This is admittedly an offshoot from the threads on cost/value of instruments. Somebody - maybe me - mentioned the seperation of the instrument and the music played on it. These are the only terms I can think in, but for others it seems to be a strange concept. What about this?
Supposing you were offered the following choice: You can either continue to play your main instrument (for example fiddle) but you will have to change to a different kind of music (so let's say, no more Irish music, if that's what you're into); OR you can carry on playing Irish music but you will have to start over learning a different instrument. A silly construction, maybe, but I know I would have to choose to play the music I love over the instrument I currently play.
I remember hearing about some early pipers (might have been the great MacCrimmons in Scotland) who used to carelessly throw their pipes away over their shoulders after playing, as a gesture that the pipes were merely a vessel for the music and of no instrinsic value in themselves. (Of course they had a servant standing by to catch them, to save on repairs!)
Anyone who has travelled and found themselves among traditional musicians in less wealthy cultures has surely had the experience of meeting players of great skill and dedication, producing fabulous music on instruments that most middle class westerners would consider almost unplayable. Sure, a lot of these musicians are happy to get their hands on better instruments if they can, but they also know that it is their skill that is paramount, and fortunately that is something the bank manager can't take away!
I'm not advocating inverted snobbery. If you want an instrument and can afford it, you might as well buy it. But when people start going on about famous makes, and fancy prices and the search for the ultimate instrument I always feel they're trying to compensate for something else.
I like nice instruments. I dont' really think there is or should be a seperation...you plays what you wants...but just because someone likes a nice instrument doesn't mean that they are lacking or a snob or anything else. It as just another, maybe deeper way to appreciate what it is you like about the music..any style of music I mean.
I don't know anybody who has said "I am as good as I can be, now I'll go and get a crappy instrument to prove it".
and if you could afford a servant to catch your pipes or any other instrument, then you could afford to act that way. That in and of itself is a very arrogant act and should not be acknowledged.
I was with you Kris, up to that last sentence. Problem is, many of the most talented musicians crave certain makers or specific instruments, so it isn't "always" to make up for a lack of skill or talent. Consider Eric Clapton's abundance of guitars, and Joshua Bell going after that Strad that was different than any other he'd played.
I suspect that most of the big name instruments got their reputations by offering something extra or special in terms of tone quality or playability or capacity for expressiveness--e.g., the honk and power of a Hamilton flute, the chunk and power and sweetness of an old Lloyd Loar Gibson mandolin, the pop and clarity of a Paramount banjo, etc.
The better us musicians get, the more discerning we become, and the more we want instruments that respond to our abilities and imaginations.
That said, it certainly is possible to make brilliant music on less expensive instruments. I play a $650 fiddle, a $500 banjo, and an $800 flute. In the grand scheme of things, those are low to middling prices. But these instruments, in the right hands (not necessarily mine ), are all capable of making quality music, music that wouldn't sound out of place on your favorite cd.
I'd try to have it both ways: play Irish /UK tunes on the whistle, as one can't do much else on it, and go off into all kinds of other stuff on the melodeon, which has semitones. (I will play the whistle in a deep forest where the last red squirrel in England will tell me when the Music Police are coming.)
For me it's got to be the music that's really important.
The instrument has to sound pleasing to my own ear first regardless of what it costs. I think the fact that a lot of trad musicians are multi-instrumentalists may also have something to do with it. Although I like dabbling with different Instruments, I just can't afford the investment for quality instruments. At the moment I'm playing a Bb gen whistle and Dixon Brass whistle cost approx £50. My Flute is a `B` stock 3 piece rosewood Dixon cost £64, My Ibanez mandolin cost £25 in the early 80's, My Bodhran is an EMS tuneable which cost £53, Seagull Acoustic Guitar £250 with case. Total cost roughly £440 for the lot. The point is although I have been playing trad music for 30 odd years, I'm quite content in making music with these Instruments. So I would advocate again that the music is more important.
This is a topic close to my heart. My experience from sesions over many years is that the (usually) man who has the finest instrument is one of the poorest musicians. This therory is certainly not infallible, but I have often witnessed occasions when the guy with the top of the range gear is sh*te, and the newcomer with the battered cheap instrument, perhaps not even in an identifiable case (such as a bin bag), turns out to be stunningly brilliant.
This is not an argument for reverse snobbery - the more expensive instruments are usually easier to play and have a better tone. But it is often the case that A1 musicians are short of cash. People with a high disposable income who want to get fit might pay a small fortune for a year's gym membership, and attend a couple of times, wasting their money. They might buy weights or an exercise bike which they never use.
My theory is that richer people tend to think that if you pay enough, they will reach their goal. If you buy the exercise gear, you will lose weight. If you buy the most expensive instrument, you will play better. The reality is different; if you want to be lean and trim, buying the equipment is not enough. If you want to play well, buying the best available instrument is not enough.
That's a tough choice. I've had my fiddle since I was 8, and I'm now 47, so it feels like it's a part of me. I had to stop playing fiddle for a few years because of an injury, and it felt like a limb was missing. I've tried other fiddles, and while I like them, I know this instrument very well. It really would be a tough choice between changing to playing west highland Scottish fiddle , or finally realising my dream of becoming a piper.
And Howeehecutting's comment about finest instruments often in the hands of the least able players is something I have observed right spectrum of musical styles. Mind you, if I changed to pipes, I would get the best instrument I could afford (and that doesn't automaticaly mean the most expensive).
I'd go with the music first as well. I've "made do" with my fiddle and my guitar now for many years and have been quite happy with the results. Luckily I can borrow something sweet for any recording I must do, but all in all, I'm happy with what I play on, just not always happy with what I play!
Often the person who has the finest instrument is the one who works a full time job, and therefore has less time to practice than the one who only works part time or plays for a living. Its the old time vs. money trade-off.
I went to a bouzouki workshop with Andy Irvine a couple of years ago and was surprised, even shocked, at how road-worn his instrument looked. Was there tape on it? I forget exactly. Granted he was 5000 miles from home, but I mean, he didn't drag it the whole way, did he? But he sure could make that thing sing!
So which is the way to a better sound - a better instrument, or more time to learn how to play a mediocre one? Anyone want to do a study?
This is definitely something I've been thinking about lately with my box playing, because I think box may be the best exception to the rule. A better quality box sounds better in anyone's hands, and getting a better box will make you sound better. Why? Because the sound production is completely mechanical. A fiddle player must spend time and effort working on getting good pitch and good tone from their fiddle, and if they haven't done this, a brilliant fiddle won't do it for them. On box there is no technique to tone production; you press a button and it goes. Other aspects of playing the box certainly do have to be practiced to be improved, but tone is not one of them.
