I am really struggling here. I wonder if help is out there.
I have been trying to put a handle on what is traditional. I read a bunch of posts recently discussed here on what is traditional and that was helpful to a very small degree. But I am still bewildered by the whole topic.
I think of what would be called traditional dress (e.g. http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/dbs/china/images/putri.jpg). Are the dresses traditional because they are generations old and that nobody knows who the seamstress is? It seems like one can just look at the dress and conclude that those dresses are traditional dresses. This method (I knows it when I hears it) doesn't seem to be functional here.
I was surprised and, I admit, disappointed, when I found out that pub sessions are just a little bit older that Elvis Presley! I always pictured musicians getting together after planting and harvest to beguile the hours in joyous music making. Shepherds taking their instruments to the field to spend some time in serenity or neighbors gathering on cold winter nights around the hearth. Call me a romantic (and shock my bride).
I am coming to the conclusion quickly that there really is no "traditional Irish" anything, that the past is really made up as imagination adds or subtracts (King Arthur mythology comes to mind).
The consideration of tradition reminds me of my college philosophy classes and Plato's "forms" (what is the paradigm chair and when does a chair become a sofa).
After all the dissecting and categorizing and defining, does it really matter to you and should it matter to me?
Musicians did get together -- in people's houses. Pub sessions are young, but I believe that the getting together to share music in such a way is much older.
'Tis an interesting question and on a subject on which I am certainly no expert but one which I have pondered and researched a bit.
I think there is a long history of Irish music over at least a millennium (and arguably 2 or 3), during which time various instruments came into vogue and during which various instrumental and vocal traditions formed and evolved. The use of bagpipes, flutes, fiddle, etc, all have interesting histories.
There is a shorter history of say 300 years in which many of the "traditional" tunes and songs were written and during which time they have been played in houses, meeting halls, barns, pubs, etc. I think it is reasonable to think of this period as the main timespan for Irish traditional music, although even 300 years ago there were aspects of the music that probably seemed to ancient to those playing it.
And then there is an even shorter history of say 60 years in which pub sessions have been common. And in the last 30 years there have been several waves of rising popularity of various "modernized" incarnations of Irish music, such as Irish rock, Irish music in movie soundtracks, Riverdance, Enya-new-age-reverb-drenched-Celtic stuff, etc.
I think there is an analogous situation in America with Bluegrass music (which definitely has some Celtic roots) -- the style was invented by Bill Monroe around 60 years ago, but it drew heavily on other existing music that even back then was called "old-time" music. Bluegrass music is roughly the same age as rock and roll but somehow many people think it is this ancient music.
There is a long and hazy history of interplay between the forces for preservation of tradition and forces for innovation in Irish music. I think that learning about this history is ultimately a lot more interesting and useful than trying to come up with a concise definition of what "traditional" is.
Reminds me of my favourite quote from Mad magazine.
"Jazz was invented by Steve Allen in 1955".
Traditional music, roots music, folk music, ethnic music,call it what you will. The moment Homo Sapien had a little spare time from finding food and defending himself, he started making music. If his neighbours were amused, and started making similar sounds, they had a session. It didn't require a special place, and they didn't know if it was or wasn't Wednesday evening. Traditional music develops and thrives when a community wants to play/sing it. The current confusion stems from the amazingly quick global transfer of information, and the similarly quick interest of those who want to make coinage of anything in sight.
The litmus test is simple: If certain music is created or adapted by, and played for the personal enjoyment of a community group OVER TIME (several generations), then it becomes traditional to that community. A newly created tune could become part of the tradition IF it were accepted by the community, and played in their style.
Of course, there is nothing to stop anyone in the world from learning someone else's tradition, and changing it to suit themselves; but it then may become something else.
"played in their style" I like that most of all I have heard. "Accepted by the community" I really like that, too.
Some cultures find stretched out lower lips attractive. Some cultures find plump women more attractive.
You know, I wonder if there is something genetic going on here. Could it be possible that something appeals to groups because of some gene rather than culture? Applied, there are some "ethnic" musics that I don't like but the culture of origin obviously really like it. Indian music isn't big in the western world. Polish Polkas appeal to a certain group, but is not popular among others.
Could Irish Trad be music that appeals predominately to a certain ethnic type, whether new or old? Could that be why the music would last several generations?
I don't think it's an ethnic thing. The community of Irish trad players is relatively small, whereas those who dislike (carefully chosen word!) it very large. This is true in the "home" of trad music, so I'm sure its not an innate part of being Irish or Scottish or even American to have a liking for it. It just demonstrates superb taste.
The music is definately traditional, and the sessions, where the music is widely played, is relatively new, but might qualify since it's been going on through at least a few generations now. Does it matter? I don't know... what do you mean? Matter to who? Why?
