It seems that in this day and age, many people beleive playing faster is better. maybe, as Wayne Webster writes in an article entitled "Speed Kills" in Comhaltas Ceoltoiti Eireann's magazine, "Treoir" (the issue that came out this summer) "Maybe the notion that faster is better has to do with the pace of modern life. Maybe trad players feel they must compete with rock and roll, that speed equals energy and excitement. "Even with the astounding skill and mastery at which they play, there is a cost to the integrity and inherent beauty of the tunes themselves." I can't reproduce the whole article here, but the essence of it was that many of us tend to play as fast as we *can't* That many ornaments tend to get sloughed over. I know that it definitely is true for me, that in trying to keep up with the group, I sometimes even miss a melody note here and there. Of course, it depends on the group. There are some sessions known for being more breakneck than others. I have always thought of it as a "macho" thing, though the culprits are not necessarily men.
Wayne Webster near the end of the article says, "The very talented Ray Coen of Sligo told me that the highest compliment a player can receive is what a lovely tune, not what an impressive talent you are. In other words, the tune isn't a vehicle for the player to impress the audience with his virtuosity, but rather the player's virtuosity is a vehicle to impress the audience with the beauty of the tune.
Of course, it is dance music, and all. I am not thinking we should play slower than what is appropriate for dancers. I am not really sure what I am thinking. But it is making me think about doing my best to keep the integrity of the music.
Andee
You understand this stuff more than you think. But do people dance in your session? If not, why not play slower than that for dancers, not all the time, but give it a go, And I mean reels. Controlling it is great fun.
I like your story about the guys who got you to slow down. They sound like good guys.
In my first submission to Scoiltrad, I tried to play the tune as fast as Kevin Glackin was playing it on the fast demo. His advice to me - Slow down - get it right. My learning has progressed much more quickly now that I have slowed down.
I heard an attractive reel played slowly as the end credit music to a Ken Burns biography of Thomas Jefferson (Monday night PBS TV - US) I believe the musicians were Jay Ungar (Ashoken Farewell) and Molly Mason.
Does anyone know the tune title? It was a common tune but I couldn't think of a title. Perhaps it was an American tune but it sounded Irish.
I could not agree more with the notion that playing faster is not always better. In fact, I find that often times the original purpose of the tune is lost on the fact that the freight train effect takes effect and a reel ends up in an "off to the races" exercise in who can win. I am constantly reminding my students that people are supposed to be able to dance to this. (i.e. a waltz should not be played at 120!)
I believe that one reason for the obsession with speed in music today may be due in part to the way in which set dancing has developed over the years. Originally set dances were done for recreation in the home after a hard day's work, or in the village street or hall. In more recent times dancing has acquired a strong competitive element, and hence has acquired a significantly faster tempo. The competition tempo has filtered down to the non-competitive dancing and the dancers require the musicians to play at their (the dancers') tempo. So everyone is playing a lot faster than half a century ago.
Larry Lynch, in his book "Set Dances of Ireland" gives a table setting out how speeds have changed over the years:
reels: (then) 98-116 (now) 113-132
polkas: (then) 102-130 (now) 127-159
jigs: (then) 98-125 (now) 125-159
hornpipes: (then) 72-104 (now) 93-117
It is also a fact that if you play rhythmically with accuracy you can give the impression of playing at a faster tempo than you actually are, but with the important difference that the audience can hear all the notes and their subtleties. This applies right across the spectrum of musical genres.
Don't forget that itm is directly descended from the music of the baroque/classical period (i.e. up to the end of the 18th century) and, in my view, should be played fairly close to the tempo of that period, which is signifcantly slower than that of today.
Where to start.... too fast.... destroying the melody. I wish that I had you all as mentors when I started - really. I was a sequestered learner like so many of us are. I was unaware of places like the session - IF - there were any back then. People had message boards up but the Net?
I stepped right into the music and played every piece I could at top speed. The facts are that I couldn't play any piece at top speed. I could play those easy parts but the hard parts would crash me.
Mark's rule: Don't play any tune faster than you can play the hardest part of the tune. While you are at it - make sure you can play that hard part well.
That is a beginner's Malady - If you learn that particular little lesson you will save yourself years of frustration. I didn't save those years.
I really recommend that you get a metronome. You will very surgically figure out what your best tempo on the piece is. Keep a list of tunes - Write down your fastest tempo - as you improve those hard parts - update your notes.
You can see evidence of your improvement this way. When you can play the tune well at the tempo you chose to play it at, You are there. Remember to maintain the tune or those difficult parts will get ahead of you again.
Many people warm up with scales, arpeggios, exercises - etc. Perhaps you can make your own little warm up exercises. Take those difficult parts of the tunes and make warm up exercises out of them. Your warm up exercises will evolve over time.
You can get there by playing too fast - the road is just longer and less respectable. My own personal challenges resulted from quite a bit of my stubborn nature. I invested years into playing too fast and believing that was the path. I would be a much better player now if I had learned everything well and let the speed come as it would without ever forcing it.
Quite a few years back - I found that I could keep up in an advance session with most of the tunes I knew well. Nowadays, I find that I can keep up with a session with the tunes I have just barely learned but not "Learned" yet. (Spitting the notes out without any consideration to how each phrase should go.) I am comfortable with the fastest speeds.
Why would I tell you that? I finally beat those speed demons. I can play the occasional fast as hell number and please the audience who just wants fast. However, I can finally consider those articulations that I tossed out because they didn't fit on my race track. I have been focusing very hard on them for the past two years. The race track is gone now. The speed is mine when I want it. Only toward the end did I know that it wouldn't make me a top notch musician. I have more dues to pay. I am paying those now.
Some of the members in this forum have helped me to see this.
