dialect and articulation, another language analogy
dialect and articulation, another language analogy
There is no doubt that the language of Irish diddley music is well established and very much alive in Ireland, across the diaspora and beyond.
When it was confined to Ireland it naturally developed regional accents and then, with the growth of travel and the rise of commercial recordings these regional accents were joined with (some say "wiped out by") people copying the accents of their favourite players.
But along with accents are dialects: varieties of the language that are distinguished from other varieties of the same language by features of articulations peculiar to groups of instruments with similar capabilities.
The main groups are:
- Whistle, flute, pipes and fiddle
- Button boxes, mouth organ etc.
- Plucked, struck and fretted strings
Each instrument within the groups also applies articulations peculiar to it. But the groups are defined by not only the articulations common across the instruments within, but by the desire of the music itself to focus on the shared articulations.
While there is no doubt that when put together, each group can successfully communicate with each other - they can speak the same language - they have had to develop their own set of articulations.
I know this is a bit of a flogged horse, but there really has never been any resolution on it. People seem to get uptight and judgmental about it which is daft. So I'm trying another angle.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
Different instruments articulate in different ways, ok. Then what?
These articulation mechanisms must be able to be used in consort?
I may be being particularly dense here, but why bring language into it at all? Is it just for the analogy: "all speakers of a language must speak mutually intelligible dialects" or is there something more to be gained from this comparison?
It's just there's a huge number of interesting phenomena in the study of dialects. Most notably how they are separated: social class, geography, how mutual communicability is achieved - most notably mutual communicability is not transitive. A can talk to B and B can talk to C doesn't mean A can talk to C.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
It's a bit like communication between people with mild speech impediments. Somebody who is unable to pronounce the sound 'R', for example, in the usual manner (or one of the usual manners, depending on where in the English-speaking world they have grown up), finds an alternative sound that approximates, and is readily understood as, the same.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Yes ragaman, that's the point of the analogy. In normal language, articulations are separated by social class, geography, etc. But the musical articulations I refer to are separated by physical inability. People who can't pronounce the sound R do not have mouths and tongues any different from those who can, it's just that they haven't learned it. But with the different instruments it's a physical difference.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Actually, you'll find that a great percentage of people, and a great many of them seem to be prevalent on British television,
(lifestyle shows etc), cannot pronounce their "R's" because of an inability to curl the tongue upwards at the front and sides towards the roof of the mouth, with vary degrees of mispronunciation. A mild sufferer might
say "Rwealy ?" while someone who has it bad might say
"Wyeally?".
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
But is it a physical disability? Do they have missing musicles or nerve endings or something? Or have they just never learned how to curl their tongue upwards. If it is a physical disability then it make my analogy work better.
"cannot pronounce their "R's" because of an inability to curl the tongue upwards at the front and sides towards the roof of the mouth"
Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. You're mixing up the pronunciation of R in Britain with the genetic marker for being able to curl the tongue. And making Illig's point.
I can't curl my tongue, but I can certainly make an R sound, like this:
"RRRRRRR!"
Or, are you saying that they're not pirates? "The BBC reports that 28% of Britons are incapable of saying "ARRRRR!", so it's unlikely that they were the ones who robbed you last weekend and left you stranded outside a carpark..."
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Based on the analogy as I understand it, it is a physical difference. With my banjo, I simple cannot articulate some of the phrases in the same manner as a fiddle or flute. I have to use my ears and create something close and order to communicate the same idea.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
The object of my post is not to add to or detract from Llig's
analogy. My purpose is to put forward my theory on why an
uncanny number of British celebrities cannot say their "Rs",
and I have spent a great deal of time researching this topic, years in fact,whilst watching U.K. TV with my wife, a lot of that time taking photographs and measurements of each others tongues while holding them in the exact physical position where correct articulation is produced. The findings were (in a nutshell), the flatter the tongue, the greater the impediment!
Sayonarwya. And by the way Gzeg , you can't fool me,. It took you all your muscular control not to type ' YRRRRRRRRWW"
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
"the desire of the music itself to focus on the shared articulations" (llig)
"create something close in order to communicate the same idea" (jusa)
The first statement does not seem compatible with mixed instrument sessions. Or is the implication that 'lower tier' instruments have to 'fit in' with higher tier instruments ? But then what about the fiddler in tune led of by a banjo or box player who is communicating something special that others want to share?
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
True. I was being arbitrary at the expense of the Scots, Welsh
and Ulster people, although I once had a chum from the Isle of
Man who couldn't say his Rs.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
For sure it’s physical, and education is nothing but flogging a dead horse for folks who haven't seen that particular horse flogged yet, no worries there.
Take "Come West Along the Road" which my buddy the fluter and I have just been working on. We've had the pleasure of an old gent originally from Galway now wintering in Florida join our sessions. He gave us the tune as he plays it on the harmonica. A much different articulation there. I absorbed it the way he played it. Then, the fluter finds other recordings of it and realizes there's a much more complex articulation of it possible for him that just 'rolls off his flute' with ease, he says. I hear it, and I'm trying to match it despite the fiddle not articulating the same as a flute, and then jive with the original 'as heard' articulation from the harmonica.
Of course, the old gent is so slick that he instantly jived his with the flute all in one go, and I happily nestled in between the two. Off we went.
In retrospect, I’m sure the harmonica articulation he had was based on the complex diddles he had heard a million times, so it was a no-brainer for him to slide his harmonica articulation into the flute.
Ultimately, if you had come on in yesterday at that point you’d have recognized the tune and been able to sit and play with us, despite each of the three instruments having their own articulation of those first few bars of the A part. The three didn’t clash, the ‘language’ was recognizable and understood, the phrase was communicating the same thing without saying it exactly the same.
Sure, it’s not physical, just learned speech patterns so the analogy doesn’t work, but it’s funny about the ‘r’ in England. Here of course we have the Boston-area ‘r’ as in, where is it? Car = cah. Park = pahk. We get that mixed with folks with Southern drawls plus folks from all over the country with their own accents. Somehow we all communicate though…
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I am currently right in the middle of this issue.
I'm learning a new instrument (octave mandolin) that is plucked. Prior to this, my last great musical challenge was learning to play jazz bass solos arco (with a bow). An important part of learning the basics of mandolin techiniques requires me to practice alternating pick strokes. In many ways, this is anathemic to my bowing practice, when I would typically strive to essentially get as many notes as I could into a single bow stroke, and avoid switching direction whenever possible.
My goal was to get an even sound, dynamically. Now, there is no way I can get an even sound whenever I try to fit in multiple notes on a single pick stroke, as I often do on triplets. I can still play the triplets, but the third note is always substantially quieter than the first.
Using the dialect/impediment distinction, I admit that it sounds to my ear like an impediment, coming on the heels of many years of practicing an even sound with the bow. Give me a few months on the OM and I'll likely feel differently about it. I'm still getting used to the feel of the new instrument. Particularly since even a pizzicato bass note is full and rich compared to a plucked mandolin course (IMHO).
How this relates to llig's original post, I'm not sure, other than to state the obvious: What may sound like an impediment is often a difference in dialect.
Some of you other string pluckers can educate me here, do you find that over time there are tunes that more naturally lend themselves to being plucked? To say it another way, are there tunes that sound wonderful on a sustaining instrument that you just can't get to work with the plectrum?
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
The fiddle should be in its own seperate category -- it can best immitate the rolls and cuts of the pipes and flute, but it achieves them in a different way and has to find alternative ways on certain notes (open a or e roll, for example) because of the nature of the instrument.
Anyway, the articulation that I think this discussion is supposed to be about is rhythmic. All the different ornaments on all the different instruments are about articulating rhythms, not other notes (besides the one that you are "ornamenting".) If you lilt a roll (derdleydum or something like that), you don't lilt any other notes; you just interupt the note with carefully placed interuption to articulate the rhythm of a roll.
In this way, all of the instruments are compatible because they all have their own way of articulating thes same rhythms. The fiddle way of doing it might sound and even feel and look closer to the flute way, but the box way still articulates the same rhythm (when played well.) There are some limitaions, I'm sure, but by and large the instruments are all doing rhythmic ornaments that are compatible.
(I wonder if this discussion is a back door attempt to call attention to the annoying pips of the concertina?)
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I think Chrishty's post might be closest to my own view: that the particular notes used in ornaments are of minimal relevance, it's the use of ornaments in phrasing the tunes that makes the difference between a compentent player and an incompetent one. (for competent, read "competent and better") On the box, I use a flick of the finger on another button to ornament, on guitar or banjo I'll use a stutter with the picking hand, in both cases I'm trying to get close to the piper's rolls and crans, which on the fiddle are imitated with the bow or with the left hand, depending on the fiddler and the phrase.
So this taxonomy isn't a very exciting one to me as far as the ornaments go - session instruments are the ones people have found which can more or less do what the pipers do, which is the bedrock of the tradition. This might explain why the hammered dulcimer doesn't work so well in the tunes, by the by.
What is more interesting to my mind is the way each different instrument favors one sort of phrasing over another, and the way this has influenced the evolution of the tunes themselves. (this is a by-product, of course, of the phenomenon noted by Michael in strating this thread)
I've long felt that the real problem with modern tunes isn't anything to do with the fact that they're not "traditional", in the sense of being blessed by antiquity. It's that they haven't had a chance to pass through enough hands and be shaped by the tradition, in the sense of becoming fully rounded tunes. There are plenty of modern compositions which sound great when played by their composers on their native instruments, but don't sound "traditional". I believe that they'll eventually get there, after they are learned by a box player from a fiddler, and then by a whistler from the box player, and so on. Enough iterations of this, and all of the instrument-specific (and player-specific) qualites of the tune are rubbed off, and you're left with the meat of the tune. This has happened to a large extent with Reavy's more popular tunes, and with Crehan's, and these are now accepted as "traditional" - but if you were to play the settings as Reavy wrote them down, you'd suddenly sound a lot like a "modern" or "composed" tune.
This gives, incidentally, a lot of support to the idea of learning the tunes by ear, preferably at a session and not so much from a record. That's the setting where you're most likely to miss the irrelevant details - the precise ornaments that Liz Carroll uses on one of her tunes - in favor of the meat of the tune. The more the inessentials are eliminated, the closer these tunes wil be to "tradition".
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
"It's that they haven't had a chance to pass through enough hands and be shaped by the tradition..." That's a great perspective Jon.
However, I think some are still missing a salient point to Llig's analogy. I have a good set of ears and I am quite certain if I moved to a place like Boston for example, in fairly short order I could sound pretty "wicked" close to a local in slang and pronunciation. The reason being I am using the same instruments - my vocal chords and ears - as everyone else. However, I could live in a house full of the best Irish fiddle players in the world for 30 years and my banjo would still not be able to "speak" exactly like a fiddle no matter the effort.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I agree with Chrishty here. And interesting idea, Jon!