I played Irish music for several years on mandolin, and I've definitely stuck with the music while switching. Now I'm on an Eastman 200 (not an expensive violin)... but I'm getting into the fiddle like I never gotten into playing music before.
But it's the tunes. Without the music I'm playing, the fiddle would be a fragile piece of wood hanging on the wall or something.
I'd choose the music....but probably because I AM a late comer and it was the music that has dictated instrument choice for me.
As for the less able players compensating for lack of skill by buying a more expensive instrument. ABSO-bloody-LUTELY! Hey we weren't smart enough to find our way to this music as kids and become extraordinary and experienced musicians by middle age.....so we try make up for it with getting better instruments.
I'm NEVER gonna catch up with someone who has been playing for 39 years. I'll always lag 37 year behind! But maybe with a really good instrument I could fudge how it looks and only look 25 years behind!
Lose the Instrument or lose the music? The two are intertwined for me. But I think I'd lose the instrument. I had to, once, because of a shoulder injury, and picked up a little tinwhistle for several months and learned tunes on that.
Having said that, I do step out a bit with other styles anyway -- old timey, jazz and rock -- and other instruments - whistle, mandolin, guitar, banjo and ukulele but by far my main focus is Irish fiddle.
As for the cost of instruments, I've always had relatively cheap ones and took a perverse sort of pride in that. But recently I stumbled across a deal on a really nice fiddle that I just couldn't pass up. I didn't drop the anywhere near the jingle on it that a pro might, but still, it's the most expensive instrument I've ever owned. And I'm thrilled. It challenges me in ways my other fiddle couldn't, and my technique and tone are improving. It's just a blast to play.
Oh, and the time/money thing. I heard a bluegrass guy say once that the way to get good on banjo was to be out of work for six months. But then I was out of work for three months once and never even got halfway decent.
Yep, the music. Sure. Definitely. Of course if you're good enough, you can make any old pile of crap sound amazing. Having a nice instrument is just the icing on the cake.
Seems some folks have forgotten the question. It was, give up your instrument ie fiddle, and play another instrument instead, ie banjo. It wasn't give up your good fiddle and play a crappy fiddle.
Well, ok:
I'm a guitar player who likes playing a few tunes rather than a tune geek who plays guitar. So I guess it would the music I would give up first. I've just invested too much of my life to six strings to give it all up and blow down a biddy tube of metal or scrape a horses tail across a cat's gut. I just like playing and if I had to switch to whistle or fiddle I wouldn't be able to realise that desire (not straight away, anyway).But if the music police say it has to be then it would have to be.
As for price of instruments, I guess you get the best quality instruments you can afford although there are exceptions. In 2005 I was out in Vietnam for 5 weeks. I wanted to take a guitar with me but was afraid my main axe might get damamged/lost. It's not so much the value as the sentiment involved. So I bought a new (and inexpensive) guitar to take with me. If it got lost I wouldn't be that bothered apart from the lost financial investment. It did the job fine (but I haven't played it since).
As for rich kids with their expensive instruments, well I guess some of them think that if they make a big financial investment they are more likely to make the time investment required to learn to play the thing properly. Having said that my main guitar would cost £1900 to replace but that only works out at £200 for each year I've had it.
Will (and everybody else who referred to my last comment) I didn't say the person who is obsessed with having a fancy, or high status instrument is necessarily compensating for a lack of skill - but I think they are trying to compensate for something. Perhaps a lack of self confidence. In some cases the need to impress plays a part, too! Flashy bits of technique with little actual musicianship is another aspect of this.
kjay - as a box player of many years, I don't entirely agree with you. Yes, if two accordions are played by a machine it will be easy to hear the differences in their tone. However, really good bellows control can make a lot of changes in tone and response. Ask any guy who sells accordions for a living! Conversely, some people can make even the nicest box sound like a wheezy wet noodle. (Whic is not to say you shouldn't get a box with good tone if you fancy it.)
I'm hearing the phrase "we don't want to get into reverse snobbery here" together with a fair amount of exactly that!
I don't think you can automatically class good instruments in the same category of appendage enhancers as, e.g. fast cars. For a start, a good flute doesn't lose half it's value the first time someone blows into it... Seriously, if you have the money (because, e.g. you work for a living at some other job) and want a good instrument then buy it. You won't regret it and if you do, then you'll still be able to resell it relatively well. Of course a better musician can sound good on a not so good instrument (although I do think there is a level of crappiness with which no musician can cope, e.g. Pakistani ebay flutes.), but it is no accident that most good musicians like to play nice instruments and do indeed sound better on them. Do NOT confuse scruffy looking with quality! Or price! or current cosmetic condition (e.g. duct tape). In my rock-climbing days, my gear all looked very scruffy and I was proud of this, since it showed that I'd climbed a lot. But I also made d*mn sure it was all in perfect working order - for obvious reasons.
My personal signs of pride in a flute would be the extremely polished places where my fingers touch it...
Anyway, being Scottish, I could probably force myself to give up ITM, but the flute has had an awful lot of work invested in it, not all of which would transfer to other instruments - whistle wouldn't count as I already own and play lots of whistles anyway.
And I play other genres on the flute, so I quess it would be the ITM (but not all traditional music, especially not Scottish) that would go first.
Oh, that's right llig, this music developed years ago by people playing crappy massed produced chinese fiddles? B ollocks.
Yes, people played music on whatever instruments they could get. But if they had the chance to get a good one, are you really saying that Michael Coleman would say " No thanks, I'm only playing quaint old folk music so I don't want or need a good instrument'? What a load of rubbish. People have always played on the best instruments they can get their hands on, and to think otherwise is reverse snobbery of the highest order.
It puts this music into the mythological b ullshi t mode and is disrespectful to the great musicians whose shoulders we stand on. So Seamus Ennis played on any old pipes did he?
Yes I know, we have cigar box fiddles etc, but any one who played those did it out of necessity, not choice.
Any musician who gets a chance to play a good instrument will jump at the chance. This B ullsh*t of "Oh It doesn't matter how cheap my instument is because I play folk music", sorry, but I think it's a load of sh ite.