Good points, backer. I assumed that in Ireland tunes were universally loved and appreciated. The end of a log held theory. And Crazy (fingers, that is, not the rest) that's why I included *predominately*.
JSO, I think that is what I meant when I said "I knows it when I hears it". This is how I look at it.
I guess it used to matter more to me than it does now. I like to look into things beyond the surface. I get stuck whatever I do trying know as much about it as possible and to relate to it-internalize as well as I can.
I researched the myth of Tam Lin when I learned the tune. I studied Bonnie Price Charlie when I discovered "Skye Boat Song" related to him.
Maybe that's my problem. All this traditional perspective seems kinda fuzzy to me.
Academic folklorists have put a lot of work into this and it has been many years since I thought about this. At a meeting of folklorists once upon a time, there was a general agreement of what made something tradition. Some of the considerations were: time (something becomes traditional by having been played by more than one musical generation) and variation over time and space (i. e. we don't all play a Michael Coleman tune the way Michael Coleman played it). Ideally there should be some aspect of community approval: a musician might bring some idiosyncratic elements into a tune; if the variations are agreeable to other musicians or even listeners they might catch on but if they don't they won't. Thus Ed Reavey wrote tunes that were enough in a traditional idiom that they caught on. Years ago I got to know and play with some old fiddlers in Southern Vermont. If you played a tune or version of a tune they didn't like they would say, "Well, that's the tune the old cow died on." Similarly, people I played with in western North Carolina would be quick to scowl at a tune that sounded too much like bluegrass. It was all good-natured but they made their point.
This probably doesn't matter a whole lot. In a way the point is that tradition is resilient and adaptive. Tradition does live and change, and if we do something that isn't traditional it probably won't do much harm.
Long thought: I'm under the impression that "traditional" Irish music refers to three distinct but inexorably correlated ideas: first, the tune set; second, the instruments; and third, the techniques of playing.
A "traditional" Irish tune must be a tune written within parameters of instrumentation and playing technique. It should be written for traditional instruments, and should lend itself well to being played with traditional technique. Furthermore, a "traditional" Irish tune is relatively short (as opposed to classical ideas of short as being 20 minutes or something of the sort) and designed for variation in repetition. In addition, it must fall within a recognized categorization of tune (jig, reel, etc.) - an abstractified collection of notes is certainly outside of tradition. So is a change of time signatures mid-piece (it happens, but not in traditional music). There's also some expectation of key, that key being one easily played on traditional instruments: G, D, etc. (in my limited knowledge of music theory, I'll go so far as to posit G major, G mixolydian, D mixolydian, D major, etc.); a tune in E-flat ionian is outside of the tradition. Further, a tune gains status by acclaim within the musical community: Ashokan Farewell, for example, though a very young tune, is now considered a "traditional" Civil War song or "traditional" Scottish lament, being composed in those styles or traditions of playing.
As far as instrumentation goes, history of the instrument is typically most important. The harp, flute, whistle, pipes, fiddle, and accordion/concertina family are generally considered the top of the traditional heap. Piano, mandolin, guitar, and bozouki will fall outside of this range for two reasons: first, that they are relatively new arrivals in the repertoire of instruments, and secondly, that they are typically played in the capacity of harmony rather than melody, a technique alien to the playing tradition. Geography also plays a role: not in origin per se but in area of acceptance. The Highland pipes and hardingfele, for example, are close relatives of Irish instruments, share common musical ancestors and are played in some Irish music, but they remain outside of the traditional realm (though they do fall into traditions of their own, of course).
Playing technique is a slippery spot to stand on, but I'll say that there are techniques which define Irish tradition and must be recognized as such. Being a fiddler I can only name some, but the roll and bowed triplet (or treble...there was a big discussion elsewhere on that whole term) for example strike the ear as tradition, while excessive slides and "flighty" grace notes (the somewhat classical practice of repeatedly going back and forth between a pair of notes on one string, which just tends to remind me of a bird for whatever reason...sorry I can't describe it better). Bow-wise, shuffling techniques are outside the Irish tradition; the use of crossbowing, though, is definitely in. Playing in higher positions is a technique set beyond the Irish tradition because, from what I've read, the original Irish fiddle had a curved neck which prohibited such action. Playing a lower or higher octave as counterpoint is certainly traditional; playing harmony notes, chord progressions, and the like is not (except maybe as a kind of ornamentation...the idea of harmony instrument as whole, though, is as mentioned alien). Droning is a widely-held but still traditional technique.
In all paragraphs, supplement the examples given as you so desire, of course...
