I was browsing around the recordings, and found a bit of a rant from Big Dave; upset with people who just post a recording and motor off without posting comments. I agreed wholeheartedly, and ask that when you post a recording, PLEASE say why you like it, what the band is, etc. or at least provide a link to the band's website or a review of the CD. It helps us know what we may consider purchasing, etc.
thanks,
Mark
It would be great if we could the same level of discussion going in the recordings section that we have in the tunes section.
I think I'll go back and look through recordings I've submitted and add some comments.
I bet we'll get some heated debates when it comes to those kind of artists that some people absolutely adore that leave other people cold - I'm looking at you Eileen Ivers... and I don't know what you're looking so smug about, Martin Hayes; you're next, just as soon as we've sorted out whether the Chieftains are ambassadors for Irish music or just the world's most prestigous session musicians.
Same here. I only have one pet peeve about the way we use this site, and that is that people post recordings and tunes, but don't add any comments. Come on, there's got to be something you can say about that recording or the tune. Why did you spend the time transcribing it? It must be important for you somehow, so let us know why!
It's funny. I love ITM as much (and sometimes more, sometimes less) than the next person over in the circle, but I still have no problems with Eileen Ivers and Martin Hayes and Liz Carroll (three musicians who have gotten lots of thumbs down in this forum) -- some of what they do I don't consider particularly traditional-traditional, but I know they can still play me out the door, down the street, back home and under the sofa when they want to play traditionally, and it's their music, their expression, after all -- and to be really really honest, I don't really care all that much for the Chieftains...they're good and all, but there's other players I'd rather listen to.
I guess I just don't understand why people think adding elements of other kinds of music into ITM (at least in the case of a recording -- sessions are different!) is some kind of blasphemy or insult or anathema of any kind. I find all of it interesting (even the Chieftains), listen to a lot of it casually, study and *really* listen to some of it, and try to only ignore the stuff that's bad musically, not necessarily bad traditionally...
Great debate.....
First, we must remember that the Chieftains were the result of a theatrical stage show produced in the 1960's, and that session ensemble playing was a result of public interest in that show, and
the success of the Chieftains. Prior to 1960, there is little record of more than 1 or 2 musicians playing in ensemble in pub sessions. Even 'crossroad dances' typically featured one or two musicians. The point is, session playing is actually a relatively new aspect to the tradition. The tradition is constantly changing and adapting as our society changes, otherwise it would die out.
Second, it seems to me to be a rather common human trait to express resentment/disdain towards those who might have found considerable success, especially when, on the surface, they may
not seem so different from the rest of us. I suspect that the truth is that they may not be so different, but they have taken a different path than the rest of the pack. Their success is not simply a measure of individual musical talent, but is related to the considerable effort and commitment they have devoted to bringing the music to the public.
Thirdly, any person is capable of nothing more, than doing things their own way. That is true whether we are talking about football, or fiddling. Everybody has a different style.
It is an inevitable, immutable truth. Whatever comes out an instrument is a function of the sum total of a persons life experiences. We are all different, physically, morally/ethically, emotionally, spiritually, etc. Every musician has different values, which are based upon the individual identity of the person. Even if we don't care for their music, we should respect the dignity of the person, and refrain from frivolous and petty criticism.
The tradition is constantly changing/evolving, and an artist with a different slant on the music is an essential part of the tradition.
Essentially, I am saying that there is no "pure drop". To claim that one is more 'pure' than another is a subjective evaluation, based upon contemporary, and not traditional, values. Every generation has a different view of what encompasses the tradition.
Witness the rise and fall of the ceilidh band, which came into vogue during the 1930's, and fell out of favour in the 1970's.
Check out the preface to the Fraser Collection, (first published in 1815) and you will find that the author rants against players playing too fast, and changing the music. It seems to me, that if people have been changing the music for that long, then it is a part of the tradition. Further, if anyone is serious about finding the pure drop, then we must look back further than 1960.
Posting Comments in the Recording section
Posting Comments in the Recording section
I was browsing around the recordings, and found a bit of a rant from Big Dave; upset with people who just post a recording and motor off without posting comments. I agreed wholeheartedly, and ask that when you post a recording, PLEASE say why you like it, what the band is, etc. or at least provide a link to the band's website or a review of the CD. It helps us know what we may consider purchasing, etc.
thanks,
Mark
# Posted on August 23rd 2002 by no longer exists
Re: Posting Comments in the Recording section
I agree.
