining tunes:
1. Go into a tune whose lead bar could not be more different than the previous tune's lead bar.
2. Go into a tune whose lead bar melodically echoes the last bar of the previous tune.
3. Go into a tune whose lead bar melodically echoes the lead bar of the previous tune.
4. Hang onto the last note of the previous tune, and find a tune that starts on the same note, but in a different mode.
5. Go into a tune whose title links to the previous tune.
6. Go up a half step to the next tune.
7. Go up a whole step to the next tune.
8. Go up a third to the next tune.
9. Go up a fourth to the next tune.
10. Go up a fifth to the next tune.
11. Go down a half step to the next tune.
12. Go down a whole step to the next tune.
13. Etc.,
14. Go into a tune that you associate with the previous tune because you learned them both from the same person.
15. Go into a tune that is the favorite of the cute melodeon player across the circle. Wink when you say hup.
16. Go into a tune that has the obverse contour of the previous tune.
17. Go into a tune whose name is an anagram of the previous tune.
18.......
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by Will Harmon
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Wow, Will, I was with you until 17, but that's way too much brain power to be devoting to what to play next! (Got any examples of that one?)
I don't mind playing back to back tunes in the same key and finding the nuances as Michael notes, but I think it can also lead to boredom of a sort, so in general, my preference is to switch keys, or at least modes. Actually, modal switches can be some of the most stunning transitions.
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by Reverend
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Don't get me wrong, I like the music just the way it is too. I'm not looking to add to it. I'm looking for ways to play it that will expand my enjoyment and understanding of it. Going up a step does not do that.
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
LOL Pete, what, you mean you can't play reels at 130 bpm, chat up the cutie in the seat next to you, order the next pint, and do anagrams in your head all at the same time? And you call yourself a session player?
At sessions, I usually find "the next tune" based on two things. First, if I know the people in the circle, I shoot for tunes they know, aiming in particular to get people playing who've otherwise been sitting on their hands. Second, I go for tunes that share some melodic or rhythmic theme, or that have echoes of the same mood. With those broad sideboards in place, I'm often happy to let my subconscious land on a tune. If "obvious" choices come to mind first, I shelve them and keep pondering.
Later, I'll think about how certain tunes went together and glean what insights I can from that. I also like to just play stream of consciousness at home, alone, so my tune choices aren't limited by what anyone else knows or wants to play. And this is when I learn the most about how this music all fits together. That can later be applied in sessions, so it forms a tidy little feedback loop, playing at home informing playing at sessions, and playing at sessions informing playing at home.
And all of this explains why I prefer not to play the same sets, week in, week out--too few opportunities for learning something new that way. Much better to explore other sounds, other connections, and so many possibilities.
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by Will Harmon
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Okay, for the most part sessions represented here do not have a lot of "standard" sets.
Players at our session tend to have some favourite combinations of tunes and you can predict what's going to come next about 20% of the time. I've heard about (but not experienced) sessions where that proportion is closer to 100% - and I thought those might be lacking a bit of spark and adventure, though they probably suffer fewer train wrecks.
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by grego
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
One way I think about "standard" sets is hat it can be useful to know them, but that doesn't mean you have to play them often or at all, except when someone else trots them out. Good pre-arranged sets also come in handy when you and your session mates are thrust onto a stage for a gig or as the driving force behind a ceili.
But unpredictability is a big part of what I enjoy in a session.
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by Will Harmon
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Odd enough, I tend to play tunes singly, even in ceilis and some sessions. It seems to me that sometimes, people ONLY play tunes for the transitions; they don't appreciate the tunes in and of themselves. I know that key changes and modulations and this and that are well and good, and I enjoy them myself when they pop up, but I can't help but cringe any time I hear, "Man, that D to A switch did it!". Either they were good tunes, or they weren't; going up or down or sideways or brighter or darker shouldn't have snot to do with it, right?
--DtM
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by Dan the Man
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Nope, sorry Dan, for myself at least, the changes put each tune into a larger context, and that itself is interesting.
That said, there's nothing wrong with savoring a single tune. We do this too, particularly playing for step dancers, or just digging deep inside a tune during a session.
Whether you explore one tune or put two or more tunes together to see what happens--these are different but not incompatible ways of getting the most out of the tunes. It's good to do some of both, eh?
# Posted on April 4th 2008 by Will Harmon
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Michael,
I've often wondered what to do with tunes that have very similar parts, such as The Miller Of Glanmire / The Fair Haired Boy or Out On The Ocean / Saddle The Pony. I don't like playing them back to back as I have trouble not going into the wrong B part as it is.
Perhaps they could be used to bracket a set? Play one at the start, one at the end? Or even pair them up with other similar sounding tunes but alternate them, A,B,A',B'?
Just a thought.
Eno
# Posted on April 5th 2008 by bc_box_player
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Sometimes we savor a single tune when someone (like me) totally fumbles the start of the second one.