Andee started this thread by quoting from Wayne Webster's Treoir article - if you haven't read the full article, then I'd strongly recommend that you do (it's at http://www.comhaltas.com/education/Treoir/2002Tr2/Speed.htm).Wayne is a great character (his photo appears on the cover of an earlier Treoir at http://www.comhaltas.com/education/Treoir/2000Tr4/2000Tr4.htm) and I think most musicians will agree he really gets to the heart of this vexed issue. Traditional music is nothing if it loses the soul (I think draiocht is the Irish term for this although some of the older musicians referred to it as the "neaagh"). This always becomes apparent at a session when the "speed merchants" take control or, nearly always, when one has to accompany set dancers. The excitement in the music should come from the rhythm and lift (players such as the late Joe Cooley, Paddy O' Brien or even contemporary musicians such as Tony McMahon, Martin Hayes, Kieran Hanrahan, Noel Hill, etc are good examples of this).
Of course I do agree with the comments above! I admire the skill of Matt Molloy (who doesn't?) yet I seldom play his albums, the tunes are too fast.
A metronome is a good suggestion, but there's an alternative, more interesting and more fun:
At http://www.ronimusic.com/ one can find "the Amazing Slowdowner".
It's a little piece of software (not too expensive) that gives you the possibility to slow down a .wav, .mp3 or CD-track as much as you like WITHOUT changing the pitch. Or, if you like, you can change the pitch without (or with) changing the speed.
So here I'm sitting in front of my monitor, jamming with the Bothy Band, Chieftains, Na Connerys, Plankty, you name them, and I'm playing the tunes with a pace according to my taste and - let's admit it - skill.
I am constantly trying to slow my band down. We are very good playing reels at 100-120, but it quickly breaks down after that. I play banjo so I "really" break down fast at that speed. I did a little study of my own and brought out a metronome to gauge the speed of some of my favorites on record. Here's what I found. Most reels are recorded near 120. Many are slower, but only a few faster. Banjo players always play slower on their records than say whistle or fiddle players. When recording most of the greats play a lot slower on their records because, and macsheoinin said it best, you can actually sound faster when playing slower and using all the right ornaments. I think in situations like sessions or performing in front of an audience players will start a tune faster than they normally would because the adrenalin is pumping. It isn't a bad idea to glance at the second hand on your watch, find 120 in your head and start a little slower.
john devens
Loved the comment about a players virtuosity is the vehicle for the presentation of the tune. I think Ray Coen said everything there was to say on the subject and I couldn't agree more! I had vowed never to play at speeds faster than those I heard in Clare, but sure enough I can hear myself go faster and faster and masking my sloppiness with the greatest of all tricks to hide your mistakes -- SPEED. That must be why it's so alluring. Thanks for putting me back on path.
I like playing slow sometimes and sometimes I like playing fast! Playing fast isnt a bad thing at all if its done nicely - I'm not talking breakneck speeds or anything. It all depends on the mood I'm in and if there are dancers about - and yes michael, sometimes dancers (set)do turn up to the sessions around here.
Wow! --This is what makes this forum so addicting--I post a new discussion, go to work , come home and check it and look at all of the great comments from everyone!
Mark--you sound like you are really hard-working, organized in your thought process, and truly dedicated to doing this Irish fiddle thing right. Don't beat yourself up for past mistakes. We all have those "if only" moments. If only I started learning this stuff 20 years ago instead of 6. But if I had, I might be a completely different person without the sharp focus and drive that I currently have. I might even take the music for granted. so know that I empathize with you, but you are being the best musician you can be right now, and that's what counts.
I've noticed that excellent ITM musicians that are very evolved in their sense of rhythm *seem* to be playing at a very laid back, but rhythmic tempo, with lots of lift---but when you check with a metronome, they're actually playing at a blistering tempo........It's very interesting, and I'm still trying to figure out what creates that feeling ---Have any of you wondered the very same thing, and can you explain how do they do it?
Aoife,
I think you've said it. It's because these musicians are excellent and have a technique and mastery most of us can only dream about. And most of them have probably been playing since they were knee-high to a grass-hopper.
It's irrelevent when you started and how long you've been playing. The sooner you realise this the sooner you'll get over the "dreaming" of playing better phase, and actually play better
I wonder how many of you would accuratly, off the top of your heads, be able to play tune at 144 bpm. If your used to playing for step dancers, then you'd be better than most.
But my point is that if you need a device to tell you how fast to play, you must, by definition, be ignoring your own gut feeling.
Lets leave aside playing for dancers for the moment (And lets face it, the vast majority of diddlers have done just that) and realise that tempo has as much to do with you and your fellow sessioners mood.
If your're tired you might play some tunes that you think are quite fast but aren't. And vice versa. Why force tempo with pre determined rigid suggestions.
Play as fast or slow as you feel. (although never playing faster or slower that your ability, of course)
My impression is, that apart from modern life's speed and the demands of the dancers, Michael Coleman has done some work to raise the speed. Many generations have seen him as their example. Just listen how he raves through 'The Grey Goose' for example. And then I could as well mention Matt Molloy again, who has had the same type of influence on the youger generation; my wife - who loves ITM and is a professional musician - recognizes him always: 'oh yeah, the nervous flute '.
Yeah, Matt is the man
His best album I think is his heathery breeze. Just check out the range of tempos on that album. Far beyond mere (oops, might get in trouble for that) dance music.
And there is the drive with the bothy band. Now they played quite fast.
And I've noticed also that classical musicians' ears pick up when Matt comes on.
Michael,
I'm not sure I made myself quite clear in my reply to Aoife. What I meant was that few of us can expect to arrive at the very top of the tree, but we can all expect to improve our playing nevertheless and get to a stage where we give pleasure to ourselves and others. For myself, I have been playing the fiddle for less than 2 years but I expect to progress, and I know I am progressing. It's just that I am a realist and know that, at my age, I'm not going to be another Martin Hayes, Tommy Peoples or whoever.