Llig, I get the impression from the fact that you've several times alluded to this notion in different recent threads, that you're trying to express some ideas you've been considering for a long time. However, I don't think I fully understand EXACTLY what it is you're getting at! :(
What you've written here doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, but I am genuinely curious to understand what you're trying to say. Is there any way you can try it from yet "another angle"?!?
Especially since you're grouping the fiddle with the wind instruments. As far as I can see the only things they have in common are the fact that they all can lay claim to being the "traditional" instruments. But then again, so can the harp, but you've put that in the same category as the banjo (& the guitar - my current muse)!
In a previous thread you were suggesting that the fiddle and flutes can get at notes "in between frets". Is that what you're getting at here?
If so, it's an interesting point, but it's worth bearing in mind that instruments like the guitar can also access those notes, though, admittedly, in ITM, guitarists rarely do.
In blues, those "in between frets" are critical - in fact I think the famous jazz label - Blue Note records - is named after those very notes. Guitarists like BB King, Muddy Waters, etc, constantly accessed them using techniques like string bending. Although, that is a lot easier on the electric guitar, because you can use much lighter strings than on an acoustic. Slide guitarists use a different approach by floating a "slide" (bottleneck, bit of pipe, etc) on the strings, thereby rendering the guitar a "fretless" instrument.
I've found that fiddlers often are delighted to play the tunes in the rarer keys (e.g. Gm, Dm, F) that are almost impossible on e.g., a D whistle (probably because they often don't get the chance - they have to wait). So, they have to play with people from another "group"!
Also, there does seem to be a lot of similarity between e.g., Mary McNamara's concertina and Martin Hayes' fiddle from East Clare. Like SWFL was saying, maybe playing together crosses the divisions between the groups you seem to be highlighting...
Also, on a pendantic note, you suggest that the music developed regional accents, when it was confined to Ireland. But, I think Irish emigration (& later return) MAY have a component in the development of different styles. In fact, bluegrass seems to have a deep rooting in Irish trad combined with other styles (English, with a hint of French canadian???), suggesting a new "language" developed there after European emigration.
What exactly are you getting at? Are you in favour of people playing with instruments from different groups?
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I don't think it's a good analogy, then. Or maybe I think the language one is OK but the voice part is taking it too far... I mean the language all of these instruments speak is "didley" music, and they each speak it with a different voice. But they all articulate the didley part (rhythmic ornamentation) in there own way, and it all comes out sounding like didley music.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Sorry, cross post. That was a response to Gill/Jusa.
I think that Gill's underlying sentiments that are somewhat veiled here are that the pipes/flute/fiddle are superior to other instruments; the pipes because they're the source, and the fiddle and flute because they can mimic the way the pipes ornament the tunes very closely. And the fiddle and flute and pipes can express intonation sensibilties that are not necessarily equal tempered and fixed.
The rest of the instruments are inferior to these because of the annoying ways that they try in vain to mimic the pipes. Especially that god awful pipping of those concertinas!
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
1. the analogy seems to be not so much that Fiddle is to Glaswegian as Banjo is to Geordie, but that Pipes are to Jonathan Woss as Box is to Toyah Wilcocth. But I'm not sure what argument is being advance by the analogy?
2. "by the desire of the music itself to focus on the shared articulations" - a surprisingly mystical statement from someone who is usually relentlessly (and often rightly) intolerant of most other claptrap purveyed here.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I see articulation as the rubber buffering between the notes of a tune as, like some huge American road-train, it careers on its way through time. It gives the music its essential elasticity, sounding good, inspiring dancers, and helping musicians to adjust their timing. The elasticity, though, has limits - it's like a connecting muscle, as it were, not like an extendable strand of chewing gum.
This particular kind of elasticity is what players of any instrument need in their playing to play ITM properly - however they come by it.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I see several people expressing a sentiment similar to mine: "yes, and...? so what?"
I would agree that the situation is pretty similar to someone with a speech impediment not being able to pronounce a r properly (the impediment can also come from not having grown up with it thus removing it from our articulatory possiblities) or even to a ventriloquist who will avoid the consonants B, M and P and try to find ways to "compensate".
But when articulated (groan) in this way, the idea does sound like "inferior instruments have to make do as best they can". And I would suspect that that isn't what llig is getting at.
Having tremendous respect for llig, I'm actually eager to find out whether this is just a simple comparison or whether he thinks that this metaphor has further use.
So, with no belittling at all, I repeat the question: "so what?"
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Here here! So what?! If the point isn't that some instruments are better than others ( which I don't necessarily disagree with, BTW), then what is it? All the instruments have there ways of making Irish music sound like Irish music, stuttering banjoes, slurring fiddles and flutes, etc. So what is the point?
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I'd like you to clarify your analogy, Llig. I can see you likening accent (language) to ornamentation or articulation in musical style whether that be regional, personal or variation caused by the nature of the instrument.
Dialect in language is regional variation or variation according to class or social group of the grammar and vocabulary of the language. So then you could consider a regional variation of a tune eg Devil Among the Tailors/ Devil's Dream or the Donegal version of Drowsy Maggie (was that from John Doherty?) as dialect.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Say you have a bunch of people from various places in the english speaking world gathered round a campfire because they like to sing songs (and probably play tunes). In normal speech they would have a different rhythm for many words, and have different consonant and vowel sounds. Part of the character of their joint efforts is the way the different voices do the same things slightly differently. Otherwise they may have well have stayed at home.
But they like it when the singing sounds good and make some adjustments away from what they might do at home. Particularly if they sing a song from somewhere that relies for its character partly on the local way of speaking. Maybe they take a lead from a native of that place. But how close would they really want to get the natives accent ? Is the native version always "better" ? And how about a non-native english speaker who has traces of a foreign accent ? How close do they have to get ? Or is their accent sometimes attractive addition ?
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
- Chrishty: The fiddle is in with the flute, pipes and whistle not because it can imitate most of the cuts and rolls of the pipes and flute (bar the open strings), but because most of the cuts and rolls etc are exactly the same ... identical.
But yes, this discussion about articulating rhythms.
- ronan: I refer you to the above.
- Chrishty: of course you are close, but I'm not saying the pipes/flute/fiddle group is superior, just different. Where anyone's preferences lie is immaterial. The group including button boxes has developed its own dialect of articulations, as has the group including the fretted strings.
- Mike Floorstand: 1. ha ha, very good.
- nicholas: Yes, very good.
- timo: "So What?" It's merely that a lot of people don't understand it.
- Rob: it's just an analogy, go with it or not, but I'm being specific. I'm likening language to the music, dialect to articulation and accent to style.
You can speak cockney rhyming slang with a Geordie accent and still be speaking English. You can speak with backward syntax like Yoda in an American accent and still be speaking English.
On your concertina, you can play music from Donegal and still be playing Irish music. You can play the fiddle like Liz Carroll and still be playing Irish music.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
"I know this is a bit of a flogged horse, but there really has never been any resolution on it. People seem to get uptight and judgmental about it which is daft. So I'm trying another angle."
Sorry, llig, but maybe we can try & get some resolution, if you could be clearer about what you want us to resolve. If this is a burning issue for you, don't keep it locked up inside mystical hand-waving!
What exactly do you want to resolve?
That somebody can do a proper Yoda impression with an American accent???
That you can only try and articulate your instrument within a particular grouping? In fact, that's what the music "desires" you to do??? In which case, what should SWFL's harmonica friend do?
I appreciate that fiddles & boxes are played in different ways. But, are you suggesting that box players have nothing to learn from fiddlers and vice versa?
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Quite simply, I 'd like people to acknowledge that while a fiddle can articulate like a flute (mostly), a button box and a banjo can't. I'm not being judgmental, really I'm not. It's just a plain fact.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I agree - well, I can't articulate my melodeon playing in exactly the way I articulate my whistle playing. Maybe it *can* be done, but it might turn out to be difficult and freakish exercise without a lot of point - a bit like training a dog to be a cat.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I think I understand what Michael is trying to say. Each instrument has it's own way of 'speaking', and they shouldn't be played in a way that's an attempt to imitate a different instrument.
I've ofter told beginners who are learning from the dots not to be too fixated on playing every note that's written down. I'm certain some of the passing notes have been put in by the person that transcribed the tune simply because they make playing that tune easier on their own particular instrument. This is especially the case on the notes used to move from one part to the next, or to return to the top when repeating a part.
My take is, if it's very difficult to play then it probably wasn't written for your instrument. Try something easier.
Similarly with ornaments, it's not always nice if all instruments attempt the same roll at the same time. I try to vary ornamentation to complement the other players rather than exactly match what they are doing.
I think the reason I particularly like box and banjo as a combination is that the two have very distinct 'accents', and it's exactly that difference of articulation that makes them good to hear together. Each instrument is emphasised separately, in different places, which makes the differences stand out.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Yes bc, It can often be a great combination where instruments from different groups avoid any semblance of unison. The heart of the tune can achieve an unexpected ringing out, lovely.
But you are wrong when you suggest that I'm saying there is any "should" or "shouldn't".
I do think there is a natural tendancy for unison playing in the music, and that's how the unison of fiddle, flute and pipes comes about. But I agree that the whole ethos of variation is to compliment
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Cheers Llig this a great discussion. I like to sing in the car and in the shower. I am a rubbish singer, but when I sing in American or cockney accents I sound remarkably in tune (although still rubbish). I am neither an American or a cockney, yet for some reason I feel comfortable singing with these accents (don't get me wrong. I am irritated by English people singing with an American accent in public). When I play musical instruments I don't think about accents. I just think about the tune: the story and emotion that I think it represents. However, when I listen to music I do think about accents/dialects. Has anyone noticed, for example, that Germans play ITM with a distinctly 'German' accent? It's fine but doesn't quite sound like the real thing. French people seem to have a musical accent too. A friend of mine from Brittany plays ITM on the flute with a 'French' accent, but he still sounds essentially Celtic. Do you think there is such a thing as an 'overall' Celtic accent, and that people from Celtic places (including Ireland) are playing with their own national/regional dialects?
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
When I was young, my mother taught me the essential stereotype about the English: "I shall 'it you over the 'ead with a 'eavy 'ammer and make you 'owl 'orribly!" Imagine how disappointed I am as an adult to find out that it's "R" they can't say.
