My current learning tune is The Battering Ram, a lovely little 3-part jig. I've been following it up with The Blarney Pilgrim, and I think the two sound well together, except that the transition from the last part of Ram into the opening phrase of Pilgrim is just sort of ho-hum. My brain keeps hearing the dramatic third part of Pilgrim as the natural transition from the last part of Ram, so I tried it and I really like the transition, then I just go into the beginning of Pilgrim as usual for another couple of times through. This is a really nice sounding transition.
I know this is unorthodox, but how unorthodox is it? How would your local session feel about someone introducing that set? I'm just curious for input. I like it, but I know I'm breaking from tradition. The question is, am I committing a mortal sin or a venial sin?
Well Jimmy, we'd probably all look at you like you had two heads, and then wonder why you did that.
I would imagine the transition would be smooth at a session, because folks would wait to see what you started after Battering Ram...and then they would look on in shock when they realized that what was following The Ram was the C part of The Pilgrim. There would be no train wreck because people would just be shocked. Ha ha.
The painfully polite among us may pick up with you on the A part, or sooner. The polar opposite of them may glare, mutter and/or curse. Perhaps throw things, not sure, to each surly one their own.
I suppose the change isn't particularly exciting alright.
If you made the change you suggest with me, I'd probably raise an eyebrow, then just carry on playing. Don't think I'd lose any sleep over it. It's not a cardinal sin or anything. I've seen it done loads of times.
I think if it were me though, I'd look at other options rather than rearranging the parts in the tune. Try sticking this tune between them:
Given the smiley I'm assuming your second para is in jest, in which case skip down to the next para. Trad is about having fun, a good time (yep, even the slow airs and sean nós singing) It's about life. It doesn't have "rules", only conventions. Conventions that can change or be added to over time. In this case, all that matters is whether other trad musician copy what you're doing and still think they're playing trad. If you really understand that, then your questions are redundant.
So, trying to answer your questions in turn:
People have swapped the order of parts within tunes as long as I can remember. It's not even uncommon to swap parts between tunes. So yes it's unorthodox but not very.
As to how any of my local pub seisiúns would feel about it, to my ear it's not so "nice sounding" that it'd be the sort of thing I can imagine many people picking up on. As you seem to recognise, it's introducing an "arrangement", something more formal, into an informal social gathering. You're going to have to go through an explanation with whoever you're playing with and then hope they remember what you've said when you get to the change. What happens next, depends their reaction to the almost inevitable "car crash". Will the people you're playing with want to try your "arrangement" again that same evening or the next week? That's the only thing that matters.
All you're suggesting is a break with convention not a "breaking with tradition". Accepting and rejecting new tunes, instruments, styles etc is trad in action. A "mortal sin or a venial sin"? Hardly.
Yes, you're right PJ, it was in jest. I was just curious. My tune repertoire is still pretty limited. I know what I like, and I learn tunes that I like as opposed to learning something for the sake of it being a common tune at my session. I have alot to learn and even to listen to and hear for that matter. For all I know, this is something that's been done at my local sessions many times, but I'm just not experienced enough yet to have picked up on it. I simply stumbled upon a transition that I liked and wondered how it would fair in the informal setting.
For all we know the third part could have originated with a tune that was commonly played after Blarney Pilgrim that stuck, much like the third part to the reel Gneevgullia/Paddy Cronin's/ Pride of Rathmore.
Eh, just go right into the C part of The Blarney Pilgrim from Battering Ram, and play TBP three times through, ending with the B part. When people ask you why you played the parts in the wrong order, look at them quizzically and reply, "Wrong? That's the way we always played it back in Ballywhatsit." Your mates will appreciate the historical perspective, and will abandon their provincial setting of the tune forthwith.
Seriously, though, I play with some folks who learned certain tunes (Woodchopper's Breakdown, Dick Gossip's) "backwards" relative to how I did, and I've since learned that with regards to these tunes, opinion is divided as to which part is the A and which is the B. Now I'm wondering if someone pulled the trick you're considering, and it stuck.
Arrangement Question
Arrangement Question
My current learning tune is The Battering Ram, a lovely little 3-part jig. I've been following it up with The Blarney Pilgrim, and I think the two sound well together, except that the transition from the last part of Ram into the opening phrase of Pilgrim is just sort of ho-hum. My brain keeps hearing the dramatic third part of Pilgrim as the natural transition from the last part of Ram, so I tried it and I really like the transition, then I just go into the beginning of Pilgrim as usual for another couple of times through. This is a really nice sounding transition.
I know this is unorthodox, but how unorthodox is it? How would your local session feel about someone introducing that set? I'm just curious for input. I like it, but I know I'm breaking from tradition. The question is, am I committing a mortal sin or a venial sin?
Thanks for any input
# Posted on February 24th 2010 by Jimmy B
Re: Arrangement Question
Well Jimmy, we'd probably all look at you like you had two heads, and then wonder why you did that.
I would imagine the transition would be smooth at a session, because folks would wait to see what you started after Battering Ram...and then they would look on in shock when they realized that what was following The Ram was the C part of The Pilgrim. There would be no train wreck because people would just be shocked. Ha ha.