And feel free to argue everything. I've tried to give a comprehensive, interlocking, check-and-balance kind of way to decide if a piece of music (that is, a tune, played on an instrument by a performer - not a certain tune, certain instrument or certain method of playing the tune alone) is traditional or not. I think. I hope >_>
irish musicians have gotten together after harvest and planting to beguile away the hours in joyous music-making for nigh on hundreds of years. they just weren't doing it in bars with the tip jar out, fighting over free drinks and fighting to be heard over the television, the jukebox and the punters. and they didn't have any expectations of making a "career," let alone a fortune, out of it. for their living, they milked cows, drove lorries, plowed fields, layed brick and hauled peat. willy clancy built coffins, we learned from marion mccarthy at a local tionol recently.
check out the last little track on "two gentleman of west clare music," a wonderful recording of fiddler joe ryan and recently-departed concertina man gerdie commane when both were well into their eighties. that last track consists of gerdie recounting how he always thought of joe when he heard a certain tune because the first time he met joe (think: 30s or 40s here), it was planting time, because they were out laying "spuds.". someone came up with the fiddle, and "when joe heard that tune.....he just started to dancin'!" that says it all.
Nice, Dan. The only thing you didn't mention was rhythm, that the music is meant to be dance music...which explains the time signatures and bars and patterns of the tunes, and some of the playing techniques.
Sometimes I wonder if having at least some experience playing for dancers is essential for really understanding how the tunes are supposed to go...
Great point Kennedy. Put another way, dance is the thread that holds the tapestry of the tradition together. Back in the days before the Old Favorite sessions began in London, in the days of the country house dance or gathering at the Crossroads on a Sunday afternoon. The people didn't come to listen the the musicians, they came to dance.
Kennedy makes the point. A few or more generations ago there were no other ways of merry making than getting together for a dance, and of course you'd dance to the music that the locals had built through generations. It would become tradition because as a child you'd be dragged along while your folks got p*ssed on poteen and later when older, you'd meet your girl and later still bring along your own kids etc. Technological progress has replaced a lot of that need for communal gatherings etc, so the tradition of irish music has been displaced into our very different lives, where the pub (sessions) and the internet (discussion board) forms part of our communal time; the social animals we are will always require communal time.
Another point to the benefit of the Irish tradition, and lesser extent Scots, is that after home-rule there was a huge revival in all things Irish among the middle classes in Ireland lead by folks like Plunkett, Yeats, etc. Gaelic was revived and irish musicians celebrated. This stopped the traditions being wiped out by cinema/music hall/TV as it has in England, for example.
The revival was driven largely by the fact that in the 17th/18th centuries the traditions (language dance and music) were forbidden. The local dance was for years an illegal gathering - dancers hummed their way through the tunes (hence the tradition of lilting) so that when the authorities showed up there would be no proof of Irish music having been played.
It is fortunate indeed that it was the attempt to suppress the irish traditions that have in the end saved them. Let's hope this will also apply in Tibet, Burma,Botswana and anywhere in the world were suppressed minorities endure. It is only now through technolgy and knowledge that we are aware of the value of traditions, and the need to keep them strong.
Just to pick up one of Dan's points - James Scott-Skinner wrote a number of tunes that require moving up the neck and that are in odd keys (Madame Neruda is in Eb for example). Traditional or not....? Also a number of Shetland tunes are in Bb, F (and a few in Eb). Harmony has existed in Irish music too, all the different traditional pipes have drones (and the Uilliean pipes have the regs), and chord structure exists in trad too, albeit implicitly.
Another point is that alot of the music used to be functional, be that dance tunes for socialising, songs for working to etc etc. Considering modern compositions however, if it can be functional does it matter if it has never been used for that purpose?
Hi Ottery. Not really a fan of anyone, other than Liam O'Flynn. Born in Norn Iron. Being an Innocent Bystander is not so much a way of life, more a means of survival.
It only really matters when drunks in the pub ask you if you play with or can play U2.
"Can you play U2?"
"No, we play Irish tunes, not Irish rock bands"
"But it's all the same ain it?"
Stripthewillow, I disagree with your statement that technological progress has replaced the need for communal gatherings. What we get from technology is an awfully poor substitute, and the world could do with more old-style communal gatherings, in my humble opinion.
Joze funnily enough in an excellent session a couple of weeks ago a fantastic trio of visiting musicians did 'I still haven't found what I'm looking for' on pipes, flute and bouzouki and it was great and was very well received in this very trad session. The rest of the night was full of great tunes and traditional style songs. I know it's not all the same but I think if you had heard U2 done that night, as I did, the drunks request might not have seemed so silly.
Al - you're right of course... I meant replaced the need to entertain ourselves - not the need for get togethers. Nothing beats a good wedding, christening, wake - or any reason for a party in between
@ Kennedy: I had considered mentioning the issue of dance steps in music but then thought, what about the solo singing tradition of airs and ballads? Those must be considered a part of the tradition, even bereft as they are of any intent of dance, right?