I always thought one of the cool things about Irish music was its diversity - you've got all these quite different sounding instruments, and here they can play complicated melodies at a great clip. Who would have thought that fiddle and pipes could fit together in such a mesmerizing fashion as they do on the Paddy & Paddy recording? Or the Siobhan Peoples and Murty Ryan cd? Or <insert endless examples here>...
Having a variety of instruments with different voices is one of the things that makes this music so interesting, starting with the way you can usually hear those voices around you in the room - I can put my ear on the pipes, fiddles, flutes, whistles, bouzouki, banjo, concertina, or I would if that fellow with the 4-voice box hadn't started up right beside me.
That plus the general attitude of "today we've got these instruments and these personalities in the room, let's start it up and get to work" means that there's always room for different combinations of voices and ideas to work together and bounce off each other, which usually makes for a good time.
Except that once in a pub in Sligo I heard someone playing a "tight" style of piping, and if I hadn't seen him do it I might have thought it was a fiddle.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I remember when I was a kid hearing that classic James Kelly and Liam O'Flynn duet on that Planxty album and wishing the fiddle was a bit louder in the mix. Later, of course, with better educated ears, I could hear it as it is - 50/50. It's an astonishingly terrific piece of music.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
It's the next morning now but I think your analogy works better if you say:
ITM and its recognisable derivatives are the language
Significant regional variations of tunes are dialect
Phrasing, ornamentation, everything to do with the instrument or the style of the player are accent.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
no, it's the other way round. Because you can tell where a player on any instrument is from, and/or who they've been listening to by their style, their accent. And I'm likening dialect to the articulations specific to certain groupings of instruments.
It's important to make the distinction. This is the whole point of the thread. You can change your style of playing, but you can't change what articulations are available to you.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
On the vocal side of the analogy I am struggling with the idea of someone reading a Robert Burns poem with a strong brummie accent. It raises questions like "would it work" and "why do it". Cockney rhyming slang in a Geordie accent is not the same thing. What are the equivalents on your side of the analogy ?
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I would agree with Chrishty - the fiddle should be in a category of its own. The scope for articulation on this instrument is seemingly infinite - much greater than for other session instruments. I've heard as many playing styles as I've heard fiddlers. Unfortunately, these subtlies sometimes get lost in the context of a crowded session...
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Rather that putting the fiddle in a category of it's own, it may be possible to put it in more than one category, for example, there is little very little banjo articulation that you can't do on a fiddle. But the point of the groupings, the criteria for the categories, is that the instruments within them have a large amount of articulations that they share.
David, Yes, in that the articulations of one group have to be translated by another group. And what do you mean when you say, "Cockney rhyming slang in a Geordie accent is not the same thing." The same thing as what? Cockney rhyming slang in a Cockney accent? Yes, but it's still English and you can understand it. A concertina playing Donegal music is not the same thing as a fiddle playing Donegal music, but done well it's still recognisably Irish diddley music
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Sorry, not the same as a Scots poem in a brummie accent. There comes a point where it may be better to translate and get at least part of the 'message' packaged up in a fresh way.
Is that the concertina and the (pipe- or whistle-style) rolls ?
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
same here, Mix. I would also suggest (eith as little bias as possible) that the pipes are also a separate "Dialect". Even go so far as to say that the free reeds each have their own dialect too. Banjo is clearly a different dialect from guitar. as is the whistle from the flute. Llig, i see your point about lumping certain groups of instruments together, and i appreciate the elegance of your analogy. i have long thought along these same lines. Oh, and by the way, what's a brummie accent??
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Agreed, pipewatcher. And the pipes would probably come only second only to the fiddle in terms of the degree of articulation possible.
Brummie accent - Birmingham accent.
Birmingham, England, that is - not Birmingham Alabama!
It's a nasal sing-song accent, not highly regarded in many quarters. Probably unfairly so. The folks in that city have a great sense of humour, which sets well with their "Brummie" accent.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Do articulations have to be translated, or are a separate set of articulations developed that compliment other instruments?
If I understand your analogy correctly in a session that is working well the various accents and their articulations fit together perfectly as the musicians listen to each other and adjust accordingly.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Yes, they are all different, and how different is interesting. But when playing music togther, how similar is more pertinent What do the instruments share? A category with only one thing in it is not a category.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I'm not from Birmingham myself, Sugarfoot.
Bristol, in fact. Another city with a much-maligned accent. Accept that we don't even have a sense of humour!
I don't recall ever hearing anyone with a broad Bristol or Birmingham accent reading the national news on the BBC. If you speak with a Newcastle, Scottish or Northland Ireland accent though, you're pretty much guaranted to get the job. All coincidence of course, as the BBC is an "equal opportunties" employer ...
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Flutes, whistle - a close match.
But guitar and banjo? Although both fretted, they are played in an entirely different way at most ITM sessions. i.e. guitar - rhythm, tenor banjo - melody.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
The difference between dialect and accent is that different dialects use different words and grammar, Accent is merely the different timbre of the same words.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
llig-
Rhyming slang is what it says- slang. Aussies have it , there are military and penal versions of it. i mean that it is in itself more of a linguistic device. Cockney as a dialect includes its own Rhyming Slang
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Yes, is two people say "Let's have a look" and, "Let's 'av a luke" at the same time, it sounds OK. Buy it two people say "Let's have a look" and, "Giz a butchers" at the same time it's kind of messy. You can still understand them both, but it would be easier if they didn't speak together
I'd say that grammar is part of dialect. Someone who doesn't speak properly has a different dialect than someone that don't speak proper. Some would say that one is correct, I wouldn't.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
bloody hell:
Yes, if two people say "Let's have a look" and, "Let's 'av a luke" at the same time, it sounds OK. Buy if two people say "Let's have a look" and, "Giz a butchers" at the same time it's kind of messy. You can still understand them both, but it would be easier if they didn't speak together
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
maybe "Giz a butcher's"> Give us a butcher's (hook)> Cockney R.S.>butcher's hook=look. Grammar has a great deal to do with Dialectal distinction, whether it be improper or "alternate", but bad grammar in itself does not denote a different dialect
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
"Yes, if two people say "Let's have a look" and, "Let's 'av a luke" at the same time, it sounds OK" (llig).
Which is what I was getting at in the bit above about songs round the campfire. But if some of that group decide to do a 'performance' they will probably discuss ironing out some of those minor differences - an arrangement.
And if one of them insists on saying "Giz a butchers" ?
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
yep-that's one of the ways. now we're getting into much finer lines. dialect can also be separated along socio-economic lines. Slightly different territory there. I had a Dutch friend in college.He grew up 5 miles from Germany his grandmother, who was born in 189-something , grew up speaking a dialect of Dutch which he could not understand. Here in the Southern USA many people speak in what could be cosidered a dialect. "Y'all" is dialect. "Ain't"is incorrect grammar. Not all southerners say ain't
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
OK. I think (?) I have got the words/articulations part sorted out. But what about the grammar part of the dialect analogy. Is it phrasing, or do the different "words" beg a different ("box friendly", "mandolin friendly") version. So then If its cockney song can the company decide to try sing "Giz a butchers" as best they can ?
(and I had just chickened out of asking about bodhrans)
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
As we've said, grammar is a part of dialect if it's done consistently in a geographic area. "Correct" grammar is an artificial construct along the same lines as the distinction between proper language and slang.
But I don't think grammar is analogous to phrasing. I thing phrasing in language is analogous to phrasing in music. And I think that a lot of the specifics of Irish diddley music phrasing can cross the different articulation groups I outlined at the beginning.
Breathing, for example, though only necessary on the flute and whistle, can and should be utilised on other instruments. And the accenting of certain notes for rhythmic punch is easy on just about every instrument except the pipes, if you use dynamics. But for the very reason that pipes accent notes without the use of dynamics, it's well worth while learning how to do it the way the pipes do.
There are exceptions though. For example, choosing to play a phrase or a bit of a phrase very smoothly, slurring, is easy on the fiddle and flute and pipes (and a PA and english concertina), but very hard on a banjo or a button box that has push pull mechanics.
But it's difficult to distuinguish between articulation and phrasing, and I'm not sure it's worth trying. So much of phrasing is done with articulation. (Which kind of contradicts what I've said above)
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
So grammar, which often involves word order, is not a very useful element of the analogy ?
If you don't distinguish between articulation and phrasing then are you not losing some of the useful similarity in how those words are applied to music and speech ? I tend to think of phrasing being more about what is being said than how it is being said.
As Jusa said early on "With my banjo, I simple cannot articulate some of the phrases in the same manner as a fiddle or flute. I have to use my ears and create something close in order to communicate the same idea"
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
grammar in spoken language is not just word order, but past/presant tense etc. Conjugating verbs and all that stuff. But I suppose it could be analogous to variation. Or it could be like when someone learns a tune a bit wrong and someone else learns that wrong version and it then becomes a "version".
But as for distinguishing between articulation and phrasing:
Phrasing is definitely how something is being said. The tune is what is being said.
That classic "Eats, shoots and leaves" and "Eats shoots and leaves" is all about phrasing. And introduces another thing in language with can be analogous to music, punctuation.
The comma indicates a slight pause which changes the meaning from a panda's diet to a bloke killing someone after scoffing a meal and before exiting.
The punctuation used or not used in diddley music is equally important. The punctuation itself is often articulation and it defines the phrasing.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
In fact, it's the use of articulation in defining phrasing that elevates the music from strict prose into poetry. Punctuating your phrasing well can bring to the music beautiful levels of ambiguity. With the precise and subtle placing of varied articulations you can give the same notes meanings as different as a murder and apander's.
This is one of the reasons I often prefer the music sans strumming. Without stacked harmony defining your tonal centre, you are much freer to leave it hovering in ambiguity
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
So I should have said " I tend to think of a phrase as saying something (communicating an idea) and articulation as how it is being said, or is joined to and set apart from adjacent phrases".
...which is why these instruments claim your top tier from your other thread, in regards to their similar dialects, I wager?
So in actuality, it's a hierarchy of how they articulate, what the particular dialect is of the instrument in question. I think that perhaps this is really the only defining factor of a hierarchy of instrumentation, how closely the dialect of the particular instrument manages to jive with the sounds that top tier makes, like when the fiddle and pipes 'disappear' into each other.
Again, I'm not adding anything new here, nothing exciting, probably blathering on for no good reason, just making notes, summarizing, etc. Helps me to understand at least.
Mandatory disclaimer: Of course all the other instruments not in that top tier have their own dialects and sound wonderful, boxes, banjos, harmonicas, etc. and truly skilled players use these unique dialects to mesh with that top tier.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Llig, it sounds as though you haven't been to work today. I have - and am entertained to return and find this still rolling!
I'm glad to read that you do know the difference between dialect and accent because I wasn't sure at first.