The painfully polite among us may pick up with you on the A part, or sooner. The polar opposite of them may glare, mutter and/or curse. Perhaps throw things, not sure, to each surly one their own.
# Posted on February 24th 2010 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Arrangement Question
I suppose the change isn't particularly exciting alright.
If you made the change you suggest with me, I'd probably raise an eyebrow, then just carry on playing. Don't think I'd lose any sleep over it. It's not a cardinal sin or anything. I've seen it done loads of times.
I think if it were me though, I'd look at other options rather than rearranging the parts in the tune. Try sticking this tune between them:
http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display/702
There you go. A 3 tune set with decent changes. The key change to G in the middle one will lift it a bit.
Hope this helps.
# Posted on February 24th 2010 by tradshark
Re: Arrangement Question
Given the smiley I'm assuming your second para is in jest, in which case skip down to the next para. Trad is about having fun, a good time (yep, even the slow airs and sean nós singing) It's about life. It doesn't have "rules", only conventions. Conventions that can change or be added to over time. In this case, all that matters is whether other trad musician copy what you're doing and still think they're playing trad. If you really understand that, then your questions are redundant.
So, trying to answer your questions in turn:
People have swapped the order of parts within tunes as long as I can remember. It's not even uncommon to swap parts between tunes. So yes it's unorthodox but not very.
As to how any of my local pub seisiúns would feel about it, to my ear it's not so "nice sounding" that it'd be the sort of thing I can imagine many people picking up on. As you seem to recognise, it's introducing an "arrangement", something more formal, into an informal social gathering. You're going to have to go through an explanation with whoever you're playing with and then hope they remember what you've said when you get to the change. What happens next, depends their reaction to the almost inevitable "car crash". Will the people you're playing with want to try your "arrangement" again that same evening or the next week? That's the only thing that matters.
All you're suggesting is a break with convention not a "breaking with tradition". Accepting and rejecting new tunes, instruments, styles etc is trad in action. A "mortal sin or a venial sin"? Hardly.
# Posted on February 24th 2010 by Sweeney Astray
Re: Arrangement Question
Yes, you're right PJ, it was in jest. I was just curious. My tune repertoire is still pretty limited. I know what I like, and I learn tunes that I like as opposed to learning something for the sake of it being a common tune at my session. I have alot to learn and even to listen to and hear for that matter. For all I know, this is something that's been done at my local sessions many times, but I'm just not experienced enough yet to have picked up on it. I simply stumbled upon a transition that I liked and wondered how it would fair in the informal setting.
Anyway, thanks for all the input so far.
# Posted on February 24th 2010 by Jimmy B
Re: Arrangement Question
If you like to follow The Battering Ram with the first phrase from the third part of Blarney P, maybe you should play this one instead:-
http://thesession.org/tunes/display/31
# Posted on February 24th 2010 by Jerry O'Donnell
Re: Arrangement Question
For all we know the third part could have originated with a tune that was commonly played after Blarney Pilgrim that stuck, much like the third part to the reel Gneevgullia/Paddy Cronin's/ Pride of Rathmore.
# Posted on February 24th 2010 by Earl Cameron
Re: Arrangement Question
Hey Jimmy, If you drop that into the mix at one of our locals, I'll dive in and back you up home-slice. Bring that funky transition. It's all good.
# Posted on February 24th 2010 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: Arrangement Question
Thanks mate. I was afraid I might get strange looks at Metro if I tried that.
# Posted on February 25th 2010 by Jimmy B
Re: Arrangement Question
Oh, you'll get strange looks all right. But then again, I live for prompting and getting strange looks.
Of course the transitions might flow more agreeably in their natural state by flipping the tunes? Either way it's all good.
# Posted on February 25th 2010 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: Arrangement Question
Eh, just go right into the C part of The Blarney Pilgrim from Battering Ram, and play TBP three times through, ending with the B part. When people ask you why you played the parts in the wrong order, look at them quizzically and reply, "Wrong? That's the way we always played it back in Ballywhatsit." Your mates will appreciate the historical perspective, and will abandon their provincial setting of the tune forthwith.
Seriously, though, I play with some folks who learned certain tunes (Woodchopper's Breakdown, Dick Gossip's) "backwards" relative to how I did, and I've since learned that with regards to these tunes, opinion is divided as to which part is the A and which is the B. Now I'm wondering if someone pulled the trick you're considering, and it stuck.
# Posted on February 25th 2010 by Tall, Dark, and Mysterious
Re: Arrangement Question
Dick Gossip's is a good example. So is Morning Dew/Hare in the Heather - the three sections in that tune get flipped regionally all the time.
# Posted on February 25th 2010 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: Arrangement Question
Miss McLeod's is another dolphin tune.
# Posted on February 25th 2010 by ramblingpitchfork
Re: Arrangement Question
And Anderson's. You never know which direction that one will go in.
I like that term "dolphin tune". Mind if I borrow it?
# Posted on February 25th 2010 by tradshark
Re: Arrangement Question
PJ's response is perfect!
# Posted on February 27th 2010 by Jacksquat0