"Don't forget that the very nature of this music - a simple traditional folk music - means that it does not require a good instrument"
Require? probably not, But the music certainly sounds (even) better played on a decent instrument. Such an instrument will almost certainly have better tone and better 'action' (I'm thinking of fiddle here) and so will be easier to play, and more rewarding for the player.
Not so fast don. Look at the facts. Lets look a violins/fiddles ... What range of notes does this music require? two and a half octaves max? What range of dynamics? Are you ever asked to play unamplified in a 2,000 seater concert hall? And lets by all means look at pipes and their nearest neighbour the oboe. Do you really think Seamus Ennis's pipes were made to anything like the degrees of tolerance in a half decent oboe?
I'm sorry mate, but one of the strengths of this music is it's technical limitations. It democratises it both in terms of skill level that needs to be attained and by effectively capping the amount of money you need to spend.
Well most people here seem to be saying they'd keep to the music and change to a different instrument if they had to. To be devil's advocate, I'm not so sure about that - it's the easy response. Fact is, as far as I can see anyway, that certain instruments suit most individuals better than others. I started out playing box but realised that the humble whistle and flute were closer to my nature. Sure, I like to play ITM but I can also quite happily play any other old ditty or tune that I hear or comes into the head. So if push came to shove, yes I'd take up another instrument to play ITM on but I'd be keeping the flute and whistles to play other music on. Is that cheating!!?
kjay, while it's true in a box that the reeds make the sound, the player makes the music.
I think kris is right in saying that bellows control defines the player. You can develop an embouchure that defines volume, attack, and other aspects of expression. No machine can express itself like a human.
All instruments are tools, but the tool user is responsible for knowing how to use the tool correctly.
A crappy tool is frustrating to work with. I do woodwork for a living, try working with a cheap and poorly made tool for an hour. You'll soon be shelling out for one that's better.
Now to the question at hand. If I had to choose between the music or the instrument.....
I'm just starting to learn whistle. While it's a good instrument, right now it doesn't feel good. It doesn't satisfy my need to produce music. It takes a lot of work to make it sound right. Maybe in time I will feel about the whistle like I do about the box, but I can express myself with the box like I can't do with anything else in the world. It's a unique experience and I'm sure it's like that with other instruments.
Not sure what my point is here. but I think I would be devastated if I couldn't play the box OR the music.
I guess there would be a few people who had to change instruments because of injury around......it would be interesting to see if they changed instruments but kept the music....or changed both!
I would think it's pretty obvious that learning to play the music is way way more demanding than the mere technique of the instrument. Surely it would be easier to transpose this to another instrument than to learn an entirely different form of music. It wouldn't matter to me whether I was playing the pipes, the flute or the fiddle.
I wouldn't like to start ITM again on another instrument, at 54. I feel too old to start the fiddle and spend years trying to learn The Kesh on it. But a friend is doing just that, at 60.
Ah!, are you not slightly contradicting yourself there Michael. You say above it is 'a simple traditional folk music' which does not require a good instrument but then later, that learning to play it is 'far more demanding that the mere technique of the instrument'. Some people would argue that it's a lifes work to learn the music - others, a lifes work to 'master' an instrument!
Yes, it's a lifes work to learn the music, but not because it's difficult, but because there's so bloody much of it. And it may well be a lifes work to "master" your instrument. But, as I said, if all you aspire to (as I do) is to play this music, you don't have to get anywhere near mastering your instrument.
"it's pretty obvious that learning to play the music is way way more demanding than the mere technique of the instrument"
Michael, how many times have you said that this music is easy???
"Mere technique"---strange to think that you're trivializing the hardest part of playing. It will take me *years* before I can get my fiddle to sound the way I want. But the tunes? They're a piece of cake! You listen, you get them into your fingers, you play---it doesn't take that long and it's not that hard. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the difficulty in learning the music. Can you explain?
Ah, we cross-posted, never mind. You're still contradicting yourself a bit, you know. You're the one who says there are too many tunes. Learn the essential ones and it shouldn't take a lifetime to accomplish, right?
Well, you're right, in that yes, you listen, you get them into your fingers, you play---it doesn't take that long and it's not that hard. But then you play again, and again and again and re-visit and twist around and listen some more etc. And by the time you've done all that, what little technique you require will have taken care of itself. What I refer to when I say there's so bloody much of it is this process of playing over and over and gradually shaping and re-listening etc. Not necessarily the amount of tunes, though this does come into it. Yes, I agree that you only need a small fraction of the available tunes, but that's still a hell of a lot of tunes. And variations. And Versions.
A few years back, I had to give up trumpet because of sinus problems, which is a shame, because I have lots of friends in community bands, and would love to play in that setting. But I don't miss it that much because of the other musical endeavors I am involved in. Sometimes the instrument does drive the music, as I could never play my trumpet at a session, and there is not any real place for a penny whistle in a community band.
I recently changed from fiddle to flute (because of recurring shoulder problems) and it's too soon to tell how it'll go. I love the sound of the new instrument (when it make one!) but I know that it'll be a struggle for a while. Though there is a sense of having lost something, and 'wasted' a great deal of time, actually learning the flute is giving me new insights into ornamentation I used to play 'automatically' on the fiddle. I actually have to think about it again now for a while...
I do miss the fiddle, but not as much as I thought I would.
For me it's definitely the music not the instrument.
I was in a workshop with Kevin Burke a few years ago and he said that he'd been given the opportunity to try a Stradivarius. I asked him what it was like to play and he said it was "like all the great instruments I've ever played without any of the bad bits". Not sure if that's relevant, but I thought it might be of interest.
Kris, I still disagree. First, as in the example of Joshua Bell and his coveted Strad, I don't think it was a lack of confidence that drove him to buy it. I suspect it had more to do with the tonal qualities, responsiveness, and power of that 'fiddle' being different--and to him--better than any other he'd played. And he's capable of bringing out the instrument's best because he's such a talented player.
Second, in trad music, many of the "best" instruments we use just aren't that expensive in the grand scheme of things. A keyless Olwell flute, for example--set aside $100 a month for the year you'll be on Mr. Olwell's waiting list, and you've got it covered. It's not like trying to buy a Steinway grand piano.
I'll grant that some people (with money to burn) do buy expensive instruments in hopes of covering for their lack of ability or confidence. But I really don't think that's the norm.
As to the meat of this thread's question--I'd stick with the music. I love playing fiddle, but a genetic condition leaves me with stiff, sore hands most of the time. After struggling with this for decades, and the occasional shoulder injury, neck problems, etc., I decided to start learning flute in case I ever had to quit playing fiddle. Now when my hands act up, I can switch to flute and keep playing, while giving my hands a rest.