A thread to be proud of: did you practise this first, learn it from someone at a session, record it digitally or are you making it up as you go along?!
We'll carry on the discussion at the session tonight where several people regularly tune in to look at this site.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
From my Pop (aka 'Da') after his reading of this thread:
"Very interesting discussion. I've done much studying through my piano playing, choral singing and college course work(in particular "Form and Analysis" ) in regards to phrasing and their comparison to the written or spoken word grammar. There is much that is comparable and some, due to the nature of the expression, is not. The near identical analogy comes in singing the written word. But even there, much is often altered to fit direction and flow of the music. And, likewise, composers often have to alter their themes or melodies to better fit the words because of either the sound or meaning demands it."
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Like Rob, I wondered if I was the only one at work today! ;)
Ok, I think I see now where you're going with your analogy - not sure I totally agree with it, but it's interesting, nonetheless.
1. People CAN learn other dialects, and switch between them, so with your analogy, they should be able to switch between articulations, but you're saying the opposite?
2. The example of a conversation with people with different accents vs dialects. Well, in a session, everyone (hopefully) is playing the same tune. It would be a boring conversation if everyone was saying the same sentences at the same time!
3. There's a certain irony, in comparing dialects and accents to music, when so many singers sing without their own accent! I remember, the first time I heard Annie Lennox (when she was in the Eurythmics) being interviewed - and going "She's Scottish?" ;)
Still, it's an interesting analogy, and has brought up some good ideas & points. Cheers!
By the way, llig, reading all this, it gives some insight into your comments on previous threads (particularly guitar-related ones), that have previously seemed bizarre to me (& to many others too, judging by later comments in those threads).
To be honest, re-reading it, I still amn't sure that such comments are relevant, or maybe I should say they don't seem relevant without understanding where you're coming from.
So, maybe, if you GENUINELY want to get your point across, you could try & be more specific when commenting on such threads, rather than making a cryptic statement, and then complaining that people don't understand you...
Hopefully, that doesn't come across as rude :(, I just thought I'd mention it, cause you do seem to have a lot of very useful insights into this music, but I'm sure I'm not the only newbie (to ITM as well as thesession) that finds it hard to decipher much relevance out of your comments when they're thrown into a thread like that...
Which is a pity..., unless, of course, you're not actually interested in people learning from you, but just want to get a rise out of them, in which case, fair enough! ;)
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
1. The reason people can learn other dialects, and switch between them is that the construction of our lips, tongues, vocal chords etc are the same. Humans share the physical mechanics of how we speak. The reason a guitar cannot reproduce the articulations of flute is because the way the sound is produced on the two instruments is completely different. It's like asking a grasshopper to reproduce the sounds of a nightingale.
2. I agree, but you just have to be aware of the mess.
3. Yes, that is ironic.
The reason I started this thread was because people often don't see the relevance of my comments. Of course I'm interested in people learning.
The "Guitar Lead Instrument or Rhythm?" thread was typical of many. And my post: "Fretted string instruments are not capable of the many articulations developed for the flute, pipes, whistle and fiddle" is directly relevant. How can I be more specific than that? I'm really not being cryptic at all, and it's because people don't seem to understand, I started this thread.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I would never say "don't ever learn from musical notation". I'd say something along the lines of, "if you are unfamiliar with this music, it can't be learned from musical notation." And then I'd probably explain for the billionth time why. And that would be directly relevant
Saying things that people don't want to hear is just part and parcel of everything. The discussion section is what it says it is. It's not "got a question? Post it here". You may start with a question, but don't be surprised when someone questions your question.
Controversy is a good thing, it makes you think. And it's only those who don't/can't think that end up being divisive.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Cripes people. Ever had a mean teacher before? No? You've lived a shelteres life.
As I've said a million times before, the grouchy man in the back of the pub hollering 'yer not doing it right!' can teach you just as much as the happy smiling 'feel-good' feller.
The inability to learn from both is not their fault, but yours.
Just be glad we don't have a Zen tradition in 'the music'. WHACK! Enlightened now? No? WHACK!
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Hi llig,
Actually, I'm not criticising you making controversial or divisive comments! If I wanted to hear somebody tell me a viewpoint I already knew, I certainly wouldn't visit this site - that's one of the best points of this site!
Personally, I reckon most things in life aren't simple black or white issues, and if you want to understand something properly, you need to see it from several different angles (one of the reasons analogies, like the one you're positing here, can be useful)
So, even if I may not agree fully with certain things you say - sure, your username even seems kind of back-to-front to me! ;) - I still find it interesting to hear them, and if I can develop a broader perspective from listening to them, then all the better!
What I was suggesting, was that in some of your comments, you might be better able to "articulate" :p your thoughts, in order to better convey your ideas (especially to the newbies, who aren't as familiar with your style, and arguably most in need of hearing your "controversial" viewpoints!)
For instance in the example I gave above, the poster wanted to know why very few guitarists in the sessions he had been to, play melody.
You commented
"Fretted string instruments are not capable of the many articulations developed for the flute, pipes, whistle and fiddle."
Did you mean, perhaps,
The flute, whistle & fiddle are better able to get the "articulations" of the pipes than the guitar, and so, may be closer to the tradition of the original music. So, rather than trying to learn how to play melody on the guitar, why don't you consider learning one of those instruments instead?
Cause, if that's what you meant, I might not entirely agree with it, but at least it's relevant to the thread, and an interesting suggestion for the poster to bear in mind...
Obviously, I'm not saying you should change your style of writing - that doesn't sound at all like the way you'd say something! We all have our own way of writing - my own comments often tend to be very long, particularly in a long thread like this one! Sorry!!! :(
Just, that if you want the newbies to take your ideas on board, and not have to keep repeating them, maybe you could try & rephrase them, somehow... I don't know how exactly... I was just making a suggestion...
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Exactly, John, it would be debatable. And, at least then, it could be debated!!!
As it was, in that particular case, I think many people didn't understand what he was getting at (myself included), and so couldn't debate with him. Which seems a shame, because it could have been a useful discussion. :(
For instance, the harp may go further back than the pipes, as you say, but to be fair the "dance music" (jigs, reels, etc) does seem to have been predominantly pipe music. Interestingly, a lot of harp music (like O'Carolan's) is often played by guitarists...
So, there is something to that argument.
But, having said that, I have a hunch that if instruments like the guitar, the box, mandolin, etc had been invented/common at the time, they could have been as prevalent in the music as they are today.
I think these other instruments are so popular in ITM because they ARE able to capture the essence of the tunes!
Sure, they may have different forms of articulation, but just because they are different, doesn't necessarily mean anything is lost. In fact, it seems to me to be a gain to the music.
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Same, llig. I couldn't see the screen for laughin' at it.
(Only problem with this is - people who aren't familiar with Joe, think the captions there are what he is actually singing, and they miss the humor.) That's funny too, in a way eh.
dialect and articulation, another language analogy
dialect and articulation, another language analogy
There is no doubt that the language of Irish diddley music is well established and very much alive in Ireland, across the diaspora and beyond.
When it was confined to Ireland it naturally developed regional accents and then, with the growth of travel and the rise of commercial recordings these regional accents were joined with (some say "wiped out by") people copying the accents of their favourite players.
But along with accents are dialects: varieties of the language that are distinguished from other varieties of the same language by features of articulations peculiar to groups of instruments with similar capabilities.
The main groups are:
- Whistle, flute, pipes and fiddle
- Button boxes, mouth organ etc.
- Plucked, struck and fretted strings
Each instrument within the groups also applies articulations peculiar to it. But the groups are defined by not only the articulations common across the instruments within, but by the desire of the music itself to focus on the shared articulations.
While there is no doubt that when put together, each group can successfully communicate with each other - they can speak the same language - they have had to develop their own set of articulations.
I know this is a bit of a flogged horse, but there really has never been any resolution on it. People seem to get uptight and judgmental about it which is daft. So I'm trying another angle.
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
Different instruments articulate in different ways, ok. Then what?
These articulation mechanisms must be able to be used in consort?
I may be being particularly dense here, but why bring language into it at all? Is it just for the analogy: "all speakers of a language must speak mutually intelligible dialects" or is there something more to be gained from this comparison?
It's just there's a huge number of interesting phenomena in the study of dialects. Most notably how they are separated: social class, geography, how mutual communicability is achieved - most notably mutual communicability is not transitive. A can talk to B and B can talk to C doesn't mean A can talk to C.
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by Tirno
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
It's a bit like communication between people with mild speech impediments. Somebody who is unable to pronounce the sound 'R', for example, in the usual manner (or one of the usual manners, depending on where in the English-speaking world they have grown up), finds an alternative sound that approximates, and is readily understood as, the same.
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Yes ragaman, that's the point of the analogy. In normal language, articulations are separated by social class, geography, etc. But the musical articulations I refer to are separated by physical inability. People who can't pronounce the sound R do not have mouths and tongues any different from those who can, it's just that they haven't learned it. But with the different instruments it's a physical difference.
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Actually, you'll find that a great percentage of people, and a great many of them seem to be prevalent on British television,
(lifestyle shows etc), cannot pronounce their "R's" because of an inability to curl the tongue upwards at the front and sides towards the roof of the mouth, with vary degrees of mispronunciation. A mild sufferer might
say "Rwealy ?" while someone who has it bad might say
"Wyeally?".
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by chuneboi slim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
But is it a physical disability? Do they have missing musicles or nerve endings or something? Or have they just never learned how to curl their tongue upwards. If it is a physical disability then it make my analogy work better.
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by llig leahcim
"cannot pronounce their "R's" because of an inability to curl the tongue upwards at the front and sides towards the roof of the mouth"
Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. You're mixing up the pronunciation of R in Britain with the genetic marker for being able to curl the tongue. And making Illig's point.
I can't curl my tongue, but I can certainly make an R sound, like this:
"RRRRRRR!"
Or, are you saying that they're not pirates? "The BBC reports that 28% of Britons are incapable of saying "ARRRRR!", so it's unlikely that they were the ones who robbed you last weekend and left you stranded outside a carpark..."
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by Gzeg
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Based on the analogy as I understand it, it is a physical difference. With my banjo, I simple cannot articulate some of the phrases in the same manner as a fiddle or flute. I have to use my ears and create something close and order to communicate the same idea.
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
"in" order to communicate the same idea - (must get coffee...)
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Yes jussa, you are correct.
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
The object of my post is not to add to or detract from Llig's
analogy. My purpose is to put forward my theory on why an
uncanny number of British celebrities cannot say their "Rs",
and I have spent a great deal of time researching this topic, years in fact,whilst watching U.K. TV with my wife, a lot of that time taking photographs and measurements of each others tongues while holding them in the exact physical position where correct articulation is produced. The findings were (in a nutshell), the flatter the tongue, the greater the impediment!