When you start *is* relevant. Natural inborn abilities, physical, mental and psychological, are always relevant. It takes many years to develop the necessary neuro-muscular coordination, and if you can start this process at the age of 8 or so, all the better (provided no-one spoils it all by telling the kid it's supposed to be difficult!). Whether you talking about learning a musical instrument, a language or other discipline, the learning processes for children and adults are different. If you start learning an instrument as an adult (young, middle-aged or whatever) there's no reason why, under the right tuition, you can't reach a competent enjoyable standard - which is what it's all about when you come down to it - but to reach the highest levels you've got to catch 'em young.
hey - whats this about suggested tempos?? That is the silliest thing Ive heard in ages - I play how I feel at the time and noone should ever tell you that youre not playing at the right speed - suggested tempos indeed!
Macsheoinin
There are so many contradinctions in your posting. If you agree that it is ALL about giving pleasure to your self and others, then attaining this must be the top of the tree.
And why is it not alright to tell kids it's difficult. but alright to tell yourself it's difficult.
And I think you are mixing up being able to play and expecting to improve. Surely both aply to us all.
And (I think we've covered this before) the "neuro muscular coordination" needed to play diddly music is not as complicated as you think. An eight year old's physiology might be better suited to learning stuff like that, but their immaturity and attention span count against them. The determination of a mature interlect can far outway these minor physiological differences.
Let me plead with you to abandon the tirrany of "You've got to catch 'em young". It's so self defeating
Breandan Breathnach was mentioned above.
Which recording of traditional Irish music do you think he was reviewing when he said the following....?
"Tremendous music , but played at such breakneck speed as to create a feeling of exasperation. Speed is not a musical quality,and when a tune is played faster than it should be, the subtle proportions between the notes and the larger elements are destroyed and the music loses its' savour."
My first comments were about how learning at a slower tempo and getting all the ornamentation right is most important. It does seem though that the fast tempos are getting slagged a bit much.
WHO is your audience? WHO am I getting paid to please.
Tempos at sessions follow the tempos at session. I don't set them - I just abide by them fo the most part.
Tempos at contra dances follow the tempo the caller gives out. It's usually very slow. When the dancers are starting to faint - it's was too FAST.
I heard one fiddler suggest that the tempos for dancers should be considerate of hang time. "They don't have wings you know!" That was his justification for scratching along at 140 per half.
If my audience happens to be a bunch of people who happen to think that the only good fiddle music happens to go at the pace of a rocket - and - I'm being paid to please them - They get what they want for a while at least. My favorite audience happens to be the Irish afficionados who know what the music is and paid to hear you and only you. (or your band). It's funny because you can play exactly as you like and they love it best.
Thanks for the comments Bart and Andee. I agree with your original statement whole heartedly Andee - Playing faster is NOT always playing better. That leaves open the fact that some people and groups think that faster is better. If they didn't put so much money into my pocket - who knows what I would be thinking now. (Suggestions Welcome ;) )
In the early days of recording the time available on a record was very limited. In fact, classical pianists of that era were constrained to record their music (their Chopin waltzes are a good example) at a much higher speed than they would ever have played live in order to get it within the time constraints.
I wonder whether this could have been a relevant factor in the early recordings of Micheal Coleman and others. Once MC et al had brought out recordings at this increased tempo perhaps they would have felt obliged to continue at that sort of tempo thereafter (I believe MC was also a prolific live broadcaster). And life in the major US cities in those days was probably fairly hectic and go-getting, as it is today, which encourages fast playing. Perhaps someone with more expert knowledge than I have can comment on this hypothesis.
Incidentally, doctoring recording speeds is not unknown even today. I once had an lp of a string quartet which had one of the Beethoven quartets on one side. This particular Beethoven quartet runs to about 34 minutes. The Czech recording company squeezed it onto one side of the lp (i.e well under 30 minutes), by speeding up the master tape and thereby increasing the pitch by a semitone or more. Presumably they didn't have the technology to retain the pitch while increasing the speed. The dead give-away when I listened to it, apart from the higher pitch, was the players' unnaturally fast vibrato caused by the increased tape speed; this could not be disguised and was more than sufficient to ruin the performance. I wish I had kept the lp; today's computer technology would have enabled me to reverse the process.
-m
Just in case it's not obvious, Breandan Breathnach's 224 bpm and 180 bpm for reels and hornpipes must be referring to crotchets (1/4 notes) per minute, whilst the 120 bpm for a reel, quoted in John Deven's post presumably means minims (1/2 notes). Otherwise we're talking about speeds that even Matt Molloy would break down at.
This is definitely a different point of view on this issue, but here goes.
There are a number of elements which add to the 'energy' of a tune, and tempo is just one of them. Phrasing, accents, dynamics, emphasis on the rhythm, etc. also come into the picture.
A few years ago, I had the pleasure of listening to Sandy MacIntyre (Cape Breton style) play the fiddle at a local pub.
At one point in the evening, he played a set of reels, which absolutely blew my socks off, (I am still barefoot). As I sat there listening, I was surprised that he would play the tunes that fast, because he is a very traditional player, and in Cape Breton, it is considered, by many, to be in bad taste to play a tune faster than it should go. So,.... I decided to 'clock' him, and counted the number of beats per minute using the second hand on my wristwatch. Guess what.... he was playing at the usual 112 bpm!!!? He put so much energy into the tunes, using something other than speed, that he created the illusion of speed.
I learned something that night, and began to search for my optimum tempo, and found it somewhere around 96 bpm for reels, 116 for jigs. I found a balance between the energy from speed, and the energy from expression. If I play faster, I lose too much expression, and the energy level suffers.
If I put in more expression, I lose too much energy from a lazy tempo. I sometimes start tunes out slower, playing reels as hornpipes, and gradually speeding them up, until I hit maximum energy, then I keep the tempo there.
None of this takes away from Mark the Fiddler's experience. There is lots to be said in favour of pleasing the audience, and most performing fiddlers keep a few fast tunes in their pocket for those times when they are needed.
Scotty
This sounds back to front to me.
If a player sounds like they're playing at breakneck speed but when you clock them, they're not. Then are they must be right on the edge of their abilty. I don't hink there is anything wrong with doing that, it can be very exciting.