Learning the music and mastering your instrument of choice are inseparable for me. When my Monzai was broken a couple fo years ago I had to play a Clinton for about 6 months and that forced me to relearn my embouchure and breathing as the dynamics were completely different. When the Monzani came back my playing of it was much improved. I am still discovering new tricks and techniques on whistle and flute - long may it continue.
I am a capable fluter but some instruments I find impossible to play, regardless of the cost.
But if I lost a hand I would probably pick up a mouth organ or a drum because it is the music I love. Great example of that was Charlie Piggott from De Dannan who lost a finger and could no longer play the banjo. He then converted to melodeon/accordeon and WOW!
This is kind of a silly question, but I guess I'll answer because I see so many others choosing the music---for me it's the instrument. As much as I love Irish music, I love the fiddle more, how expressive it is, and its versatility. Yesterday I tried playing an old Yiddish folk song my grandmother used to play and it's in the ridiculous key of E flat minor---it's such a haunting melody, I can imagine what it would sound like if I could really play it and bring it up a few octaves---there's a whole world of music in that fiddle, I could definitely be happy playing other styles.
I shelled out for a nice banjo 13 years ago at a time when I'd just qualified in my job and had no responsibilities. Paid it up over 2 years and I have never regretted it. Until recently it was by far the most expensive thing I'd ever owned and never expected to have another banjo.
However, xmas just past my wife suprised me with a new banjo. She'd just returned to work a couple of months previously after a 5 year break (first & only child, quite late-ish in life). Now this is a lovely banjo from the same maker as my old one. Far fancier in terms of gilding etc than I'd ever have shelled out for (or even wanted to). But it is a very good playing banjo as well, and quite different in character from my old one (tone, scale length etc.) I'm delighted to have it, and will treasure both banjos.
I am a little wary about taking the new banjo out to sessions though, as it does look rather flashy, and I prefer to sit in the background and not draw attention to myself. It is also noticably louder than my old banjo, so I'll have to actively try and play quieter. (I'm quite quiet as banjo players go, so this hasn't been a problem in the past).
Getting back to the original question. I'd change instrument. Too many banjo players in the circles I move in anyway. I'm slow at learning new things, and would like be reasonably proficient in another instrument. The time investment in learning a new instrumnet can be qite daunting though: Should I spend a couple of hours messing around with tunes on the banjo, or miserably scraping out the basics on something new?
For me it's the instrument. I would choose to play the fiddle regardless of the type of music. ITM is my first love but there is so much more to enjoy.
I'd second that, Mary.
I was in a similar position a few years ago: either just play at home by myself which I don't enjoy or play a different kind of music with others. I quite happily play "swing" stuff still with this friendly little orchestra.
If I had a session close by I'd even have go at another instrument, probably the whistle. The tunes are in my head already anyway..
What Mary said. I used to play piano, and before that I played recorder. I've had an opportunity to try both again in the last few months, but neither instrument called to me me the way fiddle does every day. And while Celtic is my favourite genre of music, and while it's what my fiddle teacher teaches me, I've taught myself a handful of tunes from other genres; I'd far rather play those on fiddle than play my Irish tunes on another instrument.
(Kennedy - what's this Yiddish tune - I might know it, as we appear to share part of a bloodline - and what the hell sadist writes in E flat minor?)
Hi TDM---I just called my mother and played it for her and she says it's "Rozhinkes mit Mandlen" (Raisins and Almonds). My grandmother used to sing it to me all the time when I was a kid and it was one of my favorite songs. Don't know if it's really in E flat minor or not, but that's the way it came out on my fiddle when I was remembering it, and it sounds much better in the minor key than just E flat.
Hey, I know that tune! And yeah, when I try to figure tunes out from memory I always end up playing them in goofy keys, so I've taken to starting on open strings so that the left hand doesn't become a nightmare.
Incidentally, I was staying with a friend, who happens to be of Irish descent, a few weeks ago, and one day when she was cooking I was in the guest room practicing my repertoire of twenty-odd tunes, one of which had her running into the room. "That was amazing!" she said. "What was that? Play it again!" It wasn't a jig or a reel or a polka or any of the tunes my teacher gave me. It was the Israeli national anthem.
I would feel sorry for anyone who had to hear me transferring my music to the fiddle. Have just heard Tom Paley twice this last week, who took up the fiddle maybe 30 years ago, having already been a great banjo and guitar-picker, and it took him a long time to produce a pleasant sound out of his fiddle - he's there now but it was a long haul. Having said all that I never stuck to one instrument anyway, although most are fretted except the bodrhan and concertina.
TDM, Kennedy - I put Raisins And Almonds in the Tunes database a little while back, with the odd mistake (noted in the Comments bit). I could do so with Oyfn Pripetchik, though I mustn't overdo the non - ITM input. The Israeli National Anthem ("Hatikvah" - "The Hope") has a great tune. Apparently it's a Czech folk tune that happened to come in handy.
For many people, myself included, this is no doubt a moot question. I play six different instruments and have played all sorts of music--punk, rock, blues, folk, Irish trad, bluegrass, etc. But Irish trad on fiddle is where my heart is, Irish trad on flute a growing second.
nah, nicholas, don't bother if it's not Irish (but thanks anyway). It's not like we would play it in a session. One of these days I'm going to learn the Hitler's Downfall Jig, though. It's on my Martin Byrnes cd and it's pretty catchy.
Dunno - I'm going against the grain here, probably because I only play the one instrument - so for me it would have to be the instrument over the music (given the choice between one or the other) since I find the harp very satisfying (harmonies / counterpoint) altho' you could get that from a piano. I don't think I'd enjoy playing a melody-only instrument although I love hearing good players of eg whistle / fiddle.
At the same time, I like hearing (for example) Carolan's melodies played on the fiddle / flutes / mix of whatever's turned up at a session, because they're just melodies and I don't personally think it matters that they were written for the harp.
i know that when i was playing classical, i liked the instrument more than the music i was playing on it. i was quite aware of that. now i'd be torn between the two. i wouldnt mind learning another instrument, but i couldn't stop playing the flute.