Sayonarwya. And by the way Gzeg , you can't fool me,. It took you all your muscular control not to type ' YRRRRRRRRWW"
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by chuneboi slim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
But does Jonathan Woss toss as high as anyone in wome?
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
ha ha ha, that bloody filter. What a lovely bit of alliteration
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
"why an uncanny number of British celebrities cannot say their "Rs""
Let's be clear---you really should be saying English celebrities, not British. You don't hear Scottish celebrities speaking that way.
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by kennedy
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
"the desire of the music itself to focus on the shared articulations" (llig)
"create something close in order to communicate the same idea" (jusa)
The first statement does not seem compatible with mixed instrument sessions. Or is the implication that 'lower tier' instruments have to 'fit in' with higher tier instruments ? But then what about the fiddler in tune led of by a banjo or box player who is communicating something special that others want to share?
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by David50
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
True. I was being arbitrary at the expense of the Scots, Welsh
and Ulster people, although I once had a chum from the Isle of
Man who couldn't say his Rs.
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by chuneboi slim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
For sure it’s physical, and education is nothing but flogging a dead horse for folks who haven't seen that particular horse flogged yet, no worries there.
Take "Come West Along the Road" which my buddy the fluter and I have just been working on. We've had the pleasure of an old gent originally from Galway now wintering in Florida join our sessions. He gave us the tune as he plays it on the harmonica. A much different articulation there. I absorbed it the way he played it. Then, the fluter finds other recordings of it and realizes there's a much more complex articulation of it possible for him that just 'rolls off his flute' with ease, he says. I hear it, and I'm trying to match it despite the fiddle not articulating the same as a flute, and then jive with the original 'as heard' articulation from the harmonica.
Of course, the old gent is so slick that he instantly jived his with the flute all in one go, and I happily nestled in between the two. Off we went.
In retrospect, I’m sure the harmonica articulation he had was based on the complex diddles he had heard a million times, so it was a no-brainer for him to slide his harmonica articulation into the flute.
Ultimately, if you had come on in yesterday at that point you’d have recognized the tune and been able to sit and play with us, despite each of the three instruments having their own articulation of those first few bars of the A part. The three didn’t clash, the ‘language’ was recognizable and understood, the phrase was communicating the same thing without saying it exactly the same.
Sure, it’s not physical, just learned speech patterns so the analogy doesn’t work, but it’s funny about the ‘r’ in England. Here of course we have the Boston-area ‘r’ as in, where is it? Car = cah. Park = pahk. We get that mixed with folks with Southern drawls plus folks from all over the country with their own accents. Somehow we all communicate though…
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I am currently right in the middle of this issue.
I'm learning a new instrument (octave mandolin) that is plucked. Prior to this, my last great musical challenge was learning to play jazz bass solos arco (with a bow). An important part of learning the basics of mandolin techiniques requires me to practice alternating pick strokes. In many ways, this is anathemic to my bowing practice, when I would typically strive to essentially get as many notes as I could into a single bow stroke, and avoid switching direction whenever possible.
My goal was to get an even sound, dynamically. Now, there is no way I can get an even sound whenever I try to fit in multiple notes on a single pick stroke, as I often do on triplets. I can still play the triplets, but the third note is always substantially quieter than the first.
Using the dialect/impediment distinction, I admit that it sounds to my ear like an impediment, coming on the heels of many years of practicing an even sound with the bow. Give me a few months on the OM and I'll likely feel differently about it. I'm still getting used to the feel of the new instrument. Particularly since even a pizzicato bass note is full and rich compared to a plucked mandolin course (IMHO).
How this relates to llig's original post, I'm not sure, other than to state the obvious: What may sound like an impediment is often a difference in dialect.
Some of you other string pluckers can educate me here, do you find that over time there are tunes that more naturally lend themselves to being plucked? To say it another way, are there tunes that sound wonderful on a sustaining instrument that you just can't get to work with the plectrum?
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by Rhychawr Catsmeat
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Of course I meant that your goal is to switch direction with the bow when it is natural to do so, thus avoiding the 'sawing technique.'
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by Rhychawr Catsmeat
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
The fiddle should be in its own seperate category -- it can best immitate the rolls and cuts of the pipes and flute, but it achieves them in a different way and has to find alternative ways on certain notes (open a or e roll, for example) because of the nature of the instrument.
Anyway, the articulation that I think this discussion is supposed to be about is rhythmic. All the different ornaments on all the different instruments are about articulating rhythms, not other notes (besides the one that you are "ornamenting".) If you lilt a roll (derdleydum or something like that), you don't lilt any other notes; you just interupt the note with carefully placed interuption to articulate the rhythm of a roll.
In this way, all of the instruments are compatible because they all have their own way of articulating thes same rhythms. The fiddle way of doing it might sound and even feel and look closer to the flute way, but the box way still articulates the same rhythm (when played well.) There are some limitaions, I'm sure, but by and large the instruments are all doing rhythmic ornaments that are compatible.
(I wonder if this discussion is a back door attempt to call attention to the annoying pips of the concertina?)
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by Chrishty
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I think Chrishty's post might be closest to my own view: that the particular notes used in ornaments are of minimal relevance, it's the use of ornaments in phrasing the tunes that makes the difference between a compentent player and an incompetent one. (for competent, read "competent and better") On the box, I use a flick of the finger on another button to ornament, on guitar or banjo I'll use a stutter with the picking hand, in both cases I'm trying to get close to the piper's rolls and crans, which on the fiddle are imitated with the bow or with the left hand, depending on the fiddler and the phrase.
So this taxonomy isn't a very exciting one to me as far as the ornaments go - session instruments are the ones people have found which can more or less do what the pipers do, which is the bedrock of the tradition. This might explain why the hammered dulcimer doesn't work so well in the tunes, by the by.
What is more interesting to my mind is the way each different instrument favors one sort of phrasing over another, and the way this has influenced the evolution of the tunes themselves. (this is a by-product, of course, of the phenomenon noted by Michael in strating this thread)
I've long felt that the real problem with modern tunes isn't anything to do with the fact that they're not "traditional", in the sense of being blessed by antiquity. It's that they haven't had a chance to pass through enough hands and be shaped by the tradition, in the sense of becoming fully rounded tunes. There are plenty of modern compositions which sound great when played by their composers on their native instruments, but don't sound "traditional". I believe that they'll eventually get there, after they are learned by a box player from a fiddler, and then by a whistler from the box player, and so on. Enough iterations of this, and all of the instrument-specific (and player-specific) qualites of the tune are rubbed off, and you're left with the meat of the tune. This has happened to a large extent with Reavy's more popular tunes, and with Crehan's, and these are now accepted as "traditional" - but if you were to play the settings as Reavy wrote them down, you'd suddenly sound a lot like a "modern" or "composed" tune.
This gives, incidentally, a lot of support to the idea of learning the tunes by ear, preferably at a session and not so much from a record. That's the setting where you're most likely to miss the irrelevant details - the precise ornaments that Liz Carroll uses on one of her tunes - in favor of the meat of the tune. The more the inessentials are eliminated, the closer these tunes wil be to "tradition".
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
"It's that they haven't had a chance to pass through enough hands and be shaped by the tradition..." That's a great perspective Jon.
However, I think some are still missing a salient point to Llig's analogy. I have a good set of ears and I am quite certain if I moved to a place like Boston for example, in fairly short order I could sound pretty "wicked" close to a local in slang and pronunciation. The reason being I am using the same instruments - my vocal chords and ears - as everyone else. However, I could live in a house full of the best Irish fiddle players in the world for 30 years and my banjo would still not be able to "speak" exactly like a fiddle no matter the effort.
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
"You don't hear Scottish celebrities speaking that way"
With the exception of a certain Red Knight
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by Bren
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I agree with Chrishty here. And interesting idea, Jon!
Llig, I get the impression from the fact that you've several times alluded to this notion in different recent threads, that you're trying to express some ideas you've been considering for a long time. However, I don't think I fully understand EXACTLY what it is you're getting at! :(
What you've written here doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, but I am genuinely curious to understand what you're trying to say. Is there any way you can try it from yet "another angle"?!?
Especially since you're grouping the fiddle with the wind instruments. As far as I can see the only things they have in common are the fact that they all can lay claim to being the "traditional" instruments. But then again, so can the harp, but you've put that in the same category as the banjo (& the guitar - my current muse)!
In a previous thread you were suggesting that the fiddle and flutes can get at notes "in between frets". Is that what you're getting at here?
If so, it's an interesting point, but it's worth bearing in mind that instruments like the guitar can also access those notes, though, admittedly, in ITM, guitarists rarely do.
In blues, those "in between frets" are critical - in fact I think the famous jazz label - Blue Note records - is named after those very notes. Guitarists like BB King, Muddy Waters, etc, constantly accessed them using techniques like string bending. Although, that is a lot easier on the electric guitar, because you can use much lighter strings than on an acoustic. Slide guitarists use a different approach by floating a "slide" (bottleneck, bit of pipe, etc) on the strings, thereby rendering the guitar a "fretless" instrument.
I've found that fiddlers often are delighted to play the tunes in the rarer keys (e.g. Gm, Dm, F) that are almost impossible on e.g., a D whistle (probably because they often don't get the chance - they have to wait). So, they have to play with people from another "group"!
Also, there does seem to be a lot of similarity between e.g., Mary McNamara's concertina and Martin Hayes' fiddle from East Clare. Like SWFL was saying, maybe playing together crosses the divisions between the groups you seem to be highlighting...
Also, on a pendantic note, you suggest that the music developed regional accents, when it was confined to Ireland. But, I think Irish emigration (& later return) MAY have a component in the development of different styles. In fact, bluegrass seems to have a deep rooting in Irish trad combined with other styles (English, with a hint of French canadian???), suggesting a new "language" developed there after European emigration.
What exactly are you getting at? Are you in favour of people playing with instruments from different groups?
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by -ronan-
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I don't think it's a good analogy, then. Or maybe I think the language one is OK but the voice part is taking it too far... I mean the language all of these instruments speak is "didley" music, and they each speak it with a different voice. But they all articulate the didley part (rhythmic ornamentation) in there own way, and it all comes out sounding like didley music.
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by Chrishty
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Sorry, cross post. That was a response to Gill/Jusa.
I think that Gill's underlying sentiments that are somewhat veiled here are that the pipes/flute/fiddle are superior to other instruments; the pipes because they're the source, and the fiddle and flute because they can mimic the way the pipes ornament the tunes very closely. And the fiddle and flute and pipes can express intonation sensibilties that are not necessarily equal tempered and fixed.