@ Andy: Well...Scott-Skinner was, in fact, a Scot : P His music would fall into a Scottish tradition, of course; but if he did in fact write a piece that was just completely out there, then no, it wouldn't be a traditional piece, the same way o'Carolan can write a classical or Baroque-style tune and have it not be traditional if it's too continental.
I take it Carolan played within the limits of the diatonic convention which rules Irish and British trad music, allowing alternation between a natural or sharp fourth, or else a flat or natural seventh, but generally very little else. It's interesting to see how trad players push the chromatic boat out; some tunes contain extra flats and sharps and sound good, while many others - notably on the piano-accordion circuit - just sound bloody awful. I wonder if Carolan really did play Geminiani and Corelli pieces, and how possible this would have been on the harps available to him.
funny you should mention Corelli, I was wondering what the influence was while playing tonight. While having a curse the tendons and fingers night I was thinking last time it was this bad was when I was rehearsing Corelli
In terms of copyright, it seems to be that anything is traditional if it's so old that no one can remember who wrote it, so it can't be attributed to any one person and therefore no rights are payable. Just to look at it from a different angle!
But you can have people write "in the tradition" and their tunes are accepted and absorbed; and then you can have people who write their own because they can't be bothered to go out and find a few more old tunes, ( and they get more royalties off the cd sales ) and they're c*r*a*p.
I think it does matter; the definition of tradion is always that it can absorb new material, but that most new material will not be carried on. People will want to play a good tune again.
I’ve always listened to a *lot* of different musical styles and I’ve gradually come to doubt a lot of the received wisdom about what influenced what and how some of the styles became “traditional”. I don’t expect to live long enough to formulate any grand unifying theories of my own, but I suspect that too many of the experts have bought into untested assumptions and packaged it all just a bit too neatly.
For example, we hear over and over that bluegrass has strong Celtic roots, and I took that for granted for a long time. But the more I listen to, and learn about, other styles that were thriving in the first half of the 20th century, the more I believe that bluegrass owes much more to African-American string band music, western swing and 1930’s/40’s pop music than to anything clearly Irish or Scottish.
There’s been an automatic assumption that the fiddle tunes of the southern US descended from Irish and Scottish tunes, because so many of the early settlers were Scots-Irish, but I’m beginning to agree with (I think it was) Bruce Molsky, who argued that only a few of the tunes have identifiable Irish or Scottish roots.
Sorry ‘bout the tangent, but I actually think it’s relevant, if only to point out that there really are no authorities, because they all start with a load of assumptions, plenty of which probably are not true.
So, how to decide what’s traditional in the current scene? Unfortunately, the question can’t be answered for several decades. Anything that’s being enjoyed by a large enough cohort today us subject to being recognized in the future as traditional. On the other hand, you can find plenty of opinions about what *should* be allowed as traditional today. And they are all correct. Except that some of them are wrong.
Traditional. Does it matter?
Traditional. Does it matter?
I am really struggling here. I wonder if help is out there.
I have been trying to put a handle on what is traditional. I read a bunch of posts recently discussed here on what is traditional and that was helpful to a very small degree. But I am still bewildered by the whole topic.
I think of what would be called traditional dress (e.g. http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/dbs/china/images/putri.jpg). Are the dresses traditional because they are generations old and that nobody knows who the seamstress is? It seems like one can just look at the dress and conclude that those dresses are traditional dresses. This method (I knows it when I hears it) doesn't seem to be functional here.
I was surprised and, I admit, disappointed, when I found out that pub sessions are just a little bit older that Elvis Presley! I always pictured musicians getting together after planting and harvest to beguile the hours in joyous music making. Shepherds taking their instruments to the field to spend some time in serenity or neighbors gathering on cold winter nights around the hearth. Call me a romantic (and shock my bride).
I am coming to the conclusion quickly that there really is no "traditional Irish" anything, that the past is really made up as imagination adds or subtracts (King Arthur mythology comes to mind).
The consideration of tradition reminds me of my college philosophy classes and Plato's "forms" (what is the paradigm chair and when does a chair become a sofa).
After all the dissecting and categorizing and defining, does it really matter to you and should it matter to me?
# Posted on November 30th 2006 by feardearg
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
Musicians did get together -- in people's houses. Pub sessions are young, but I believe that the getting together to share music in such a way is much older.
# Posted on November 30th 2006 by Crysania
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
I wouldn't worry too much about it; leave that to the academics. After all, one man's meat....
Just enjoy it!
Conán
# Posted on November 30th 2006 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
'Tis an interesting question and on a subject on which I am certainly no expert but one which I have pondered and researched a bit.