ITM is my favorite music, but, like a lot of folks, I've played *lots* of other genres over many years and would not be interested in giving up all of that. I think the question's just a little too unrealistic for me to produce an realistic answer.
there might be a "p.c." type of smug glow to be achieved in claiming that the lousiest players have the fine instruments and the good players don't, but it just ain't true, outside of the beginner level, at least. i was at the catskills irish arts week, and not one of the box or concertina teachers, master musicians all, was playing a less-than top-class instrument. sure, once in a while, you encounter an individualist master-level musician who sticks with a middling to lower-quality instrument, but it is rare. the majority of master players have upgraded as their skill improved. now, all of those teachers would probably sound fantastic on a lower-quality box or concertina. but their instruments of choice were without exception superior quality boxes.
having made that point, i do agree that there are those less-than-master-level players out there who seem to believe that getting the hot, expensive instrument du jour will somehow confer technique or replace years of practice, and that that phenom is depressing. and i say it as somebody who admittedly became kind of a collector of my chosen instrument.....but it was because i fell in love with the instrument as an art object as well as to play.
The music or the instrument
The music or the instrument
This is admittedly an offshoot from the threads on cost/value of instruments. Somebody - maybe me - mentioned the seperation of the instrument and the music played on it. These are the only terms I can think in, but for others it seems to be a strange concept. What about this?
Supposing you were offered the following choice: You can either continue to play your main instrument (for example fiddle) but you will have to change to a different kind of music (so let's say, no more Irish music, if that's what you're into); OR you can carry on playing Irish music but you will have to start over learning a different instrument. A silly construction, maybe, but I know I would have to choose to play the music I love over the instrument I currently play.
I remember hearing about some early pipers (might have been the great MacCrimmons in Scotland) who used to carelessly throw their pipes away over their shoulders after playing, as a gesture that the pipes were merely a vessel for the music and of no instrinsic value in themselves. (Of course they had a servant standing by to catch them, to save on repairs!)
Anyone who has travelled and found themselves among traditional musicians in less wealthy cultures has surely had the experience of meeting players of great skill and dedication, producing fabulous music on instruments that most middle class westerners would consider almost unplayable. Sure, a lot of these musicians are happy to get their hands on better instruments if they can, but they also know that it is their skill that is paramount, and fortunately that is something the bank manager can't take away!
I'm not advocating inverted snobbery. If you want an instrument and can afford it, you might as well buy it. But when people start going on about famous makes, and fancy prices and the search for the ultimate instrument I always feel they're trying to compensate for something else.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by kris
Re: The music or the instrument
I like nice instruments. I dont' really think there is or should be a seperation...you plays what you wants...but just because someone likes a nice instrument doesn't mean that they are lacking or a snob or anything else. It as just another, maybe deeper way to appreciate what it is you like about the music..any style of music I mean.
I don't know anybody who has said "I am as good as I can be, now I'll go and get a crappy instrument to prove it".
and if you could afford a servant to catch your pipes or any other instrument, then you could afford to act that way. That in and of itself is a very arrogant act and should not be acknowledged.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by Sunnybear
Re: The music or the instrument
I was with you Kris, up to that last sentence. Problem is, many of the most talented musicians crave certain makers or specific instruments, so it isn't "always" to make up for a lack of skill or talent. Consider Eric Clapton's abundance of guitars, and Joshua Bell going after that Strad that was different than any other he'd played.
), are all capable of making quality music, music that wouldn't sound out of place on your favorite cd.
I suspect that most of the big name instruments got their reputations by offering something extra or special in terms of tone quality or playability or capacity for expressiveness--e.g., the honk and power of a Hamilton flute, the chunk and power and sweetness of an old Lloyd Loar Gibson mandolin, the pop and clarity of a Paramount banjo, etc.
The better us musicians get, the more discerning we become, and the more we want instruments that respond to our abilities and imaginations.
That said, it certainly is possible to make brilliant music on less expensive instruments. I play a $650 fiddle, a $500 banjo, and an $800 flute. In the grand scheme of things, those are low to middling prices. But these instruments, in the right hands (not necessarily mine
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: The music or the instrument
Definitely the music over the instrument. I'm with you all the way Kris - the instrument is just a vessel for self expression.
Eric
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by Jayhawk
Re: The music or the instrument
I'd try to have it both ways: play Irish /UK tunes on the whistle, as one can't do much else on it, and go off into all kinds of other stuff on the melodeon, which has semitones. (I will play the whistle in a deep forest where the last red squirrel in England will tell me when the Music Police are coming.)
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by nicholas
Re: The music or the instrument
Hi there,
For me it's got to be the music that's really important.
The instrument has to sound pleasing to my own ear first regardless of what it costs. I think the fact that a lot of trad musicians are multi-instrumentalists may also have something to do with it. Although I like dabbling with different Instruments, I just can't afford the investment for quality instruments. At the moment I'm playing a Bb gen whistle and Dixon Brass whistle cost approx £50. My Flute is a `B` stock 3 piece rosewood Dixon cost £64, My Ibanez mandolin cost £25 in the early 80's, My Bodhran is an EMS tuneable which cost £53, Seagull Acoustic Guitar £250 with case. Total cost roughly £440 for the lot. The point is although I have been playing trad music for 30 odd years, I'm quite content in making music with these Instruments. So I would advocate again that the music is more important.
Cheers
pkev
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by pkev
Re: The music or the instrument
This is a topic close to my heart. My experience from sesions over many years is that the (usually) man who has the finest instrument is one of the poorest musicians. This therory is certainly not infallible, but I have often witnessed occasions when the guy with the top of the range gear is sh*te, and the newcomer with the battered cheap instrument, perhaps not even in an identifiable case (such as a bin bag), turns out to be stunningly brilliant.
This is not an argument for reverse snobbery - the more expensive instruments are usually easier to play and have a better tone. But it is often the case that A1 musicians are short of cash. People with a high disposable income who want to get fit might pay a small fortune for a year's gym membership, and attend a couple of times, wasting their money. They might buy weights or an exercise bike which they never use.
My theory is that richer people tend to think that if you pay enough, they will reach their goal. If you buy the exercise gear, you will lose weight. If you buy the most expensive instrument, you will play better. The reality is different; if you want to be lean and trim, buying the equipment is not enough. If you want to play well, buying the best available instrument is not enough.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by howsshecutting
Re: The music or the instrument
That's a tough choice. I've had my fiddle since I was 8, and I'm now 47, so it feels like it's a part of me. I had to stop playing fiddle for a few years because of an injury, and it felt like a limb was missing. I've tried other fiddles, and while I like them, I know this instrument very well. It really would be a tough choice between changing to playing west highland Scottish fiddle , or finally realising my dream of becoming a piper.