The rest of the instruments are inferior to these because of the annoying ways that they try in vain to mimic the pipes. Especially that god awful pipping of those concertinas!
Gill? Am I close?
By the way, I play both fiddle and concertina.
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by Chrishty
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I’m having trouble digesting the notion of llig expressing a *veiled* sentiment.
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by Bob himself
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
1. the analogy seems to be not so much that Fiddle is to Glaswegian as Banjo is to Geordie, but that Pipes are to Jonathan Woss as Box is to Toyah Wilcocth. But I'm not sure what argument is being advance by the analogy?
2. "by the desire of the music itself to focus on the shared articulations" - a surprisingly mystical statement from someone who is usually relentlessly (and often rightly) intolerant of most other claptrap purveyed here.
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by Mike Floorstand
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I see articulation as the rubber buffering between the notes of a tune as, like some huge American road-train, it careers on its way through time. It gives the music its essential elasticity, sounding good, inspiring dancers, and helping musicians to adjust their timing. The elasticity, though, has limits - it's like a connecting muscle, as it were, not like an extendable strand of chewing gum.
This particular kind of elasticity is what players of any instrument need in their playing to play ITM properly - however they come by it.
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by nicholas
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I see several people expressing a sentiment similar to mine: "yes, and...? so what?"
I would agree that the situation is pretty similar to someone with a speech impediment not being able to pronounce a r properly (the impediment can also come from not having grown up with it thus removing it from our articulatory possiblities) or even to a ventriloquist who will avoid the consonants B, M and P and try to find ways to "compensate".
But when articulated (groan) in this way, the idea does sound like "inferior instruments have to make do as best they can". And I would suspect that that isn't what llig is getting at.
Having tremendous respect for llig, I'm actually eager to find out whether this is just a simple comparison or whether he thinks that this metaphor has further use.
So, with no belittling at all, I repeat the question: "so what?"
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by Tirno
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Here here! So what?! If the point isn't that some instruments are better than others ( which I don't necessarily disagree with, BTW), then what is it? All the instruments have there ways of making Irish music sound like Irish music, stuttering banjoes, slurring fiddles and flutes, etc. So what is the point?
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by Chrishty
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I'd like you to clarify your analogy, Llig. I can see you likening accent (language) to ornamentation or articulation in musical style whether that be regional, personal or variation caused by the nature of the instrument.
Dialect in language is regional variation or variation according to class or social group of the grammar and vocabulary of the language. So then you could consider a regional variation of a tune eg Devil Among the Tailors/ Devil's Dream or the Donegal version of Drowsy Maggie (was that from John Doherty?) as dialect.
Is that what you are getting at?
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by Rob
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Say you have a bunch of people from various places in the english speaking world gathered round a campfire because they like to sing songs (and probably play tunes). In normal speech they would have a different rhythm for many words, and have different consonant and vowel sounds. Part of the character of their joint efforts is the way the different voices do the same things slightly differently. Otherwise they may have well have stayed at home.
But they like it when the singing sounds good and make some adjustments away from what they might do at home. Particularly if they sing a song from somewhere that relies for its character partly on the local way of speaking. Maybe they take a lead from a native of that place. But how close would they really want to get the natives accent ? Is the native version always "better" ? And how about a non-native english speaker who has traces of a foreign accent ? How close do they have to get ? Or is their accent sometimes attractive addition ?
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by David50
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
- Chrishty: The fiddle is in with the flute, pipes and whistle not because it can imitate most of the cuts and rolls of the pipes and flute (bar the open strings), but because most of the cuts and rolls etc are exactly the same ... identical.
But yes, this discussion about articulating rhythms.
- ronan: I refer you to the above.
- Chrishty: of course you are close, but I'm not saying the pipes/flute/fiddle group is superior, just different. Where anyone's preferences lie is immaterial. The group including button boxes has developed its own dialect of articulations, as has the group including the fretted strings.
- Mike Floorstand: 1. ha ha, very good.
- nicholas: Yes, very good.
- timo: "So What?" It's merely that a lot of people don't understand it.
- Rob: it's just an analogy, go with it or not, but I'm being specific. I'm likening language to the music, dialect to articulation and accent to style.
You can speak cockney rhyming slang with a Geordie accent and still be speaking English. You can speak with backward syntax like Yoda in an American accent and still be speaking English.
On your concertina, you can play music from Donegal and still be playing Irish music. You can play the fiddle like Liz Carroll and still be playing Irish music.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
"I know this is a bit of a flogged horse, but there really has never been any resolution on it. People seem to get uptight and judgmental about it which is daft. So I'm trying another angle."
Sorry, llig, but maybe we can try & get some resolution, if you could be clearer about what you want us to resolve. If this is a burning issue for you, don't keep it locked up inside mystical hand-waving!
What exactly do you want to resolve?
That somebody can do a proper Yoda impression with an American accent???
That you can only try and articulate your instrument within a particular grouping? In fact, that's what the music "desires" you to do??? In which case, what should SWFL's harmonica friend do?
I appreciate that fiddles & boxes are played in different ways. But, are you suggesting that box players have nothing to learn from fiddlers and vice versa?
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by -ronan-
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Just for the record, this here Yank can do a fine Yoda impersonation, so says my seven year old son.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Quite simply, I 'd like people to acknowledge that while a fiddle can articulate like a flute (mostly), a button box and a banjo can't. I'm not being judgmental, really I'm not. It's just a plain fact.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
For the record just, but a pom just am I. And my daughter five she is reckons master jedi am I
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Also, and this is very important, anyone who thinks that anyone else has nothing to teach them is a t w a t
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I agree - well, I can't articulate my melodeon playing in exactly the way I articulate my whistle playing. Maybe it *can* be done, but it might turn out to be difficult and freakish exercise without a lot of point - a bit like training a dog to be a cat.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by nicholas
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I think I understand what Michael is trying to say. Each instrument has it's own way of 'speaking', and they shouldn't be played in a way that's an attempt to imitate a different instrument.
I've ofter told beginners who are learning from the dots not to be too fixated on playing every note that's written down. I'm certain some of the passing notes have been put in by the person that transcribed the tune simply because they make playing that tune easier on their own particular instrument. This is especially the case on the notes used to move from one part to the next, or to return to the top when repeating a part.
My take is, if it's very difficult to play then it probably wasn't written for your instrument. Try something easier.
Similarly with ornaments, it's not always nice if all instruments attempt the same roll at the same time. I try to vary ornamentation to complement the other players rather than exactly match what they are doing.
I think the reason I particularly like box and banjo as a combination is that the two have very distinct 'accents', and it's exactly that difference of articulation that makes them good to hear together. Each instrument is emphasised separately, in different places, which makes the differences stand out.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by bc_box_player
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Yes bc, It can often be a great combination where instruments from different groups avoid any semblance of unison. The heart of the tune can achieve an unexpected ringing out, lovely.
But you are wrong when you suggest that I'm saying there is any "should" or "shouldn't".
I do think there is a natural tendancy for unison playing in the music, and that's how the unison of fiddle, flute and pipes comes about. But I agree that the whole ethos of variation is to compliment
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
My wife reckons I roll my arze - all night and every night, one bloody side of the bed to the other she says.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by Steve Shaw
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Much learned have I, piping and fluting my fiddle with, yet in the end, a fiddle all it is.
Ok, that's entirely too much fun. Back to Dagobah with I.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
LOL! Oh, poor Missus Shaw!
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Cheers Llig this a great discussion. I like to sing in the car and in the shower. I am a rubbish singer, but when I sing in American or cockney accents I sound remarkably in tune (although still rubbish). I am neither an American or a cockney, yet for some reason I feel comfortable singing with these accents (don't get me wrong. I am irritated by English people singing with an American accent in public). When I play musical instruments I don't think about accents. I just think about the tune: the story and emotion that I think it represents. However, when I listen to music I do think about accents/dialects. Has anyone noticed, for example, that Germans play ITM with a distinctly 'German' accent? It's fine but doesn't quite sound like the real thing. French people seem to have a musical accent too. A friend of mine from Brittany plays ITM on the flute with a 'French' accent, but he still sounds essentially Celtic. Do you think there is such a thing as an 'overall' Celtic accent, and that people from Celtic places (including Ireland) are playing with their own national/regional dialects?
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by McDermott
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
PS Steve Shaw: my wife says the same, but I always seem to wake up in the morning with about 3 inches of mattress and no duvet . . .
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by McDermott
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
When I was young, my mother taught me the essential stereotype about the English: "I shall 'it you over the 'ead with a 'eavy 'ammer and make you 'owl 'orribly!" Imagine how disappointed I am as an adult to find out that it's "R" they can't say.
I always thought one of the cool things about Irish music was its diversity - you've got all these quite different sounding instruments, and here they can play complicated melodies at a great clip. Who would have thought that fiddle and pipes could fit together in such a mesmerizing fashion as they do on the Paddy & Paddy recording? Or the Siobhan Peoples and Murty Ryan cd? Or <insert endless examples here>...
Having a variety of instruments with different voices is one of the things that makes this music so interesting, starting with the way you can usually hear those voices around you in the room - I can put my ear on the pipes, fiddles, flutes, whistles, bouzouki, banjo, concertina, or I would if that fellow with the 4-voice box hadn't started up right beside me.
That plus the general attitude of "today we've got these instruments and these personalities in the room, let's start it up and get to work" means that there's always room for different combinations of voices and ideas to work together and bounce off each other, which usually makes for a good time.
Except that once in a pub in Sligo I heard someone playing a "tight" style of piping, and if I hadn't seen him do it I might have thought it was a fiddle.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by Gzeg
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I remember when I was a kid hearing that classic James Kelly and Liam O'Flynn duet on that Planxty album and wishing the fiddle was a bit louder in the mix. Later, of course, with better educated ears, I could hear it as it is - 50/50. It's an astonishingly terrific piece of music.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
It's the next morning now but I think your analogy works better if you say:
ITM and its recognisable derivatives are the language
Significant regional variations of tunes are dialect
Phrasing, ornamentation, everything to do with the instrument or the style of the player are accent.
But I agree with your main point anyway!
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by Rob
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
no, it's the other way round. Because you can tell where a player on any instrument is from, and/or who they've been listening to by their style, their accent. And I'm likening dialect to the articulations specific to certain groupings of instruments.
It's important to make the distinction. This is the whole point of the thread. You can change your style of playing, but you can't change what articulations are available to you.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
On the vocal side of the analogy I am struggling with the idea of someone reading a Robert Burns poem with a strong brummie accent. It raises questions like "would it work" and "why do it". Cockney rhyming slang in a Geordie accent is not the same thing. What are the equivalents on your side of the analogy ?