But, if a player sounds steady and controlled and powerfull, then you clock them and find they're really racing along ... now that's the kind of stuff I like
I know what you mean, Micheal. But the trick to racing along, and sounding controlled, is to limit the lift in the music, subtle accents, lots of slurs, smooth bowing, .... playing every bow with the same tone texture, etc.
Sandy MacIntyre, increased the energy level, by increasing the lift, and power. He put lots of expression in the music. He was driving the bow into the strings..., making the tunes scream!! It is one of those things that make the contempory Scottish purists cringe. It is the antitheses of Ron Gonella's style, for example.
You are correct about playing at the edge of ability. Many of the exponents of the Cape Breton style do that, and ignore the consequences. They choose to take the additional energy, and in exchange, suffer the occasional note with forced tone. But the overall effect is greatly enhanced by putting full force into the tune.
To hear an example of this, check out the recording of Winston Fitzgerald playing The Iron Man, on the same web page that had Micheal Coleman on it. The link was posted on the Microtone discussion. If you listen closely, you can hear examples of several bowed ornaments. That is, Fitzgerald uses such things as the updriven bow, loop bows, double upbows. These ornaments use the bow, and do not require anything from the left hand to execute them. Sandy MacIntyre learned much of his fiddling by studying Fitzgerald, and has surpassed him, in terms of tone, and intonation. So, the performance that I referred to above, was more than simply listening to someone struggling to get through a tune at the edge of their ability. It was an example of a world class fiddler putting a lot of extra stuff into the tune at a moderate tempo.
BTW, do you really think that I can't distinguish between a great player, and someone who is on the edge of their ability at 112bpm. I don't know who you think I am, or what you think I am, but you are saddly mistaken. I am not going to explode like a pompous ass and say self important things to puff myself up. Simply put, I am what I am, that's all that I am, and I ain't what you are implying. My goodness, there are a lot of people absent from this forum, these days....
If a player sounds as if he's playing at breakneck speed but on clocking him they're clearly not, it does not logically follow that he must be "on the edge of his ability". There are many reasons why a player may hold the speed way down below the maximum speed at which he can still play cleanly, but the quality of his technique and musicianship still makes the slower speed sound mighty quick.
ps: read "she/her" for "he/him/his" where appropriate! The English language is sadly lacking in a singular personal pronoun which can be read as male or female. Any suggestions?
Don't get me wrong here, I did say there was nothing wrong with it, and it can be great and exciting.
I just prefer it when it doesn't sound fast. (regardless of whether it's actually fast or not)
I agree that playing faster isn't always better. I gave up trying to slow down the huge jam sessions that you find at the large summer festivals. I've put them into the category of a social event and just try and hang on. I'll tape these sessions and find I get a LOT of music on a tape. Smaller sessions are better for slowing things down.
From when I started playing, I was told that if you can master a tune played slow, the speed will come. 'Speed' is not whats important when playing, but that you play the tune to its complete potential. Some tunes are composed and meant to be played fast, but so many more need to be played slower to sound the best.
Selections like, 'The Lads of Laois' & 'The First Month of Summer', 'The Graffs Bay', 'Boil the Breakfast Early', sound amazing when played slow, but awful when the notes are ripped out of them. I'm no good with names, so these are just a few I can think of off the top of my head.
Its amazing how by changing the tuning of a session, the pace also changes. B Flat sessions are perfect for bringing the pace down, however E Flat shoots it right up again. A good B Flat session is the perfect hang-over cure too!
Much has been mentioned about 'having' to play fast music because thats what the dancer likes. Having being a dancer all my life, I realise that a good dancer should dance well no matter what the pace.
So, playing faster NEVER means playing bettter. Alot of musicians find it very hard to play a tune very slow.
My opinion is, is that being able to play a tune to its full potential, feeling good about your playing, and being able to adapt to different sessions is what makes a good player.
Grand way to state an opinion. That nice all Caps "NEVER" leaves open lot's of possibility. I typically disagree with absolutes and today is no exception. (I was about to type ALWAYS disagree with absolutes)
Take a listen to James Kelly playing Lads of Laois. I'd never call that bad playing, not by a long shot. And it's quite quick.
However, the point should be taken -- one shouldn't assume that faster means better, even though the converse ("better" doesn't always mean slower, either) isn't any more true.
No matter how fast James Kelly plays, it never sounds rushed.
But (and remember this is only my opinion) when Martin Hays plays, it really drags its feet
Playing faster is not always playing better
Playing faster is not always playing better
It seems that in this day and age, many people beleive playing faster is better. maybe, as Wayne Webster writes in an article entitled "Speed Kills" in Comhaltas Ceoltoiti Eireann's magazine, "Treoir" (the issue that came out this summer) "Maybe the notion that faster is better has to do with the pace of modern life. Maybe trad players feel they must compete with rock and roll, that speed equals energy and excitement. "Even with the astounding skill and mastery at which they play, there is a cost to the integrity and inherent beauty of the tunes themselves." I can't reproduce the whole article here, but the essence of it was that many of us tend to play as fast as we *can't* That many ornaments tend to get sloughed over. I know that it definitely is true for me, that in trying to keep up with the group, I sometimes even miss a melody note here and there. Of course, it depends on the group. There are some sessions known for being more breakneck than others. I have always thought of it as a "macho" thing, though the culprits are not necessarily men.
Wayne Webster near the end of the article says, "The very talented Ray Coen of Sligo told me that the highest compliment a player can receive is what a lovely tune, not what an impressive talent you are. In other words, the tune isn't a vehicle for the player to impress the audience with his virtuosity, but rather the player's virtuosity is a vehicle to impress the audience with the beauty of the tune.
Of course, it is dance music, and all. I am not thinking we should play slower than what is appropriate for dancers. I am not really sure what I am thinking. But it is making me think about doing my best to keep the integrity of the music.
What do you all think?
# Posted on November 5th 2002 by Andee
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Andee
You understand this stuff more than you think. But do people dance in your session? If not, why not play slower than that for dancers, not all the time, but give it a go, And I mean reels. Controlling it is great fun.