And Howeehecutting's comment about finest instruments often in the hands of the least able players is something I have observed right spectrum of musical styles. Mind you, if I changed to pipes, I would get the best instrument I could afford (and that doesn't automaticaly mean the most expensive).
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by woops
Re: The music or the instrument
I'd go with the music first as well. I've "made do" with my fiddle and my guitar now for many years and have been quite happy with the results. Luckily I can borrow something sweet for any recording I must do, but all in all, I'm happy with what I play on, just not always happy with what I play!
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by celticagent
Re: The music or the instrument
Often the person who has the finest instrument is the one who works a full time job, and therefore has less time to practice than the one who only works part time or plays for a living. Its the old time vs. money trade-off.
I went to a bouzouki workshop with Andy Irvine a couple of years ago and was surprised, even shocked, at how road-worn his instrument looked. Was there tape on it? I forget exactly. Granted he was 5000 miles from home, but I mean, he didn't drag it the whole way, did he? But he sure could make that thing sing!
So which is the way to a better sound - a better instrument, or more time to learn how to play a mediocre one? Anyone want to do a study?
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by McBriss
Re: The music or the instrument
This is definitely something I've been thinking about lately with my box playing, because I think box may be the best exception to the rule. A better quality box sounds better in anyone's hands, and getting a better box will make you sound better. Why? Because the sound production is completely mechanical. A fiddle player must spend time and effort working on getting good pitch and good tone from their fiddle, and if they haven't done this, a brilliant fiddle won't do it for them. On box there is no technique to tone production; you press a button and it goes. Other aspects of playing the box certainly do have to be practiced to be improved, but tone is not one of them.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by kjay_bc_box
Re: The music or the instrument
I played Irish music for several years on mandolin, and I've definitely stuck with the music while switching. Now I'm on an Eastman 200 (not an expensive violin)... but I'm getting into the fiddle like I never gotten into playing music before.
But it's the tunes. Without the music I'm playing, the fiddle would be a fragile piece of wood hanging on the wall or something.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by winterowl
Re: The music or the instrument
I'd choose the music....but probably because I AM a late comer and it was the music that has dictated instrument choice for me.
As for the less able players compensating for lack of skill by buying a more expensive instrument. ABSO-bloody-LUTELY! Hey we weren't smart enough to find our way to this music as kids and become extraordinary and experienced musicians by middle age.....so we try make up for it with getting better instruments.
I'm NEVER gonna catch up with someone who has been playing for 39 years. I'll always lag 37 year behind! But maybe with a really good instrument I could fudge how it looks and only look 25 years behind!
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by FiddleFancy
Re: The music or the instrument
Lose the Instrument or lose the music? The two are intertwined for me. But I think I'd lose the instrument. I had to, once, because of a shoulder injury, and picked up a little tinwhistle for several months and learned tunes on that.
Having said that, I do step out a bit with other styles anyway -- old timey, jazz and rock -- and other instruments - whistle, mandolin, guitar, banjo and ukulele but by far my main focus is Irish fiddle.
As for the cost of instruments, I've always had relatively cheap ones and took a perverse sort of pride in that. But recently I stumbled across a deal on a really nice fiddle that I just couldn't pass up. I didn't drop the anywhere near the jingle on it that a pro might, but still, it's the most expensive instrument I've ever owned. And I'm thrilled. It challenges me in ways my other fiddle couldn't, and my technique and tone are improving. It's just a blast to play.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by fidkid
Re: The music or the instrument
Oh, and the time/money thing. I heard a bluegrass guy say once that the way to get good on banjo was to be out of work for six months. But then I was out of work for three months once and never even got halfway decent.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by fidkid
Re: The music or the instrument
Yep, the music. Sure. Definitely. Of course if you're good enough, you can make any old pile of crap sound amazing. Having a nice instrument is just the icing on the cake.
But come on...
Who really wants a cake without any icing?
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by Joe CSS
Re: The music or the instrument
Seems some folks have forgotten the question. It was, give up your instrument ie fiddle, and play another instrument instead, ie banjo. It wasn't give up your good fiddle and play a crappy fiddle.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by woops
Re: The music or the instrument
Well, ok:
I'm a guitar player who likes playing a few tunes rather than a tune geek who plays guitar. So I guess it would the music I would give up first. I've just invested too much of my life to six strings to give it all up and blow down a biddy tube of metal or scrape a horses tail across a cat's gut. I just like playing and if I had to switch to whistle or fiddle I wouldn't be able to realise that desire (not straight away, anyway).But if the music police say it has to be then it would have to be.
As for price of instruments, I guess you get the best quality instruments you can afford although there are exceptions. In 2005 I was out in Vietnam for 5 weeks. I wanted to take a guitar with me but was afraid my main axe might get damamged/lost. It's not so much the value as the sentiment involved. So I bought a new (and inexpensive) guitar to take with me. If it got lost I wouldn't be that bothered apart from the lost financial investment. It did the job fine (but I haven't played it since).
As for rich kids with their expensive instruments, well I guess some of them think that if they make a big financial investment they are more likely to make the time investment required to learn to play the thing properly. Having said that my main guitar would cost £1900 to replace but that only works out at £200 for each year I've had it.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by DonaldK
Re: The music or the instrument
Will (and everybody else who referred to my last comment) I didn't say the person who is obsessed with having a fancy, or high status instrument is necessarily compensating for a lack of skill - but I think they are trying to compensate for something. Perhaps a lack of self confidence. In some cases the need to impress plays a part, too! Flashy bits of technique with little actual musicianship is another aspect of this.
kjay - as a box player of many years, I don't entirely agree with you. Yes, if two accordions are played by a machine it will be easy to hear the differences in their tone. However, really good bellows control can make a lot of changes in tone and response. Ask any guy who sells accordions for a living! Conversely, some people can make even the nicest box sound like a wheezy wet noodle. (Whic is not to say you shouldn't get a box with good tone if you fancy it.)
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by kris
Re: The music or the instrument
Don't forget that the very nature of this music - a simple traditional folk music - means that it does not require a good instrument.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by ...
Re: The music or the instrument
I'm hearing the phrase "we don't want to get into reverse snobbery here" together with a fair amount of exactly that!