It would be great if we could the same level of discussion going in the recordings section that we have in the tunes section.
I think I'll go back and look through recordings I've submitted and add some comments.
I bet we'll get some heated debates when it comes to those kind of artists that some people absolutely adore that leave other people cold - I'm looking at you Eileen Ivers... and I don't know what you're looking so smug about, Martin Hayes; you're next, just as soon as we've sorted out whether the Chieftains are ambassadors for Irish music or just the world's most prestigous session musicians.
Let the commenting, and the debating, begin...
# Posted on August 23rd 2002 by Jeremy
Re: Posting Comments in the Recording section
Same here. I only have one pet peeve about the way we use this site, and that is that people post recordings and tunes, but don't add any comments. Come on, there's got to be something you can say about that recording or the tune. Why did you spend the time transcribing it? It must be important for you somehow, so let us know why!
# Posted on August 24th 2002 by glauber
Re: Posting Comments in the Recording section
It's funny. I love ITM as much (and sometimes more, sometimes less) than the next person over in the circle, but I still have no problems with Eileen Ivers and Martin Hayes and Liz Carroll (three musicians who have gotten lots of thumbs down in this forum) -- some of what they do I don't consider particularly traditional-traditional, but I know they can still play me out the door, down the street, back home and under the sofa when they want to play traditionally, and it's their music, their expression, after all -- and to be really really honest, I don't really care all that much for the Chieftains...they're good and all, but there's other players I'd rather listen to.
I guess I just don't understand why people think adding elements of other kinds of music into ITM (at least in the case of a recording -- sessions are different!) is some kind of blasphemy or insult or anathema of any kind. I find all of it interesting (even the Chieftains), listen to a lot of it casually, study and *really* listen to some of it, and try to only ignore the stuff that's bad musically, not necessarily bad traditionally...
Zina
# Posted on August 24th 2002 by Zina Lee
Re: Posting Comments in the Recording section
Great debate.....
First, we must remember that the Chieftains were the result of a theatrical stage show produced in the 1960's, and that session ensemble playing was a result of public interest in that show, and
the success of the Chieftains. Prior to 1960, there is little record of more than 1 or 2 musicians playing in ensemble in pub sessions. Even 'crossroad dances' typically featured one or two musicians. The point is, session playing is actually a relatively new aspect to the tradition. The tradition is constantly changing and adapting as our society changes, otherwise it would die out.
Second, it seems to me to be a rather common human trait to express resentment/disdain towards those who might have found considerable success, especially when, on the surface, they may
not seem so different from the rest of us. I suspect that the truth is that they may not be so different, but they have taken a different path than the rest of the pack. Their success is not simply a measure of individual musical talent, but is related to the considerable effort and commitment they have devoted to bringing the music to the public.
Thirdly, any person is capable of nothing more, than doing things their own way. That is true whether we are talking about football, or fiddling. Everybody has a different style.
It is an inevitable, immutable truth. Whatever comes out an instrument is a function of the sum total of a persons life experiences. We are all different, physically, morally/ethically, emotionally, spiritually, etc. Every musician has different values, which are based upon the individual identity of the person. Even if we don't care for their music, we should respect the dignity of the person, and refrain from frivolous and petty criticism.
The tradition is constantly changing/evolving, and an artist with a different slant on the music is an essential part of the tradition.
Essentially, I am saying that there is no "pure drop". To claim that one is more 'pure' than another is a subjective evaluation, based upon contemporary, and not traditional, values. Every generation has a different view of what encompasses the tradition.
Witness the rise and fall of the ceilidh band, which came into vogue during the 1930's, and fell out of favour in the 1970's.
Check out the preface to the Fraser Collection, (first published in 1815) and you will find that the author rants against players playing too fast, and changing the music. It seems to me, that if people have been changing the music for that long, then it is a part of the tradition. Further, if anyone is serious about finding the pure drop, then we must look back further than 1960.
scottythefiddler
# Posted on August 24th 2002 by scottythefiddler
Re: Posting Comments in the Recording section
It's great to be part of a tradition that's over 50 years old!
# Posted on August 24th 2002 by glauber