I like your story about the guys who got you to slow down. They sound like good guys.
# Posted on November 5th 2002 by ...
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
In my first submission to Scoiltrad, I tried to play the tune as fast as Kevin Glackin was playing it on the fast demo. His advice to me - Slow down - get it right. My learning has progressed much more quickly now that I have slowed down.
I heard an attractive reel played slowly as the end credit music to a Ken Burns biography of Thomas Jefferson (Monday night PBS TV - US) I believe the musicians were Jay Ungar (Ashoken Farewell) and Molly Mason.
Does anyone know the tune title? It was a common tune but I couldn't think of a title. Perhaps it was an American tune but it sounded Irish.
Joe
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by Carrmuse
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Andee,
I could not agree more with the notion that playing faster is not always better. In fact, I find that often times the original purpose of the tune is lost on the fact that the freight train effect takes effect and a reel ends up in an "off to the races" exercise in who can win. I am constantly reminding my students that people are supposed to be able to dance to this. (i.e. a waltz should not be played at 120!)
KP
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by KP
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Speed does add excitement to a song or tune. But I believe the following to be true for all music. It is an excerpt from an old song.
"Unless they try to play it too darn fast,
and lose the beauty of the melody."
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by blowfly
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
I believe that one reason for the obsession with speed in music today may be due in part to the way in which set dancing has developed over the years. Originally set dances were done for recreation in the home after a hard day's work, or in the village street or hall. In more recent times dancing has acquired a strong competitive element, and hence has acquired a significantly faster tempo. The competition tempo has filtered down to the non-competitive dancing and the dancers require the musicians to play at their (the dancers') tempo. So everyone is playing a lot faster than half a century ago.
Larry Lynch, in his book "Set Dances of Ireland" gives a table setting out how speeds have changed over the years:
reels: (then) 98-116 (now) 113-132
polkas: (then) 102-130 (now) 127-159
jigs: (then) 98-125 (now) 125-159
hornpipes: (then) 72-104 (now) 93-117
It is also a fact that if you play rhythmically with accuracy you can give the impression of playing at a faster tempo than you actually are, but with the important difference that the audience can hear all the notes and their subtleties. This applies right across the spectrum of musical genres.
Don't forget that itm is directly descended from the music of the baroque/classical period (i.e. up to the end of the 18th century) and, in my view, should be played fairly close to the tempo of that period, which is signifcantly slower than that of today.
-m
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Where to start.... too fast.... destroying the melody. I wish that I had you all as mentors when I started - really. I was a sequestered learner like so many of us are. I was unaware of places like the session - IF - there were any back then. People had message boards up but the Net?
I stepped right into the music and played every piece I could at top speed. The facts are that I couldn't play any piece at top speed. I could play those easy parts but the hard parts would crash me.
Mark's rule: Don't play any tune faster than you can play the hardest part of the tune. While you are at it - make sure you can play that hard part well.
That is a beginner's Malady - If you learn that particular little lesson you will save yourself years of frustration. I didn't save those years.
I really recommend that you get a metronome. You will very surgically figure out what your best tempo on the piece is. Keep a list of tunes - Write down your fastest tempo - as you improve those hard parts - update your notes.
You can see evidence of your improvement this way. When you can play the tune well at the tempo you chose to play it at, You are there. Remember to maintain the tune or those difficult parts will get ahead of you again.
Many people warm up with scales, arpeggios, exercises - etc. Perhaps you can make your own little warm up exercises. Take those difficult parts of the tunes and make warm up exercises out of them. Your warm up exercises will evolve over time.
You can get there by playing too fast - the road is just longer and less respectable. My own personal challenges resulted from quite a bit of my stubborn nature. I invested years into playing too fast and believing that was the path. I would be a much better player now if I had learned everything well and let the speed come as it would without ever forcing it.
Quite a few years back - I found that I could keep up in an advance session with most of the tunes I knew well. Nowadays, I find that I can keep up with a session with the tunes I have just barely learned but not "Learned" yet. (Spitting the notes out without any consideration to how each phrase should go.) I am comfortable with the fastest speeds.
Why would I tell you that? I finally beat those speed demons. I can play the occasional fast as hell number and please the audience who just wants fast. However, I can finally consider those articulations that I tossed out because they didn't fit on my race track. I have been focusing very hard on them for the past two years. The race track is gone now. The speed is mine when I want it. Only toward the end did I know that it wouldn't make me a top notch musician. I have more dues to pay. I am paying those now.
Some of the members in this forum have helped me to see this.
Hope it helps,
Mark
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by Mark Cordova
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Andee started this thread by quoting from Wayne Webster's Treoir article - if you haven't read the full article, then I'd strongly recommend that you do (it's at http://www.comhaltas.com/education/Treoir/2002Tr2/Speed.htm).Wayne is a great character (his photo appears on the cover of an earlier Treoir at http://www.comhaltas.com/education/Treoir/2000Tr4/2000Tr4.htm) and I think most musicians will agree he really gets to the heart of this vexed issue. Traditional music is nothing if it loses the soul (I think draiocht is the Irish term for this although some of the older musicians referred to it as the "neaagh"). This always becomes apparent at a session when the "speed merchants" take control or, nearly always, when one has to accompany set dancers. The excitement in the music should come from the rhythm and lift (players such as the late Joe Cooley, Paddy O' Brien or even contemporary musicians such as Tony McMahon, Martin Hayes, Kieran Hanrahan, Noel Hill, etc are good examples of this).
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by Bannerman
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Of course I do agree with the comments above! I admire the skill of Matt Molloy (who doesn't?) yet I seldom play his albums, the tunes are too fast.
A metronome is a good suggestion, but there's an alternative, more interesting and more fun:
At http://www.ronimusic.com/ one can find "the Amazing Slowdowner".
It's a little piece of software (not too expensive) that gives you the possibility to slow down a .wav, .mp3 or CD-track as much as you like WITHOUT changing the pitch. Or, if you like, you can change the pitch without (or with) changing the speed.