I don't think you can automatically class good instruments in the same category of appendage enhancers as, e.g. fast cars. For a start, a good flute doesn't lose half it's value the first time someone blows into it... Seriously, if you have the money (because, e.g. you work for a living at some other job) and want a good instrument then buy it. You won't regret it and if you do, then you'll still be able to resell it relatively well. Of course a better musician can sound good on a not so good instrument (although I do think there is a level of crappiness with which no musician can cope, e.g. Pakistani ebay flutes.), but it is no accident that most good musicians like to play nice instruments and do indeed sound better on them. Do NOT confuse scruffy looking with quality! Or price! or current cosmetic condition (e.g. duct tape). In my rock-climbing days, my gear all looked very scruffy and I was proud of this, since it showed that I'd climbed a lot. But I also made d*mn sure it was all in perfect working order - for obvious reasons.
My personal signs of pride in a flute would be the extremely polished places where my fingers touch it...
Anyway, being Scottish, I could probably force myself to give up ITM, but the flute has had an awful lot of work invested in it, not all of which would transfer to other instruments - whistle wouldn't count as I already own and play lots of whistles anyway.
And I play other genres on the flute, so I quess it would be the ITM (but not all traditional music, especially not Scottish) that would go first.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by Crackpot
Re: The music or the instrument
Oh, that's right llig, this music developed years ago by people playing crappy massed produced chinese fiddles? B ollocks.
Yes, people played music on whatever instruments they could get. But if they had the chance to get a good one, are you really saying that Michael Coleman would say " No thanks, I'm only playing quaint old folk music so I don't want or need a good instrument'? What a load of rubbish. People have always played on the best instruments they can get their hands on, and to think otherwise is reverse snobbery of the highest order.
It puts this music into the mythological b ullshi t mode and is disrespectful to the great musicians whose shoulders we stand on. So Seamus Ennis played on any old pipes did he?
Yes I know, we have cigar box fiddles etc, but any one who played those did it out of necessity, not choice.
Any musician who gets a chance to play a good instrument will jump at the chance. This B ullsh*t of "Oh It doesn't matter how cheap my instument is because I play folk music", sorry, but I think it's a load of sh ite.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by woops
Re: The music or the instrument - reply to thedon
For what it's worth, I agree with the points you make, but is it really necessary to make them in such a foul-mouthed way?
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by Tigermoth
Re: The music or the instrument
"Don't forget that the very nature of this music - a simple traditional folk music - means that it does not require a good instrument"
Require? probably not, But the music certainly sounds (even) better played on a decent instrument. Such an instrument will almost certainly have better tone and better 'action' (I'm thinking of fiddle here) and so will be easier to play, and more rewarding for the player.
But then, I'm stating the obvious I suppose.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by domhnall.
Re: The music or the instrument
Not so fast don. Look at the facts. Lets look a violins/fiddles ... What range of notes does this music require? two and a half octaves max? What range of dynamics? Are you ever asked to play unamplified in a 2,000 seater concert hall? And lets by all means look at pipes and their nearest neighbour the oboe. Do you really think Seamus Ennis's pipes were made to anything like the degrees of tolerance in a half decent oboe?
I'm sorry mate, but one of the strengths of this music is it's technical limitations. It democratises it both in terms of skill level that needs to be attained and by effectively capping the amount of money you need to spend.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by ...
Re: The music or the instrument
I'm sorry mate, but "it" in the possessive does not take an apostrophe.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by domhnall.
Re: The music or the instrument
doh
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by ...
Re: The music or the instrument
Well most people here seem to be saying they'd keep to the music and change to a different instrument if they had to. To be devil's advocate, I'm not so sure about that - it's the easy response. Fact is, as far as I can see anyway, that certain instruments suit most individuals better than others. I started out playing box but realised that the humble whistle and flute were closer to my nature. Sure, I like to play ITM but I can also quite happily play any other old ditty or tune that I hear or comes into the head. So if push came to shove, yes I'd take up another instrument to play ITM on but I'd be keeping the flute and whistles to play other music on. Is that cheating!!?
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by the wounded hussar
Re: The music or the instrument
kjay, while it's true in a box that the reeds make the sound, the player makes the music.
I think kris is right in saying that bellows control defines the player. You can develop an embouchure that defines volume, attack, and other aspects of expression. No machine can express itself like a human.
All instruments are tools, but the tool user is responsible for knowing how to use the tool correctly.
A crappy tool is frustrating to work with. I do woodwork for a living, try working with a cheap and poorly made tool for an hour. You'll soon be shelling out for one that's better.
Now to the question at hand. If I had to choose between the music or the instrument.....
I'm just starting to learn whistle. While it's a good instrument, right now it doesn't feel good. It doesn't satisfy my need to produce music. It takes a lot of work to make it sound right. Maybe in time I will feel about the whistle like I do about the box, but I can express myself with the box like I can't do with anything else in the world. It's a unique experience and I'm sure it's like that with other instruments.
Not sure what my point is here. but I think I would be devastated if I couldn't play the box OR the music.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by rogfox
Re: The music or the instrument
I guess there would be a few people who had to change instruments because of injury around......it would be interesting to see if they changed instruments but kept the music....or changed both!
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by FiddleFancy
Re: The music or the instrument
I would think it's pretty obvious that learning to play the music is way way more demanding than the mere technique of the instrument. Surely it would be easier to transpose this to another instrument than to learn an entirely different form of music. It wouldn't matter to me whether I was playing the pipes, the flute or the fiddle.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by ...
Re: The music or the instrument
I wouldn't like to start ITM again on another instrument, at 54. I feel too old to start the fiddle and spend years trying to learn The Kesh on it. But a friend is doing just that, at 60.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by nicholas
Re: The music or the instrument
Ah!, are you not slightly contradicting yourself there Michael. You say above it is 'a simple traditional folk music' which does not require a good instrument but then later, that learning to play it is 'far more demanding that the mere technique of the instrument'. Some people would argue that it's a lifes work to learn the music - others, a lifes work to 'master' an instrument!
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by the wounded hussar
Re: The music or the instrument
Yes, it's a lifes work to learn the music, but not because it's difficult, but because there's so bloody much of it. And it may well be a lifes work to "master" your instrument. But, as I said, if all you aspire to (as I do) is to play this music, you don't have to get anywhere near mastering your instrument.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by ...
Re: The music or the instrument
"it's pretty obvious that learning to play the music is way way more demanding than the mere technique of the instrument"
Michael, how many times have you said that this music is easy???