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by David50
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I would agree with Chrishty - the fiddle should be in a category of its own. The scope for articulation on this instrument is seemingly infinite - much greater than for other session instruments. I've heard as many playing styles as I've heard fiddlers. Unfortunately, these subtlies sometimes get lost in the context of a crowded session...
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by Mix O'Lydian
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Dialect sometimes needs to be translated. Is that one of your points ?
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by David50
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Rather that putting the fiddle in a category of it's own, it may be possible to put it in more than one category, for example, there is little very little banjo articulation that you can't do on a fiddle. But the point of the groupings, the criteria for the categories, is that the instruments within them have a large amount of articulations that they share.
David, Yes, in that the articulations of one group have to be translated by another group. And what do you mean when you say, "Cockney rhyming slang in a Geordie accent is not the same thing." The same thing as what? Cockney rhyming slang in a Cockney accent? Yes, but it's still English and you can understand it. A concertina playing Donegal music is not the same thing as a fiddle playing Donegal music, but done well it's still recognisably Irish diddley music
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Sorry, not the same as a Scots poem in a brummie accent. There comes a point where it may be better to translate and get at least part of the 'message' packaged up in a fresh way.
Is that the concertina and the (pipe- or whistle-style) rolls ?
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by David50
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Are tunes like dialect poems ?
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by David50
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I thing the difference is that Burns didn't write in English. Where as Cockney rhyming slang is English.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
same here, Mix. I would also suggest (eith as little bias as possible) that the pipes are also a separate "Dialect". Even go so far as to say that the free reeds each have their own dialect too. Banjo is clearly a different dialect from guitar. as is the whistle from the flute. Llig, i see your point about lumping certain groups of instruments together, and i appreciate the elegance of your analogy. i have long thought along these same lines. Oh, and by the way, what's a brummie accent??
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by pipewatcher
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Agreed, pipewatcher. And the pipes would probably come only second only to the fiddle in terms of the degree of articulation possible.
Brummie accent - Birmingham accent.
Birmingham, England, that is - not Birmingham Alabama!
It's a nasal sing-song accent, not highly regarded in many quarters. Probably unfairly so. The folks in that city have a great sense of humour, which sets well with their "Brummie" accent.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by Mix O'Lydian
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Do articulations have to be translated, or are a separate set of articulations developed that compliment other instruments?
If I understand your analogy correctly in a session that is working well the various accents and their articulations fit together perfectly as the musicians listen to each other and adjust accordingly.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by Sugarfoot Jack
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
i have a good whistle player friend from the. i love his accent. never heard that term. is it derogatory or just colloqiuial?
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by pipewatcher
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
The New York (Bronx) accent would probably be the nearest US "equivalent"!
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by Mix O'Lydian
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
<i>"The folks in that city have a great sense of humour, which sets well with their "Brummie" accent."</i>
Bostin!
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by Sugarfoot Jack
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
x-posted. To brummie, that is.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by Mix O'Lydian
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Yes, they are all different, and how different is interesting. But when playing music togther, how similar is more pertinent What do the instruments share? A category with only one thing in it is not a category.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
hehheh. good point.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by pipewatcher
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I'm not from Birmingham myself, Sugarfoot.
Bristol, in fact. Another city with a much-maligned accent. Accept that we don't even have a sense of humour!
I don't recall ever hearing anyone with a broad Bristol or Birmingham accent reading the national news on the BBC. If you speak with a Newcastle, Scottish or Northland Ireland accent though, you're pretty much guaranted to get the job. All coincidence of course, as the BBC is an "equal opportunties" employer ...
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by Mix O'Lydian
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
OK, Scots is not english, but cockney rhyming slang is not dialect, its slang and accent.
This is dialect (with spelling to suggest pronunciation): "Aw know hoo boxed me rarely once". Out of context the meaning is not too clear .
I get your point, but the anoaogy is awkward, hence the misunderstandings.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by David50
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
analogy
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by David50
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Flutes, whistle - a close match.
But guitar and banjo? Although both fretted, they are played in an entirely different way at most ITM sessions. i.e. guitar - rhythm, tenor banjo - melody.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by Mix O'Lydian
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Michael
" that classic James Kelly and Liam O'Flynn duet on that Planxty album............ an astonishingly terrific piece of music."
Which duet on which album??
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by domnull
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
The difference between dialect and accent is that different dialects use different words and grammar, Accent is merely the different timbre of the same words.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I can't remember the names of all the tunes, but the last one is the spike island lasses, on Words and Music
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
"Let's have a look" and, as I'd say it "Let's 'av a luke" is accent. "Giz a butchers" is dialect.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Scots is considered by some to be a dialect of English as is Cockney. The rhyming slang is a different story.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by pipewatcher
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Fine. So concertina rolls and pipe rolls are different words. Grammer is the phrasing, yes ? Or no ?
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by David50
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
why?
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Sorry, that why was for pipewatcher
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I'm with pipewatcher. "Giz a butchers" is slang.
"Aw know hoo boxed me rarely once" (Lancashire, Samuel Laycock) = "I know she gave me a good boxing [round the ears] once" is dialect.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by David50
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
llig-
Rhyming slang is what it says- slang. Aussies have it , there are military and penal versions of it. i mean that it is in itself more of a linguistic device. Cockney as a dialect includes its own Rhyming Slang
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by pipewatcher
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
OK, so maybe "Giz" = "Give us" = "Give me" is dialect.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by David50
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
yes, Cockney Rhyming Slang when spoken in Cockney is spoken "in dialect"
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by pipewatcher
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Should we have said: "Giz a butchers" = "Let me see" (as in "can I have a look please")
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by David50
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Yes, is two people say "Let's have a look" and, "Let's 'av a luke" at the same time, it sounds OK. Buy it two people say "Let's have a look" and, "Giz a butchers" at the same time it's kind of messy. You can still understand them both, but it would be easier if they didn't speak together
I'd say that grammar is part of dialect. Someone who doesn't speak properly has a different dialect than someone that don't speak proper. Some would say that one is correct, I wouldn't.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
bloody hell:
Yes, if two people say "Let's have a look" and, "Let's 'av a luke" at the same time, it sounds OK. Buy if two people say "Let's have a look" and, "Giz a butchers" at the same time it's kind of messy. You can still understand them both, but it would be easier if they didn't speak together
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I don't differentiate between what is slang and what is propper language. Language is fluid, Keep your rules in school
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
maybe "Giz a butcher's"> Give us a butcher's (hook)> Cockney R.S.>butcher's hook=look. Grammar has a great deal to do with Dialectal distinction, whether it be improper or "alternate", but bad grammar in itself does not denote a different dialect
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by pipewatcher
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
"Yes, if two people say "Let's have a look" and, "Let's 'av a luke" at the same time, it sounds OK" (llig).
Which is what I was getting at in the bit above about songs round the campfire. But if some of that group decide to do a 'performance' they will probably discuss ironing out some of those minor differences - an arrangement.
And if one of them insists on saying "Giz a butchers" ?
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by David50
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Yes, bad grammar in itself does not denote a different dialect, but if it's done consistently in a geographic area I think it does.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
maybe the others could try "Giz a luke"?
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by pipewatcher
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
So where do bodhrans fit into all this?
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by Sugarfoot Jack
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
yep-that's one of the ways. now we're getting into much finer lines. dialect can also be separated along socio-economic lines. Slightly different territory there. I had a Dutch friend in college.He grew up 5 miles from Germany his grandmother, who was born in 189-something , grew up speaking a dialect of Dutch which he could not understand. Here in the Southern USA many people speak in what could be cosidered a dialect. "Y'all" is dialect. "Ain't"is incorrect grammar. Not all southerners say ain't
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by pipewatcher
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
That would be like a few people sitting around having a chat, and constantly being interupted by a bloody parrot squarking random words at you
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
parrot/bodhran
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
OK. I think (?) I have got the words/articulations part sorted out. But what about the grammar part of the dialect analogy. Is it phrasing, or do the different "words" beg a different ("box friendly", "mandolin friendly") version. So then If its cockney song can the company decide to try sing "Giz a butchers" as best they can ?
(and I had just chickened out of asking about bodhrans)
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by David50
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
As we've said, grammar is a part of dialect if it's done consistently in a geographic area. "Correct" grammar is an artificial construct along the same lines as the distinction between proper language and slang.
But I don't think grammar is analogous to phrasing. I thing phrasing in language is analogous to phrasing in music. And I think that a lot of the specifics of Irish diddley music phrasing can cross the different articulation groups I outlined at the beginning.
Breathing, for example, though only necessary on the flute and whistle, can and should be utilised on other instruments. And the accenting of certain notes for rhythmic punch is easy on just about every instrument except the pipes, if you use dynamics. But for the very reason that pipes accent notes without the use of dynamics, it's well worth while learning how to do it the way the pipes do.
There are exceptions though. For example, choosing to play a phrase or a bit of a phrase very smoothly, slurring, is easy on the fiddle and flute and pipes (and a PA and english concertina), but very hard on a banjo or a button box that has push pull mechanics.
But it's difficult to distuinguish between articulation and phrasing, and I'm not sure it's worth trying. So much of phrasing is done with articulation. (Which kind of contradicts what I've said above)
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
So grammar, which often involves word order, is not a very useful element of the analogy ?
If you don't distinguish between articulation and phrasing then are you not losing some of the useful similarity in how those words are applied to music and speech ? I tend to think of phrasing being more about what is being said than how it is being said.
As Jusa said early on "With my banjo, I simple cannot articulate some of the phrases in the same manner as a fiddle or flute. I have to use my ears and create something close in order to communicate the same idea"
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by David50
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
grammar in spoken language is not just word order, but past/presant tense etc. Conjugating verbs and all that stuff. But I suppose it could be analogous to variation. Or it could be like when someone learns a tune a bit wrong and someone else learns that wrong version and it then becomes a "version".
But as for distinguishing between articulation and phrasing:
Phrasing is definitely how something is being said. The tune is what is being said.
That classic "Eats, shoots and leaves" and "Eats shoots and leaves" is all about phrasing. And introduces another thing in language with can be analogous to music, punctuation.
The comma indicates a slight pause which changes the meaning from a panda's diet to a bloke killing someone after scoffing a meal and before exiting.
The punctuation used or not used in diddley music is equally important. The punctuation itself is often articulation and it defines the phrasing.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
In fact, it's the use of articulation in defining phrasing that elevates the music from strict prose into poetry. Punctuating your phrasing well can bring to the music beautiful levels of ambiguity. With the precise and subtle placing of varied articulations you can give the same notes meanings as different as a murder and apander's.