So here I'm sitting in front of my monitor, jamming with the Bothy Band, Chieftains, Na Connerys, Plankty, you name them, and I'm playing the tunes with a pace according to my taste and - let's admit it - skill.
Bart
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by Bart
O, I forgot:
Mark, those were very wise words you wrote,thanks,Bart
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by Bart
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
I am constantly trying to slow my band down. We are very good playing reels at 100-120, but it quickly breaks down after that. I play banjo so I "really" break down fast at that speed. I did a little study of my own and brought out a metronome to gauge the speed of some of my favorites on record. Here's what I found. Most reels are recorded near 120. Many are slower, but only a few faster. Banjo players always play slower on their records than say whistle or fiddle players. When recording most of the greats play a lot slower on their records because, and macsheoinin said it best, you can actually sound faster when playing slower and using all the right ornaments. I think in situations like sessions or performing in front of an audience players will start a tune faster than they normally would because the adrenalin is pumping. It isn't a bad idea to glance at the second hand on your watch, find 120 in your head and start a little slower.
john devens
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by John Devens
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Andee,
Loved the comment about a players virtuosity is the vehicle for the presentation of the tune. I think Ray Coen said everything there was to say on the subject and I couldn't agree more! I had vowed never to play at speeds faster than those I heard in Clare, but sure enough I can hear myself go faster and faster and masking my sloppiness with the greatest of all tricks to hide your mistakes -- SPEED. That must be why it's so alluring. Thanks for putting me back on path.
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by Caoimghgin
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
I like playing slow sometimes and sometimes I like playing fast! Playing fast isnt a bad thing at all if its done nicely - I'm not talking breakneck speeds or anything. It all depends on the mood I'm in and if there are dancers about - and yes michael, sometimes dancers (set)do turn up to the sessions around here.
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by bb
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Wow! --This is what makes this forum so addicting--I post a new discussion, go to work , come home and check it and look at all of the great comments from everyone!
Mark--you sound like you are really hard-working, organized in your thought process, and truly dedicated to doing this Irish fiddle thing right. Don't beat yourself up for past mistakes. We all have those "if only" moments. If only I started learning this stuff 20 years ago instead of 6. But if I had, I might be a completely different person without the sharp focus and drive that I currently have. I might even take the music for granted. so know that I empathize with you, but you are being the best musician you can be right now, and that's what counts.
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by Andee
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
I've noticed that excellent ITM musicians that are very evolved in their sense of rhythm *seem* to be playing at a very laid back, but rhythmic tempo, with lots of lift---but when you check with a metronome, they're actually playing at a blistering tempo........It's very interesting, and I'm still trying to figure out what creates that feeling ---Have any of you wondered the very same thing, and can you explain how do they do it?
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by aoife
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Check out:
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display.php/77
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display.php/860
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display.php/896
What the heck, just do a search for "tempo" in the discussions search engine!
Zina
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by Zina Lee
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Aoife,
I think you've said it. It's because these musicians are excellent and have a technique and mastery most of us can only dream about. And most of them have probably been playing since they were knee-high to a grass-hopper.
-m
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
It's irrelevent when you started and how long you've been playing. The sooner you realise this the sooner you'll get over the "dreaming" of playing better phase, and actually play better
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by ...
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Michael, some people may feel you are a thorn in their side, but quite often, you get right to the heart- of the matter.
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by Andee
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Breand
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by Bart
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
I wonder how many of you would accuratly, off the top of your heads, be able to play tune at 144 bpm. If your used to playing for step dancers, then you'd be better than most.
But my point is that if you need a device to tell you how fast to play, you must, by definition, be ignoring your own gut feeling.
Lets leave aside playing for dancers for the moment (And lets face it, the vast majority of diddlers have done just that) and realise that tempo has as much to do with you and your fellow sessioners mood.
If your're tired you might play some tunes that you think are quite fast but aren't. And vice versa. Why force tempo with pre determined rigid suggestions.
Play as fast or slow as you feel. (although never playing faster or slower that your ability, of course)
# Posted on November 6th 2002 by ...
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
My impression is, that apart from modern life's speed and the demands of the dancers, Michael Coleman has done some work to raise the speed. Many generations have seen him as their example. Just listen how he raves through 'The Grey Goose' for example. And then I could as well mention Matt Molloy again, who has had the same type of influence on the youger generation; my wife - who loves ITM and is a professional musician - recognizes him always: 'oh yeah, the nervous flute '.
# Posted on November 7th 2002 by Henk Bos
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Yeah, Matt is the man
His best album I think is his heathery breeze. Just check out the range of tempos on that album. Far beyond mere (oops, might get in trouble for that) dance music.
And there is the drive with the bothy band. Now they played quite fast.
And I've noticed also that classical musicians' ears pick up when Matt comes on.
# Posted on November 7th 2002 by ...
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Michael,
I'm not sure I made myself quite clear in my reply to Aoife. What I meant was that few of us can expect to arrive at the very top of the tree, but we can all expect to improve our playing nevertheless and get to a stage where we give pleasure to ourselves and others. For myself, I have been playing the fiddle for less than 2 years but I expect to progress, and I know I am progressing. It's just that I am a realist and know that, at my age, I'm not going to be another Martin Hayes, Tommy Peoples or whoever.
When you start *is* relevant. Natural inborn abilities, physical, mental and psychological, are always relevant. It takes many years to develop the necessary neuro-muscular coordination, and if you can start this process at the age of 8 or so, all the better (provided no-one spoils it all by telling the kid it's supposed to be difficult!). Whether you talking about learning a musical instrument, a language or other discipline, the learning processes for children and adults are different. If you start learning an instrument as an adult (young, middle-aged or whatever) there's no reason why, under the right tuition, you can't reach a competent enjoyable standard - which is what it's all about when you come down to it - but to reach the highest levels you've got to catch 'em young.
m
# Posted on November 7th 2002 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
hey - whats this about suggested tempos?? That is the silliest thing Ive heard in ages - I play how I feel at the time and noone should ever tell you that youre not playing at the right speed - suggested tempos indeed!
