I think many if not most of us would agree that the best way to learn tunes is by ear. Recognizing the oral (or aural) nature of ITM, how do we approach tune collections like O'Neill's, especially tunes that we may not have any way to hear from live musicians or recordings?
You approach tune collections as a source for information. They should never be treated as a definitive source. But they're a source for a setting of a tune, and they're an archive of information that can be useful as we progress upon the journey into the tradition.
IMO recordings should also be considered "suspect sources of information." Many well-known musicians love to record their own unique versions of tunes, sometimes in unusual keys. Surely, they are interesting sources, but should never be treated as definitive sources either.
Depends on the quality of the written source. A publication based on a musician's handwritten tunebook, fully annotated as to editorial changes, is more valuable that a book of unattributed tunes with no indication of what the editor has done to them.
They're also a fantastic resource for old tunes which had no way of being recorded. You could go through one of those eighteenth century tutors and play tunes no one has played since the eighteenth century.
Is there such a thing as a 'definitive source' or versionof a traditional tune? I doubt it. Tune collections, as I see it, are an interesting historical snapshot. This is something like what person x was playing when they wrote this down. Like old books and writings, some have relevance for many years, others become dated quickly,
Damn right Hussar -This search for the "definitive version" seems very suspect. For me, there are only two "right" versions of any tune that matter:
1. The version played by the other people with whom you happen to be trying to play at the time. And all harmonically and rhythmically consistent variations thereof.
2. Whichever version you like best when playing for yourself or proselytising at your local session.
And often, however admirable the recorded versions of tunes are, they are not ones I can directly aspire to play myself. e.g. playing along with Matt Molloy's Matt Molloy CD (shifted to D where appropriate) involves either serious tempo or serious ornamentation compromises. And both change the fundamental character of what I am playing so that it is no longer "Matt Molloy's version".
The only problem I have with "definitive versions" is when someone else claims to have them...
From "Judo inside Out" by Geoff Gleeson:
(paraphrased - I don't have the book in front of me right now)
On Skill and technique - technique is what you are taught, including all possible versions, sometimes mutually contradictory. Skill is what each individual makes their own out of the techniques they have been show, to fit their personal characteristics - body proportions, speed, weight, predilections. etc. Especially including the ability to apply the technique in situations not directly covered by training scenarios.
For "Technique" read different versions of a tune learnt from different sources over the years. And for "Skill" read the version of the tune that that individual player has made their own and can play anywhere, and with anyone - or even alone.
Sadly most players give up on tunes when they begin to approach this level and consign the tune to the dustbin of "overplayed". So too do Judoka...
Given the above, tune collections are, for me, one legitimate source of tunes amongst many.
I like the wounded hussar's metaphor of a snapshot. I use the Comhaltas books and the session.org database to form a synthesis of a given tune, since the two sources almost never agree, and then play it the way it's played in our session as a "final" version.
I've had a lot of success this summer using my husband's Pepsi points to buy MP3's of tunes that I didn't have. TheSession gives me some guidance as to whose recording is likely to be more true to the Music. The bonus is I am driving the gents at work around the bend with my constant diddly streaming from the PC.
My lower tech route is to find a song that seems intriguing on paper, go to my teacher or a few of the guys who play out and request they play it for me. For the cost of a pint, I can usually get a song and, if I'm lucky, a story about how they learned it.
D*mn sure there isn't a definitive version of a tune - just been playing Bob and Joan from the Vickers MS 1770, published as The Great Northern Tune Book. The notes refer to other variants (I'm summarising!) - Breathnach 1963 etc; Northumbrian Pipers Tunebook 3 1991; The Roche Collection of Traditional Irish Music 1927; The Pipers Assistant, Edinburgh (two versions)1854; Thomas Wilson, London 1816; John of the Green the Cheshire Way, London 1985; Neil Gow, Edinburgh 1799; O'Neills 1903; Rutherfords London ?1750; Bruce and Stokoe Northumbrian 1882; O Farrells Pocket Companion for the Irish or Union Pipes c1805; William Dixon bagpipe MS, prob. Northumbrian 1733; John Rook MS, Carlisle 1840
Definitive version? The one they play at my local session
Best version? The one I like most!