# Posted on April 5th 2008 by grego
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
I'm gonna disagree with you Will. I think that the vast majority of changes do not put each tune into a larger context. I think the changes do the opposite, they isolate the tunes.
I don't think that what I'm looking for can be done in a set of two, three or four tunes. I think it would take a concerted effort of maybe 10 or 20 or more tunes. At least half an hour's worth anyway, maybe more. Maybe an hour's worth of concentrated effort. And I don't mean working out a set of an hours worth of tunes. I mean using both your memory of what tunes go well together and your bubbling subconscious ... and even a bit of randomness.
Extend your thinking about it. Make more effort
# Posted on April 5th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Well, Michael, I don't know what vapors have gotten into your bloodstream, but they be potent ones.
You've lost me.
By larger context, I merely mean that putting two or more tunes next to each other leads us to hear each in a different light than if one tune stood alone. Rather than being "isolated," we hear one tune's tonal center played off another tune's tonal center, and it can change our understanding of both tunes. That's one reason that, as Reverend points out above, a subtle shift in mode can often produce "stunning" results. (Of course, you don't need to change tunes to do this--just play the same tune in a different mode.)
I do get that a long series of tunes--40 minutes or more--can create a sonata-like "whole" that goes well beyond any single tune. I even enjoy doing this on occasion in a session. It's a way of knitting what once seemed like disparate pieces of music together into a single unit of musical experience. But it's different from a sonata because it's not pre-planned. The sequence is improvised, ad libbed, based simultaneousely on a good handle on the breadth of tunes available, and also on a sharp sense of the qualities that connect certain tunes.
Just a week or so ago, I stumbled onto a long string of jigs that created a distinct sense of beginning, middle, reprise, and end. I had no idea where I was going with it, but each hup brought just the "right" tune forward. When it finally stopped, all of us sat back smiling like we'd just enjoyed a fine seven course meal. It certainly was a mix of memory, bubbling subconsciousness, and even abrupt randomness.
# Posted on April 5th 2008 by Will Harmon
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
(P.S. Serendipity was in control, not me. I wish that would happen more often.)
# Posted on April 5th 2008 by Will Harmon
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
We're getting there Will. Well, we're getting somewhere anyway. I don't mean to recreate the sonata form. As I said, I don't want this discussion to be associated with the classical diddley fusion thread that's still going on.
But I think tthe way a sonata sets up themes and tonal centres, modulates and makes variations, then returns to trasformed thems is an interesting model with which to play diddley tunes. I kind of mean construct sets, but I'd like it to be more than that. For example, you could move through a series of tunes that take you from a major version of a tune, via some other tunes, to a minor version of the orriginal tune, then via some more, on to another setting of the tune in a different key, but modulate back to your orriginal centre. And all the tunes you play, maybe 30 or 40, should have some connection that ties them. And some tunes you could play 7 or 8 times, others only once. Have some big 6 part tunes and some single reels. Hand the reigns over, take them back. Play a jig version of a tune on top of the reel version. Go into a tune and play it as quetly as you possibly can, just a whisper. Go into a tune and really crank up the speed, Then go into the next one and pull it right back again.
etc etc
# Posted on April 5th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Another approach could be to use a long set dance as a template for a tune set, but I think in order to do it well you would have first to understand the dance and what the dancers want.
One example is the High Cauled Cap set dance. It has about 750 bars (I'm not sure of the exact number). Matt Cunningham does it with reels (it's track 10 in Vol 2 of his Dance Music of Ireland in the Recordings Section http://www.thesession.org/recordings/display/2466), and a ceili band leader I know has done that particular set dance with slides.
# Posted on April 5th 2008 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Yes ... ok ... but that would be Straus. I'm looking to Schubert
# Posted on April 5th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Okay, Michael. That pretty much describes what happens when I take my fiddle into our basement laundry room late at night and close the door. Just me and the tunes, cutting loose.
Funny, but I've never made the connection to anything remotely analogous to a sonata before, yet I've often though, while listening to classical music, how similar some pieces are to a rambling, dreamy set of fiddle tunes....
Reminds me a bit of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG6Ef-NQCi4
# Posted on April 5th 2008 by Will Harmon
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
But I think I prefer just letting the tunes unfold, without so much intellectualizing.
# Posted on April 5th 2008 by Will Harmon
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
(Then again, in the clip I just posted, the segue from "Pretty Woman" into "Yesterday" is truly inspired.)
# Posted on April 5th 2008 by Will Harmon
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
Brilliant, brilliant clip, Will. Inspired. Also, truly demonic viola player (at least, I *think* he was the viola player ...)
Anyway, fantastic!
# Posted on April 5th 2008 by ethical blend
Re: Fixed or variable sets?
I liked that clip too, it was funny.
It did, though, bring to the front of my brain what I'm trying to get at. It's the difference between a piece of music and a medley. The vast majority of "sets" of tunes are mere medleys. I'd rather they were pieces in there own right. They can still unfold without so much intellectualising (s not z), but they have to cross refer.
# Posted on April 5th 2008 by llig leahcim