# Posted on November 7th 2002 by bb
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Macsheoinin
There are so many contradinctions in your posting. If you agree that it is ALL about giving pleasure to your self and others, then attaining this must be the top of the tree.
And why is it not alright to tell kids it's difficult. but alright to tell yourself it's difficult.
And I think you are mixing up being able to play and expecting to improve. Surely both aply to us all.
And (I think we've covered this before) the "neuro muscular coordination" needed to play diddly music is not as complicated as you think. An eight year old's physiology might be better suited to learning stuff like that, but their immaturity and attention span count against them. The determination of a mature interlect can far outway these minor physiological differences.
Let me plead with you to abandon the tirrany of "You've got to catch 'em young". It's so self defeating
# Posted on November 7th 2002 by ...
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Breandan Breathnach was mentioned above.
Which recording of traditional Irish music do you think he was reviewing when he said the following....?
"Tremendous music , but played at such breakneck speed as to create a feeling of exasperation. Speed is not a musical quality,and when a tune is played faster than it should be, the subtle proportions between the notes and the larger elements are destroyed and the music loses its' savour."
# Posted on November 7th 2002 by Kenny
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Put us out of our missery kenny
# Posted on November 7th 2002 by ...
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Well, it wasn't Noel Hill.
# Posted on November 8th 2002 by Kenny
It's funny
My first comments were about how learning at a slower tempo and getting all the ornamentation right is most important. It does seem though that the fast tempos are getting slagged a bit much.
WHO is your audience? WHO am I getting paid to please.
Tempos at sessions follow the tempos at session. I don't set them - I just abide by them fo the most part.
Tempos at contra dances follow the tempo the caller gives out. It's usually very slow. When the dancers are starting to faint - it's was too FAST.
I heard one fiddler suggest that the tempos for dancers should be considerate of hang time. "They don't have wings you know!" That was his justification for scratching along at 140 per half.
If my audience happens to be a bunch of people who happen to think that the only good fiddle music happens to go at the pace of a rocket - and - I'm being paid to please them - They get what they want for a while at least. My favorite audience happens to be the Irish afficionados who know what the music is and paid to hear you and only you. (or your band). It's funny because you can play exactly as you like and they love it best.
Thanks for the comments Bart and Andee. I agree with your original statement whole heartedly Andee - Playing faster is NOT always playing better. That leaves open the fact that some people and groups think that faster is better. If they didn't put so much money into my pocket - who knows what I would be thinking now. (Suggestions Welcome ;) )
# Posted on November 8th 2002 by Mark Cordova
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
In the early days of recording the time available on a record was very limited. In fact, classical pianists of that era were constrained to record their music (their Chopin waltzes are a good example) at a much higher speed than they would ever have played live in order to get it within the time constraints.
I wonder whether this could have been a relevant factor in the early recordings of Micheal Coleman and others. Once MC et al had brought out recordings at this increased tempo perhaps they would have felt obliged to continue at that sort of tempo thereafter (I believe MC was also a prolific live broadcaster). And life in the major US cities in those days was probably fairly hectic and go-getting, as it is today, which encourages fast playing. Perhaps someone with more expert knowledge than I have can comment on this hypothesis.
Incidentally, doctoring recording speeds is not unknown even today. I once had an lp of a string quartet which had one of the Beethoven quartets on one side. This particular Beethoven quartet runs to about 34 minutes. The Czech recording company squeezed it onto one side of the lp (i.e well under 30 minutes), by speeding up the master tape and thereby increasing the pitch by a semitone or more. Presumably they didn't have the technology to retain the pitch while increasing the speed. The dead give-away when I listened to it, apart from the higher pitch, was the players' unnaturally fast vibrato caused by the increased tape speed; this could not be disguised and was more than sufficient to ruin the performance. I wish I had kept the lp; today's computer technology would have enabled me to reverse the process.
-m
# Posted on November 8th 2002 by Trevor Jennings
Michael
I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this one! Perhaps it's my background, I don't know.
m
# Posted on November 8th 2002 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Mark, I think the gist of this is that while playing fast is not always better, it is most of the time.
# Posted on November 8th 2002 by ...
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Just in case it's not obvious, Breandan Breathnach's 224 bpm and 180 bpm for reels and hornpipes must be referring to crotchets (1/4 notes) per minute, whilst the 120 bpm for a reel, quoted in John Deven's post presumably means minims (1/2 notes). Otherwise we're talking about speeds that even Matt Molloy would break down at.
# Posted on November 8th 2002 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Is that Matt playing jigs or slides?
# Posted on November 8th 2002 by ...
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
This is definitely a different point of view on this issue, but here goes.
There are a number of elements which add to the 'energy' of a tune, and tempo is just one of them. Phrasing, accents, dynamics, emphasis on the rhythm, etc. also come into the picture.
A few years ago, I had the pleasure of listening to Sandy MacIntyre (Cape Breton style) play the fiddle at a local pub.
At one point in the evening, he played a set of reels, which absolutely blew my socks off, (I am still barefoot). As I sat there listening, I was surprised that he would play the tunes that fast, because he is a very traditional player, and in Cape Breton, it is considered, by many, to be in bad taste to play a tune faster than it should go. So,.... I decided to 'clock' him, and counted the number of beats per minute using the second hand on my wristwatch. Guess what.... he was playing at the usual 112 bpm!!!? He put so much energy into the tunes, using something other than speed, that he created the illusion of speed.
I learned something that night, and began to search for my optimum tempo, and found it somewhere around 96 bpm for reels, 116 for jigs. I found a balance between the energy from speed, and the energy from expression. If I play faster, I lose too much expression, and the energy level suffers.
If I put in more expression, I lose too much energy from a lazy tempo. I sometimes start tunes out slower, playing reels as hornpipes, and gradually speeding them up, until I hit maximum energy, then I keep the tempo there.