I tend to agree with the ye olde manescript idea - I only use tune books for tunes that nobody has ever recorded, or has recorded in the last hundred years. I just recently got Geoghan's, o'Farrell's and some of Goodman's piping manuscripts, and to be honest, they're some of the most exquisite tunes and settings you'll ever hear. My friends and I make a point of learning those tunes and playing out.
My tune collections (maybe 5 or 6,000) I use much as an painter who does landscapes uses the "view" in front of his easel. If I run across something 'interesting' I'll noodle around with it, then if I something worth my time I'll make it my own, polish it up and hopefully end up with some that I can offer to someone to listen to, much as that painter tries to produce something from what he sees in front of him.
Oh yes!!!! The comment above about playing something that hasn't been heard for hundreds of years is an appealing thought. Especially if the manuscript is authentically old.
There's something really special about seeing a tune book written out by a player - even if it's only a photocopy. It's like reaching across a couple of centuries. You find yourself asking questions - sometimes, what on earth is this supposed to sound like when the musician has omitted little inessentials like the key signature, time signature and sometimes even bar lines. Other times it might be, why did the musician write his name, city and the date on every page? The usual question is, what can the way he writes out tunes tell me about the way he played them. (It is usually 'he'. There are very few MS by women.)
Proper use of tune collections
Proper use of tune collections
I think many if not most of us would agree that the best way to learn tunes is by ear. Recognizing the oral (or aural) nature of ITM, how do we approach tune collections like O'Neill's, especially tunes that we may not have any way to hear from live musicians or recordings?
# Posted on August 19th 2008 by jasonb
Re: Proper use of tune collections
You approach tune collections as a source for information. They should never be treated as a definitive source. But they're a source for a setting of a tune, and they're an archive of information that can be useful as we progress upon the journey into the tradition.
# Posted on August 19th 2008 by Reverend
Re: Proper use of tune collections
Tune collections should be considered a possibly useful but always suspect source of information.
# Posted on August 19th 2008 by timmy!
Re: Proper use of tune collections
IMO recordings should also be considered "suspect sources of information." Many well-known musicians love to record their own unique versions of tunes, sometimes in unusual keys. Surely, they are interesting sources, but should never be treated as definitive sources either.
# Posted on August 19th 2008 by slainte
Re: Proper use of tune collections
Depends on the quality of the written source. A publication based on a musician's handwritten tunebook, fully annotated as to editorial changes, is more valuable that a book of unattributed tunes with no indication of what the editor has done to them.
# Posted on August 19th 2008 by c.g.
Re: Proper use of tune collections
They're also a fantastic resource for old tunes which had no way of being recorded. You could go through one of those eighteenth century tutors and play tunes no one has played since the eighteenth century.
# Posted on August 19th 2008 by DrSilverSpear
Re: Proper use of tune collections
Very true. But sometimes, you get to see *why* some of them haven't been played since the eighteenth century!
# Posted on August 19th 2008 by nicholas
Re: Proper use of tune collections
Is there such a thing as a 'definitive source' or versionof a traditional tune? I doubt it. Tune collections, as I see it, are an interesting historical snapshot. This is something like what person x was playing when they wrote this down. Like old books and writings, some have relevance for many years, others become dated quickly,
# Posted on August 19th 2008 by the wounded hussar
Re: Proper use of tune collections
Damn right Hussar -This search for the "definitive version" seems very suspect. For me, there are only two "right" versions of any tune that matter:
1. The version played by the other people with whom you happen to be trying to play at the time. And all harmonically and rhythmically consistent variations thereof.
2. Whichever version you like best when playing for yourself or proselytising at your local session.
And often, however admirable the recorded versions of tunes are, they are not ones I can directly aspire to play myself. e.g. playing along with Matt Molloy's Matt Molloy CD (shifted to D where appropriate) involves either serious tempo or serious ornamentation compromises. And both change the fundamental character of what I am playing so that it is no longer "Matt Molloy's version".
The only problem I have with "definitive versions" is when someone else claims to have them...