I think there is a long history of Irish music over at least a millennium (and arguably 2 or 3), during which time various instruments came into vogue and during which various instrumental and vocal traditions formed and evolved. The use of bagpipes, flutes, fiddle, etc, all have interesting histories.
There is a shorter history of say 300 years in which many of the "traditional" tunes and songs were written and during which time they have been played in houses, meeting halls, barns, pubs, etc. I think it is reasonable to think of this period as the main timespan for Irish traditional music, although even 300 years ago there were aspects of the music that probably seemed to ancient to those playing it.
And then there is an even shorter history of say 60 years in which pub sessions have been common. And in the last 30 years there have been several waves of rising popularity of various "modernized" incarnations of Irish music, such as Irish rock, Irish music in movie soundtracks, Riverdance, Enya-new-age-reverb-drenched-Celtic stuff, etc.
I think there is an analogous situation in America with Bluegrass music (which definitely has some Celtic roots) -- the style was invented by Bill Monroe around 60 years ago, but it drew heavily on other existing music that even back then was called "old-time" music. Bluegrass music is roughly the same age as rock and roll but somehow many people think it is this ancient music.
There is a long and hazy history of interplay between the forces for preservation of tradition and forces for innovation in Irish music. I think that learning about this history is ultimately a lot more interesting and useful than trying to come up with a concise definition of what "traditional" is.
Sermon over
# Posted on November 30th 2006 by timmy!
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
Reminds me of my favourite quote from Mad magazine.
"Jazz was invented by Steve Allen in 1955".
Traditional music, roots music, folk music, ethnic music,call it what you will. The moment Homo Sapien had a little spare time from finding food and defending himself, he started making music. If his neighbours were amused, and started making similar sounds, they had a session. It didn't require a special place, and they didn't know if it was or wasn't Wednesday evening. Traditional music develops and thrives when a community wants to play/sing it. The current confusion stems from the amazingly quick global transfer of information, and the similarly quick interest of those who want to make coinage of anything in sight.
The litmus test is simple: If certain music is created or adapted by, and played for the personal enjoyment of a community group OVER TIME (several generations), then it becomes traditional to that community. A newly created tune could become part of the tradition IF it were accepted by the community, and played in their style.
Of course, there is nothing to stop anyone in the world from learning someone else's tradition, and changing it to suit themselves; but it then may become something else.
# Posted on November 30th 2006 by oldstrings
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
"played in their style" I like that most of all I have heard. "Accepted by the community" I really like that, too.
Some cultures find stretched out lower lips attractive. Some cultures find plump women more attractive.
You know, I wonder if there is something genetic going on here. Could it be possible that something appeals to groups because of some gene rather than culture? Applied, there are some "ethnic" musics that I don't like but the culture of origin obviously really like it. Indian music isn't big in the western world. Polish Polkas appeal to a certain group, but is not popular among others.
Could Irish Trad be music that appeals predominately to a certain ethnic type, whether new or old? Could that be why the music would last several generations?
# Posted on November 30th 2006 by feardearg
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
feardearg -- Irish trad has a lot of fans and players from many ethnicities, no? The reason the music lasts is because people like it.
# Posted on November 30th 2006 by timmy!
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
I don't think it's an ethnic thing. The community of Irish trad players is relatively small, whereas those who dislike (carefully chosen word!) it very large. This is true in the "home" of trad music, so I'm sure its not an innate part of being Irish or Scottish or even American to have a liking for it. It just demonstrates superb taste.
# Posted on November 30th 2006 by Backer
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
The music is definately traditional, and the sessions, where the music is widely played, is relatively new, but might qualify since it's been going on through at least a few generations now. Does it matter? I don't know... what do you mean? Matter to who? Why?
# Posted on November 30th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
When I hear a great new original reel by Liz Carroll, I don't think I care much about tradition.
When I'm accidentally exposed to the likes of Afro Celt Sound System, tradition matters a lot.
# Posted on November 30th 2006 by JSO
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
Well said JSO
# Posted on November 30th 2006 by AlBrown
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
I was always encouraged to believe that "good" ((classical ?)
music had a permanent aesthetic appeal . The same criteria
must surely be relevant to traditional music that has stood
the test of time.
# Posted on November 30th 2006 by duffgen
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
Good points, backer. I assumed that in Ireland tunes were universally loved and appreciated. The end of a log held theory. And Crazy (fingers, that is, not the rest) that's why I included *predominately*.
JSO, I think that is what I meant when I said "I knows it when I hears it". This is how I look at it.
I guess it used to matter more to me than it does now. I like to look into things beyond the surface. I get stuck whatever I do trying know as much about it as possible and to relate to it-internalize as well as I can.
I researched the myth of Tam Lin when I learned the tune. I studied Bonnie Price Charlie when I discovered "Skye Boat Song" related to him.