This is one of the reasons I often prefer the music sans strumming. Without stacked harmony defining your tonal centre, you are much freer to leave it hovering in ambiguity
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
a pander's diet
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
So I should have said " I tend to think of a phrase as saying something (communicating an idea) and articulation as how it is being said, or is joined to and set apart from adjacent phrases".
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by David50
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
chord sequences = doggerel ?
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by David50
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I take it you've not read it
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Counted the posts but didn't read any, eh?
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Jinx Llig, you owe me a Coke.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I threw this nonsense up on the other thread, thought it might go well here too:
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/20308/comments#comment424551
...which is why these instruments claim your top tier from your other thread, in regards to their similar dialects, I wager?
So in actuality, it's a hierarchy of how they articulate, what the particular dialect is of the instrument in question. I think that perhaps this is really the only defining factor of a hierarchy of instrumentation, how closely the dialect of the particular instrument manages to jive with the sounds that top tier makes, like when the fiddle and pipes 'disappear' into each other.
Again, I'm not adding anything new here, nothing exciting, probably blathering on for no good reason, just making notes, summarizing, etc. Helps me to understand at least.
Mandatory disclaimer: Of course all the other instruments not in that top tier have their own dialects and sound wonderful, boxes, banjos, harmonicas, etc. and truly skilled players use these unique dialects to mesh with that top tier.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Except that you sometimes hear banjo and flute 'disappear' into each other by synchronising the attack. Sounds a bit like a banjo with sustain.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by David50
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Llig, it sounds as though you haven't been to work today. I have - and am entertained to return and find this still rolling!
I'm glad to read that you do know the difference between dialect and accent because I wasn't sure at first.
A thread to be proud of: did you practise this first, learn it from someone at a session, record it digitally or are you making it up as you go along?!
We'll carry on the discussion at the session tonight where several people regularly tune in to look at this site.
Thanks.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by Rob
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Thanks! (As in, enjoying it!)
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by Rob
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
From my Pop (aka 'Da') after his reading of this thread:
"Very interesting discussion. I've done much studying through my piano playing, choral singing and college course work(in particular "Form and Analysis" ) in regards to phrasing and their comparison to the written or spoken word grammar. There is much that is comparable and some, due to the nature of the expression, is not. The near identical analogy comes in singing the written word. But even there, much is often altered to fit direction and flow of the music. And, likewise, composers often have to alter their themes or melodies to better fit the words because of either the sound or meaning demands it."
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I was at work, but doing my end of year accounts, so easily distracted.
# Posted on January 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Like Rob, I wondered if I was the only one at work today! ;)
Ok, I think I see now where you're going with your analogy - not sure I totally agree with it, but it's interesting, nonetheless.
1. People CAN learn other dialects, and switch between them, so with your analogy, they should be able to switch between articulations, but you're saying the opposite?
2. The example of a conversation with people with different accents vs dialects. Well, in a session, everyone (hopefully) is playing the same tune. It would be a boring conversation if everyone was saying the same sentences at the same time!
3. There's a certain irony, in comparing dialects and accents to music, when so many singers sing without their own accent! I remember, the first time I heard Annie Lennox (when she was in the Eurythmics) being interviewed - and going "She's Scottish?" ;)
Still, it's an interesting analogy, and has brought up some good ideas & points. Cheers!
By the way, llig, reading all this, it gives some insight into your comments on previous threads (particularly guitar-related ones), that have previously seemed bizarre to me (& to many others too, judging by later comments in those threads).
I can't find them all, but here's a recent one, as an example:
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/20291#comment424083
To be honest, re-reading it, I still amn't sure that such comments are relevant, or maybe I should say they don't seem relevant without understanding where you're coming from.
So, maybe, if you GENUINELY want to get your point across, you could try & be more specific when commenting on such threads, rather than making a cryptic statement, and then complaining that people don't understand you...
Hopefully, that doesn't come across as rude :(, I just thought I'd mention it, cause you do seem to have a lot of very useful insights into this music, but I'm sure I'm not the only newbie (to ITM as well as thesession) that finds it hard to decipher much relevance out of your comments when they're thrown into a thread like that...
Which is a pity..., unless, of course, you're not actually interested in people learning from you, but just want to get a rise out of them, in which case, fair enough! ;)
# Posted on January 14th 2009 by -ronan-
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
1. The reason people can learn other dialects, and switch between them is that the construction of our lips, tongues, vocal chords etc are the same. Humans share the physical mechanics of how we speak. The reason a guitar cannot reproduce the articulations of flute is because the way the sound is produced on the two instruments is completely different. It's like asking a grasshopper to reproduce the sounds of a nightingale.
2. I agree, but you just have to be aware of the mess.
3. Yes, that is ironic.
The reason I started this thread was because people often don't see the relevance of my comments. Of course I'm interested in people learning.
The "Guitar Lead Instrument or Rhythm?" thread was typical of many. And my post: "Fretted string instruments are not capable of the many articulations developed for the flute, pipes, whistle and fiddle" is directly relevant. How can I be more specific than that? I'm really not being cryptic at all, and it's because people don't seem to understand, I started this thread.
# Posted on January 14th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
I would never say "don't ever learn from musical notation". I'd say something along the lines of, "if you are unfamiliar with this music, it can't be learned from musical notation." And then I'd probably explain for the billionth time why. And that would be directly relevant
Saying things that people don't want to hear is just part and parcel of everything. The discussion section is what it says it is. It's not "got a question? Post it here". You may start with a question, but don't be surprised when someone questions your question.
Controversy is a good thing, it makes you think. And it's only those who don't/can't think that end up being divisive.
# Posted on January 14th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
If that's the way you feel, then petition Jeremy to change the name of this section of his website. Then I'll comply
# Posted on January 14th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
CTRL+A Copy ?
# Posted on January 14th 2009 by David50
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Just be thankful you don't sound like this (if you don't). llig, is this your dialect:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=B8QcrF1oBwg&NR=1
# Posted on January 14th 2009 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Cripes people. Ever had a mean teacher before? No? You've lived a shelteres life.
As I've said a million times before, the grouchy man in the back of the pub hollering 'yer not doing it right!' can teach you just as much as the happy smiling 'feel-good' feller.
The inability to learn from both is not their fault, but yours.
Just be glad we don't have a Zen tradition in 'the music'. WHACK! Enlightened now? No? WHACK!
# Posted on January 14th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
'sheltered', sorry.
# Posted on January 14th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Hi llig,
Actually, I'm not criticising you making controversial or divisive comments! If I wanted to hear somebody tell me a viewpoint I already knew, I certainly wouldn't visit this site - that's one of the best points of this site!
Personally, I reckon most things in life aren't simple black or white issues, and if you want to understand something properly, you need to see it from several different angles (one of the reasons analogies, like the one you're positing here, can be useful)
So, even if I may not agree fully with certain things you say - sure, your username even seems kind of back-to-front to me! ;) - I still find it interesting to hear them, and if I can develop a broader perspective from listening to them, then all the better!
What I was suggesting, was that in some of your comments, you might be better able to "articulate" :p your thoughts, in order to better convey your ideas (especially to the newbies, who aren't as familiar with your style, and arguably most in need of hearing your "controversial" viewpoints!)
For instance in the example I gave above, the poster wanted to know why very few guitarists in the sessions he had been to, play melody.
You commented
"Fretted string instruments are not capable of the many articulations developed for the flute, pipes, whistle and fiddle."
Did you mean, perhaps,
The flute, whistle & fiddle are better able to get the "articulations" of the pipes than the guitar, and so, may be closer to the tradition of the original music. So, rather than trying to learn how to play melody on the guitar, why don't you consider learning one of those instruments instead?
Cause, if that's what you meant, I might not entirely agree with it, but at least it's relevant to the thread, and an interesting suggestion for the poster to bear in mind...
Obviously, I'm not saying you should change your style of writing - that doesn't sound at all like the way you'd say something! We all have our own way of writing - my own comments often tend to be very long, particularly in a long thread like this one! Sorry!!! :(
Just, that if you want the newbies to take your ideas on board, and not have to keep repeating them, maybe you could try & rephrase them, somehow... I don't know how exactly... I was just making a suggestion...
Anyway, all this typing is very tedious. I wish I had the new Apple MacBook Wheel! None of these cumbersome "keyboards"! ;)
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/apple_introduces_revolutionary
# Posted on January 14th 2009 by -ronan-
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Exactly, John, it would be debatable. And, at least then, it could be debated!!!
As it was, in that particular case, I think many people didn't understand what he was getting at (myself included), and so couldn't debate with him. Which seems a shame, because it could have been a useful discussion. :(
For instance, the harp may go further back than the pipes, as you say, but to be fair the "dance music" (jigs, reels, etc) does seem to have been predominantly pipe music. Interestingly, a lot of harp music (like O'Carolan's) is often played by guitarists...
So, there is something to that argument.
But, having said that, I have a hunch that if instruments like the guitar, the box, mandolin, etc had been invented/common at the time, they could have been as prevalent in the music as they are today.
I think these other instruments are so popular in ITM because they ARE able to capture the essence of the tunes!
Sure, they may have different forms of articulation, but just because they are different, doesn't necessarily mean anything is lost. In fact, it seems to me to be a gain to the music.
I think Jon's comment up near the start of this thread is quite relevant here:
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display.php/20296#comment424256
# Posted on January 14th 2009 by -ronan-
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
dialect, articulation and another language analogy, how to...
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=T4_MsrsKzMM
# Posted on January 15th 2009 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Duijera, brilliant!
# Posted on January 16th 2009 by -ronan-
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
It's a gem isn't it!
# Posted on January 16th 2009 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
love it, laughed mi socks off
# Posted on January 16th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Same, llig. I couldn't see the screen for laughin' at it.
(Only problem with this is - people who aren't familiar with Joe, think the captions there are what he is actually singing, and they miss the humor.) That's funny too, in a way eh.
# Posted on January 16th 2009 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
So Joe Cocker is a banjo and The Beatles are the pipes, right?
I think I need to go do some bread after that video. Maybe a La-Z-Boy too for good measure.
# Posted on January 16th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
A laz-e-boy, a banjo and a loaf of bread. What more could a guy want?!
# Posted on January 16th 2009 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
That's beautiful Dubh, Omar Khayyam right?
# Posted on January 16th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
Only for old rockers, SW? Good karma sofa.
# Posted on January 16th 2009 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: dialect and articulation, another language analogy
haha, amazing, thanks Dubh. How come rock singers get away with all the things my teachers warn me off?
# Posted on January 16th 2009 by suesinger