# Posted on August 19th 2008 by Crackpot
Re: Proper use of tune collections
From "Judo inside Out" by Geoff Gleeson:
(paraphrased - I don't have the book in front of me right now)
On Skill and technique - technique is what you are taught, including all possible versions, sometimes mutually contradictory. Skill is what each individual makes their own out of the techniques they have been show, to fit their personal characteristics - body proportions, speed, weight, predilections. etc. Especially including the ability to apply the technique in situations not directly covered by training scenarios.
For "Technique" read different versions of a tune learnt from different sources over the years. And for "Skill" read the version of the tune that that individual player has made their own and can play anywhere, and with anyone - or even alone.
Sadly most players give up on tunes when they begin to approach this level and consign the tune to the dustbin of "overplayed". So too do Judoka...
Given the above, tune collections are, for me, one legitimate source of tunes amongst many.
# Posted on August 19th 2008 by Crackpot
Re: Proper use of tune collections
I like the wounded hussar's metaphor of a snapshot. I use the Comhaltas books and the session.org database to form a synthesis of a given tune, since the two sources almost never agree, and then play it the way it's played in our session as a "final" version.
# Posted on August 19th 2008 by Greg the Piano Tuner
Re: Proper use of tune collections
I've had a lot of success this summer using my husband's Pepsi points to buy MP3's of tunes that I didn't have. TheSession gives me some guidance as to whose recording is likely to be more true to the Music. The bonus is I am driving the gents at work around the bend with my constant diddly streaming from the PC.
My lower tech route is to find a song that seems intriguing on paper, go to my teacher or a few of the guys who play out and request they play it for me. For the cost of a pint, I can usually get a song and, if I'm lucky, a story about how they learned it.
# Posted on August 19th 2008 by tracywag
Re: Proper use of tune collections
D*mn sure there isn't a definitive version of a tune - just been playing Bob and Joan from the Vickers MS 1770, published as The Great Northern Tune Book. The notes refer to other variants (I'm summarising!) - Breathnach 1963 etc; Northumbrian Pipers Tunebook 3 1991; The Roche Collection of Traditional Irish Music 1927; The Pipers Assistant, Edinburgh (two versions)1854; Thomas Wilson, London 1816; John of the Green the Cheshire Way, London 1985; Neil Gow, Edinburgh 1799; O'Neills 1903; Rutherfords London ?1750; Bruce and Stokoe Northumbrian 1882; O Farrells Pocket Companion for the Irish or Union Pipes c1805; William Dixon bagpipe MS, prob. Northumbrian 1733; John Rook MS, Carlisle 1840
Definitive version? The one they play at my local session
Best version? The one I like most!
# Posted on August 19th 2008 by c.g.
Re: Proper use of tune collections
I tend to agree with the ye olde manescript idea - I only use tune books for tunes that nobody has ever recorded, or has recorded in the last hundred years. I just recently got Geoghan's, o'Farrell's and some of Goodman's piping manuscripts, and to be honest, they're some of the most exquisite tunes and settings you'll ever hear. My friends and I make a point of learning those tunes and playing out.
--DtM
# Posted on August 19th 2008 by Dan the Man
Re: Proper use of tune collections
My tune collections (maybe 5 or 6,000) I use much as an painter who does landscapes uses the "view" in front of his easel. If I run across something 'interesting' I'll noodle around with it, then if I something worth my time I'll make it my own, polish it up and hopefully end up with some that I can offer to someone to listen to, much as that painter tries to produce something from what he sees in front of him.
Oh yes!!!! The comment above about playing something that hasn't been heard for hundreds of years is an appealing thought. Especially if the manuscript is authentically old.
My $0.02
Thanks, all I love this site.
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by Quinn Nemo
Re: Proper use of tune collections
There's something really special about seeing a tune book written out by a player - even if it's only a photocopy. It's like reaching across a couple of centuries. You find yourself asking questions - sometimes, what on earth is this supposed to sound like when the musician has omitted little inessentials like the key signature, time signature and sometimes even bar lines. Other times it might be, why did the musician write his name, city and the date on every page? The usual question is, what can the way he writes out tunes tell me about the way he played them. (It is usually 'he'. There are very few MS by women.)
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by c.g.