Maybe that's my problem. All this traditional perspective seems kinda fuzzy to me.
# Posted on November 30th 2006 by feardearg
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
"What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday.
This life is a creation of the Mind."
--Sakyamuni Buddha
# Posted on December 1st 2006 by Innocent Bystander
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
Hey, Innocent Bystander, are you a Dan Hicks fan, or is your name just a coincidence (Innocent)
# Posted on December 1st 2006 by Ottery
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
Academic folklorists have put a lot of work into this and it has been many years since I thought about this. At a meeting of folklorists once upon a time, there was a general agreement of what made something tradition. Some of the considerations were: time (something becomes traditional by having been played by more than one musical generation) and variation over time and space (i. e. we don't all play a Michael Coleman tune the way Michael Coleman played it). Ideally there should be some aspect of community approval: a musician might bring some idiosyncratic elements into a tune; if the variations are agreeable to other musicians or even listeners they might catch on but if they don't they won't. Thus Ed Reavey wrote tunes that were enough in a traditional idiom that they caught on. Years ago I got to know and play with some old fiddlers in Southern Vermont. If you played a tune or version of a tune they didn't like they would say, "Well, that's the tune the old cow died on." Similarly, people I played with in western North Carolina would be quick to scowl at a tune that sounded too much like bluegrass. It was all good-natured but they made their point.
This probably doesn't matter a whole lot. In a way the point is that tradition is resilient and adaptive. Tradition does live and change, and if we do something that isn't traditional it probably won't do much harm.
My two cents.
# Posted on December 1st 2006 by dwdeacon
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
Long thought: I'm under the impression that "traditional" Irish music refers to three distinct but inexorably correlated ideas: first, the tune set; second, the instruments; and third, the techniques of playing.
A "traditional" Irish tune must be a tune written within parameters of instrumentation and playing technique. It should be written for traditional instruments, and should lend itself well to being played with traditional technique. Furthermore, a "traditional" Irish tune is relatively short (as opposed to classical ideas of short as being 20 minutes or something of the sort) and designed for variation in repetition. In addition, it must fall within a recognized categorization of tune (jig, reel, etc.) - an abstractified collection of notes is certainly outside of tradition. So is a change of time signatures mid-piece (it happens, but not in traditional music). There's also some expectation of key, that key being one easily played on traditional instruments: G, D, etc. (in my limited knowledge of music theory, I'll go so far as to posit G major, G mixolydian, D mixolydian, D major, etc.); a tune in E-flat ionian is outside of the tradition. Further, a tune gains status by acclaim within the musical community: Ashokan Farewell, for example, though a very young tune, is now considered a "traditional" Civil War song or "traditional" Scottish lament, being composed in those styles or traditions of playing.
As far as instrumentation goes, history of the instrument is typically most important. The harp, flute, whistle, pipes, fiddle, and accordion/concertina family are generally considered the top of the traditional heap. Piano, mandolin, guitar, and bozouki will fall outside of this range for two reasons: first, that they are relatively new arrivals in the repertoire of instruments, and secondly, that they are typically played in the capacity of harmony rather than melody, a technique alien to the playing tradition. Geography also plays a role: not in origin per se but in area of acceptance. The Highland pipes and hardingfele, for example, are close relatives of Irish instruments, share common musical ancestors and are played in some Irish music, but they remain outside of the traditional realm (though they do fall into traditions of their own, of course).
Playing technique is a slippery spot to stand on, but I'll say that there are techniques which define Irish tradition and must be recognized as such. Being a fiddler I can only name some, but the roll and bowed triplet (or treble...there was a big discussion elsewhere on that whole term) for example strike the ear as tradition, while excessive slides and "flighty" grace notes (the somewhat classical practice of repeatedly going back and forth between a pair of notes on one string, which just tends to remind me of a bird for whatever reason...sorry I can't describe it better). Bow-wise, shuffling techniques are outside the Irish tradition; the use of crossbowing, though, is definitely in. Playing in higher positions is a technique set beyond the Irish tradition because, from what I've read, the original Irish fiddle had a curved neck which prohibited such action. Playing a lower or higher octave as counterpoint is certainly traditional; playing harmony notes, chord progressions, and the like is not (except maybe as a kind of ornamentation...the idea of harmony instrument as whole, though, is as mentioned alien). Droning is a widely-held but still traditional technique.
In all paragraphs, supplement the examples given as you so desire, of course...
And feel free to argue everything. I've tried to give a comprehensive, interlocking, check-and-balance kind of way to decide if a piece of music (that is, a tune, played on an instrument by a performer - not a certain tune, certain instrument or certain method of playing the tune alone) is traditional or not. I think. I hope >_>
Thoughts?