None of this takes away from Mark the Fiddler's experience. There is lots to be said in favour of pleasing the audience, and most performing fiddlers keep a few fast tunes in their pocket for those times when they are needed.
# Posted on November 8th 2002 by scottythefiddler
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Link fix for the Wayne Webster's Treoir article -
http://www.comhaltas.com/education/Treoir/2002Tr2/Speed.htm
# Posted on November 9th 2002 by aliceflynn
Re: Treroir speed article - good link
http://www.comhaltas.com/education/Treoir/2002Tr2/Speed.htm
# Posted on November 9th 2002 by geoffwright
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Scotty
This sounds back to front to me.
If a player sounds like they're playing at breakneck speed but when you clock them, they're not. Then are they must be right on the edge of their abilty. I don't hink there is anything wrong with doing that, it can be very exciting.
But, if a player sounds steady and controlled and powerfull, then you clock them and find they're really racing along ... now that's the kind of stuff I like
# Posted on November 9th 2002 by ...
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
I know what you mean, Micheal. But the trick to racing along, and sounding controlled, is to limit the lift in the music, subtle accents, lots of slurs, smooth bowing, .... playing every bow with the same tone texture, etc.
Sandy MacIntyre, increased the energy level, by increasing the lift, and power. He put lots of expression in the music. He was driving the bow into the strings..., making the tunes scream!! It is one of those things that make the contempory Scottish purists cringe. It is the antitheses of Ron Gonella's style, for example.
You are correct about playing at the edge of ability. Many of the exponents of the Cape Breton style do that, and ignore the consequences. They choose to take the additional energy, and in exchange, suffer the occasional note with forced tone. But the overall effect is greatly enhanced by putting full force into the tune.
To hear an example of this, check out the recording of Winston Fitzgerald playing The Iron Man, on the same web page that had Micheal Coleman on it. The link was posted on the Microtone discussion. If you listen closely, you can hear examples of several bowed ornaments. That is, Fitzgerald uses such things as the updriven bow, loop bows, double upbows. These ornaments use the bow, and do not require anything from the left hand to execute them. Sandy MacIntyre learned much of his fiddling by studying Fitzgerald, and has surpassed him, in terms of tone, and intonation. So, the performance that I referred to above, was more than simply listening to someone struggling to get through a tune at the edge of their ability. It was an example of a world class fiddler putting a lot of extra stuff into the tune at a moderate tempo.
BTW, do you really think that I can't distinguish between a great player, and someone who is on the edge of their ability at 112bpm. I don't know who you think I am, or what you think I am, but you are saddly mistaken. I am not going to explode like a pompous ass and say self important things to puff myself up. Simply put, I am what I am, that's all that I am, and I ain't what you are implying. My goodness, there are a lot of people absent from this forum, these days....
# Posted on November 10th 2002 by scottythefiddler
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
If a player sounds as if he's playing at breakneck speed but on clocking him they're clearly not, it does not logically follow that he must be "on the edge of his ability". There are many reasons why a player may hold the speed way down below the maximum speed at which he can still play cleanly, but the quality of his technique and musicianship still makes the slower speed sound mighty quick.
ps: read "she/her" for "he/him/his" where appropriate! The English language is sadly lacking in a singular personal pronoun which can be read as male or female. Any suggestions?
-m
# Posted on November 10th 2002 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
I should have said 3rd person singular personal pronoun in that last posting.
-m
# Posted on November 10th 2002 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Don't get me wrong here, I did say there was nothing wrong with it, and it can be great and exciting.
I just prefer it when it doesn't sound fast. (regardless of whether it's actually fast or not)
# Posted on November 10th 2002 by ...
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
I agree that playing faster isn't always better. I gave up trying to slow down the huge jam sessions that you find at the large summer festivals. I've put them into the category of a social event and just try and hang on. I'll tape these sessions and find I get a LOT of music on a tape. Smaller sessions are better for slowing things down.
jim hd and annoying pipes player
# Posted on November 10th 2002 by jrathbun
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
From when I started playing, I was told that if you can master a tune played slow, the speed will come. 'Speed' is not whats important when playing, but that you play the tune to its complete potential. Some tunes are composed and meant to be played fast, but so many more need to be played slower to sound the best.
Selections like, 'The Lads of Laois' & 'The First Month of Summer', 'The Graffs Bay', 'Boil the Breakfast Early', sound amazing when played slow, but awful when the notes are ripped out of them. I'm no good with names, so these are just a few I can think of off the top of my head.
Its amazing how by changing the tuning of a session, the pace also changes. B Flat sessions are perfect for bringing the pace down, however E Flat shoots it right up again. A good B Flat session is the perfect hang-over cure too!
Much has been mentioned about 'having' to play fast music because thats what the dancer likes. Having being a dancer all my life, I realise that a good dancer should dance well no matter what the pace.
So, playing faster NEVER means playing bettter. Alot of musicians find it very hard to play a tune very slow.
My opinion is, is that being able to play a tune to its full potential, feeling good about your playing, and being able to adapt to different sessions is what makes a good player.
# Posted on November 10th 2002 by mp3
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
well said
# Posted on November 10th 2002 by ...
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Grand way to state an opinion. That nice all Caps "NEVER" leaves open lot's of possibility. I typically disagree with absolutes and today is no exception. (I was about to type ALWAYS disagree with absolutes)
Mark
# Posted on November 14th 2002 by Mark Cordova
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
Take a listen to James Kelly playing Lads of Laois. I'd never call that bad playing, not by a long shot. And it's quite quick.
However, the point should be taken -- one shouldn't assume that faster means better, even though the converse ("better" doesn't always mean slower, either) isn't any more true.
Zina
# Posted on November 14th 2002 by Zina Lee
Re: Playing faster is not always playing better
No matter how fast James Kelly plays, it never sounds rushed.
But (and remember this is only my opinion) when Martin Hays plays, it really drags its feet
# Posted on November 14th 2002 by ...