--Dan
# Posted on December 1st 2006 by Dan the Man
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
irish musicians have gotten together after harvest and planting to beguile away the hours in joyous music-making for nigh on hundreds of years. they just weren't doing it in bars with the tip jar out, fighting over free drinks and fighting to be heard over the television, the jukebox and the punters. and they didn't have any expectations of making a "career," let alone a fortune, out of it. for their living, they milked cows, drove lorries, plowed fields, layed brick and hauled peat. willy clancy built coffins, we learned from marion mccarthy at a local tionol recently.
check out the last little track on "two gentleman of west clare music," a wonderful recording of fiddler joe ryan and recently-departed concertina man gerdie commane when both were well into their eighties. that last track consists of gerdie recounting how he always thought of joe when he heard a certain tune because the first time he met joe (think: 30s or 40s here), it was planting time, because they were out laying "spuds.". someone came up with the fiddle, and "when joe heard that tune.....he just started to dancin'!" that says it all.
# Posted on December 1st 2006 by ceemonster
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
Nice, Dan. The only thing you didn't mention was rhythm, that the music is meant to be dance music...which explains the time signatures and bars and patterns of the tunes, and some of the playing techniques.
Sometimes I wonder if having at least some experience playing for dancers is essential for really understanding how the tunes are supposed to go...
# Posted on December 1st 2006 by kennedy
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
Great point Kennedy. Put another way, dance is the thread that holds the tapestry of the tradition together. Back in the days before the Old Favorite sessions began in London, in the days of the country house dance or gathering at the Crossroads on a Sunday afternoon. The people didn't come to listen the the musicians, they came to dance.
# Posted on December 1st 2006 by RogueFiddler
Wow!
Just got back from a session and had to check this thread.
Thank you all. This is exactly what I needed to learn! I am going to print this out and read it often.
I am very grateful to you all!
# Posted on December 1st 2006 by feardearg
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
Kennedy makes the point. A few or more generations ago there were no other ways of merry making than getting together for a dance, and of course you'd dance to the music that the locals had built through generations. It would become tradition because as a child you'd be dragged along while your folks got p*ssed on poteen and later when older, you'd meet your girl and later still bring along your own kids etc. Technological progress has replaced a lot of that need for communal gatherings etc, so the tradition of irish music has been displaced into our very different lives, where the pub (sessions) and the internet (discussion board) forms part of our communal time; the social animals we are will always require communal time.
Another point to the benefit of the Irish tradition, and lesser extent Scots, is that after home-rule there was a huge revival in all things Irish among the middle classes in Ireland lead by folks like Plunkett, Yeats, etc. Gaelic was revived and irish musicians celebrated. This stopped the traditions being wiped out by cinema/music hall/TV as it has in England, for example.
The revival was driven largely by the fact that in the 17th/18th centuries the traditions (language dance and music) were forbidden. The local dance was for years an illegal gathering - dancers hummed their way through the tunes (hence the tradition of lilting) so that when the authorities showed up there would be no proof of Irish music having been played.
It is fortunate indeed that it was the attempt to suppress the irish traditions that have in the end saved them. Let's hope this will also apply in Tibet, Burma,Botswana and anywhere in the world were suppressed minorities endure. It is only now through technolgy and knowledge that we are aware of the value of traditions, and the need to keep them strong.
# Posted on December 1st 2006 by stripthewillow
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
Just to pick up one of Dan's points - James Scott-Skinner wrote a number of tunes that require moving up the neck and that are in odd keys (Madame Neruda is in Eb for example). Traditional or not....? Also a number of Shetland tunes are in Bb, F (and a few in Eb). Harmony has existed in Irish music too, all the different traditional pipes have drones (and the Uilliean pipes have the regs), and chord structure exists in trad too, albeit implicitly.
Another point is that alot of the music used to be functional, be that dance tunes for socialising, songs for working to etc etc. Considering modern compositions however, if it can be functional does it matter if it has never been used for that purpose?
# Posted on December 1st 2006 by Andy V
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
There's another thread going elsewhere regarding what is "traditional" for instrumentation.
We are learning that the 5 string banjo, for example, was introduced to Irish music in 1843, the bouzouki in 1966 and so on.
It turns out that the only "traditional" instruments worthy of the moniker would be the harp and perhaps the whistle, originally cut from a reed!
# Posted on December 1st 2006 by celticagent
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
Hi Ottery. Not really a fan of anyone, other than Liam O'Flynn. Born in Norn Iron. Being an Innocent Bystander is not so much a way of life, more a means of survival.
# Posted on December 1st 2006 by Innocent Bystander
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
It only really matters when drunks in the pub ask you if you play with or can play U2.
"Can you play U2?"
"No, we play Irish tunes, not Irish rock bands"
"But it's all the same ain it?"
# Posted on December 1st 2006 by Joze
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
Stripthewillow, I disagree with your statement that technological progress has replaced the need for communal gatherings. What we get from technology is an awfully poor substitute, and the world could do with more old-style communal gatherings, in my humble opinion.
# Posted on December 1st 2006 by AlBrown
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
Joze funnily enough in an excellent session a couple of weeks ago a fantastic trio of visiting musicians did 'I still haven't found what I'm looking for' on pipes, flute and bouzouki and it was great and was very well received in this very trad session. The rest of the night was full of great tunes and traditional style songs. I know it's not all the same but I think if you had heard U2 done that night, as I did, the drunks request might not have seemed so silly.
# Posted on December 1st 2006 by flossie
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
turns out the saxophone is more "traditional" than the flute, guitar, bouzouki, bodhran or tinwhistle
# Posted on December 1st 2006 by celticagent
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
Al - you're right of course... I meant replaced the need to entertain ourselves - not the need for get togethers. Nothing beats a good wedding, christening, wake - or any reason for a party in between
# Posted on December 1st 2006 by stripthewillow
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
@ Kennedy: I had considered mentioning the issue of dance steps in music but then thought, what about the solo singing tradition of airs and ballads? Those must be considered a part of the tradition, even bereft as they are of any intent of dance, right?
@ Andy: Well...Scott-Skinner was, in fact, a Scot : P His music would fall into a Scottish tradition, of course; but if he did in fact write a piece that was just completely out there, then no, it wouldn't be a traditional piece, the same way o'Carolan can write a classical or Baroque-style tune and have it not be traditional if it's too continental.
--Dan
# Posted on December 2nd 2006 by Dan the Man
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
I take it Carolan played within the limits of the diatonic convention which rules Irish and British trad music, allowing alternation between a natural or sharp fourth, or else a flat or natural seventh, but generally very little else. It's interesting to see how trad players push the chromatic boat out; some tunes contain extra flats and sharps and sound good, while many others - notably on the piano-accordion circuit - just sound bloody awful. I wonder if Carolan really did play Geminiani and Corelli pieces, and how possible this would have been on the harps available to him.
# Posted on December 2nd 2006 by nicholas
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
funny you should mention Corelli, I was wondering what the influence was while playing tonight. While having a curse the tendons and fingers night I was thinking last time it was this bad was when I was rehearsing Corelli
# Posted on December 2nd 2006 by Joze
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
In terms of copyright, it seems to be that anything is traditional if it's so old that no one can remember who wrote it, so it can't be attributed to any one person and therefore no rights are payable. Just to look at it from a different angle!
# Posted on December 2nd 2006 by bowburner
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
But you can have people write "in the tradition" and their tunes are accepted and absorbed; and then you can have people who write their own because they can't be bothered to go out and find a few more old tunes, ( and they get more royalties off the cd sales ) and they're c*r*a*p.
I think it does matter; the definition of tradion is always that it can absorb new material, but that most new material will not be carried on. People will want to play a good tune again.
# Posted on December 3rd 2006 by Guernsey Pete
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
hehe! i don't know but i think both two cases can be used
# Posted on June 5th 2007 by thienbinhmeo
Re: Traditional. Does it matter?
I’ve always listened to a *lot* of different musical styles and I’ve gradually come to doubt a lot of the received wisdom about what influenced what and how some of the styles became “traditional”. I don’t expect to live long enough to formulate any grand unifying theories of my own, but I suspect that too many of the experts have bought into untested assumptions and packaged it all just a bit too neatly.
For example, we hear over and over that bluegrass has strong Celtic roots, and I took that for granted for a long time. But the more I listen to, and learn about, other styles that were thriving in the first half of the 20th century, the more I believe that bluegrass owes much more to African-American string band music, western swing and 1930’s/40’s pop music than to anything clearly Irish or Scottish.
There’s been an automatic assumption that the fiddle tunes of the southern US descended from Irish and Scottish tunes, because so many of the early settlers were Scots-Irish, but I’m beginning to agree with (I think it was) Bruce Molsky, who argued that only a few of the tunes have identifiable Irish or Scottish roots.
Sorry ‘bout the tangent, but I actually think it’s relevant, if only to point out that there really are no authorities, because they all start with a load of assumptions, plenty of which probably are not true.
So, how to decide what’s traditional in the current scene? Unfortunately, the question can’t be answered for several decades. Anything that’s being enjoyed by a large enough cohort today us subject to being recognized in the future as traditional. On the other hand, you can find plenty of opinions about what *should* be allowed as traditional today. And they are all correct. Except that some of them are wrong.
# Posted on June 5th 2007 by Bob himself