"Mere technique"---strange to think that you're trivializing the hardest part of playing. It will take me *years* before I can get my fiddle to sound the way I want. But the tunes? They're a piece of cake! You listen, you get them into your fingers, you play---it doesn't take that long and it's not that hard. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the difficulty in learning the music. Can you explain?
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by kennedy
Re: The music or the instrument
Ah, we cross-posted, never mind. You're still contradicting yourself a bit, you know. You're the one who says there are too many tunes. Learn the essential ones and it shouldn't take a lifetime to accomplish, right?
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by kennedy
Re: The music or the instrument
Well, you're right, in that yes, you listen, you get them into your fingers, you play---it doesn't take that long and it's not that hard. But then you play again, and again and again and re-visit and twist around and listen some more etc. And by the time you've done all that, what little technique you require will have taken care of itself. What I refer to when I say there's so bloody much of it is this process of playing over and over and gradually shaping and re-listening etc. Not necessarily the amount of tunes, though this does come into it. Yes, I agree that you only need a small fraction of the available tunes, but that's still a hell of a lot of tunes. And variations. And Versions.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by ...
Re: The music or the instrument
A few years back, I had to give up trumpet because of sinus problems, which is a shame, because I have lots of friends in community bands, and would love to play in that setting. But I don't miss it that much because of the other musical endeavors I am involved in. Sometimes the instrument does drive the music, as I could never play my trumpet at a session, and there is not any real place for a penny whistle in a community band.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by AlBrown
Re: The music or the instrument
I recently changed from fiddle to flute (because of recurring shoulder problems) and it's too soon to tell how it'll go. I love the sound of the new instrument (when it make one!) but I know that it'll be a struggle for a while. Though there is a sense of having lost something, and 'wasted' a great deal of time, actually learning the flute is giving me new insights into ornamentation I used to play 'automatically' on the fiddle. I actually have to think about it again now for a while...
I do miss the fiddle, but not as much as I thought I would.
For me it's definitely the music not the instrument.
I was in a workshop with Kevin Burke a few years ago and he said that he'd been given the opportunity to try a Stradivarius. I asked him what it was like to play and he said it was "like all the great instruments I've ever played without any of the bad bits". Not sure if that's relevant, but I thought it might be of interest.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by Rhod
Re: The music or the instrument
Kris, I still disagree. First, as in the example of Joshua Bell and his coveted Strad, I don't think it was a lack of confidence that drove him to buy it. I suspect it had more to do with the tonal qualities, responsiveness, and power of that 'fiddle' being different--and to him--better than any other he'd played. And he's capable of bringing out the instrument's best because he's such a talented player.
Second, in trad music, many of the "best" instruments we use just aren't that expensive in the grand scheme of things. A keyless Olwell flute, for example--set aside $100 a month for the year you'll be on Mr. Olwell's waiting list, and you've got it covered. It's not like trying to buy a Steinway grand piano.
I'll grant that some people (with money to burn) do buy expensive instruments in hopes of covering for their lack of ability or confidence. But I really don't think that's the norm.
As to the meat of this thread's question--I'd stick with the music. I love playing fiddle, but a genetic condition leaves me with stiff, sore hands most of the time. After struggling with this for decades, and the occasional shoulder injury, neck problems, etc., I decided to start learning flute in case I ever had to quit playing fiddle. Now when my hands act up, I can switch to flute and keep playing, while giving my hands a rest.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: The music or the instrument
Surely both are intertwined?
Learning the music and mastering your instrument of choice are inseparable for me. When my Monzai was broken a couple fo years ago I had to play a Clinton for about 6 months and that forced me to relearn my embouchure and breathing as the dynamics were completely different. When the Monzani came back my playing of it was much improved. I am still discovering new tricks and techniques on whistle and flute - long may it continue.
I am a capable fluter but some instruments I find impossible to play, regardless of the cost.
But if I lost a hand I would probably pick up a mouth organ or a drum because it is the music I love. Great example of that was Charlie Piggott from De Dannan who lost a finger and could no longer play the banjo. He then converted to melodeon/accordeon and WOW!
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by breandan
Re: The music or the instrument
I would love to hear Kevin Burke playing a Strad!
This is kind of a silly question, but I guess I'll answer because I see so many others choosing the music---for me it's the instrument. As much as I love Irish music, I love the fiddle more, how expressive it is, and its versatility. Yesterday I tried playing an old Yiddish folk song my grandmother used to play and it's in the ridiculous key of E flat minor---it's such a haunting melody, I can imagine what it would sound like if I could really play it and bring it up a few octaves---there's a whole world of music in that fiddle, I could definitely be happy playing other styles.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by kennedy
Re: The music or the instrument
I shelled out for a nice banjo 13 years ago at a time when I'd just qualified in my job and had no responsibilities. Paid it up over 2 years and I have never regretted it. Until recently it was by far the most expensive thing I'd ever owned and never expected to have another banjo.
). Now this is a lovely banjo from the same maker as my old one. Far fancier in terms of gilding etc than I'd ever have shelled out for (or even wanted to). But it is a very good playing banjo as well, and quite different in character from my old one (tone, scale length etc.) I'm delighted to have it, and will treasure both banjos.
However, xmas just past my wife suprised me with a new banjo. She'd just returned to work a couple of months previously after a 5 year break (first & only child, quite late-ish in life
I am a little wary about taking the new banjo out to sessions though, as it does look rather flashy, and I prefer to sit in the background and not draw attention to myself. It is also noticably louder than my old banjo, so I'll have to actively try and play quieter. (I'm quite quiet as banjo players go, so this hasn't been a problem in the past).
Getting back to the original question. I'd change instrument. Too many banjo players in the circles I move in anyway. I'm slow at learning new things, and would like be reasonably proficient in another instrument. The time investment in learning a new instrumnet can be qite daunting though: Should I spend a couple of hours messing around with tunes on the banjo, or miserably scraping out the basics on something new?
- Chris
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by ramblingpitchfork
Re: The music or the instrument
For me it's the instrument. I would choose to play the fiddle regardless of the type of music. ITM is my first love but there is so much more to enjoy.
Mary
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by Antikhntr
Re: The music or the instrument
I'd second that, Mary.
I was in a similar position a few years ago: either just play at home by myself which I don't enjoy or play a different kind of music with others. I quite happily play "swing" stuff still with this friendly little orchestra.
If I had a session close by I'd even have go at another instrument, probably the whistle. The tunes are in my head already anyway..
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by kuec
Re: The music or the instrument
What Mary said. I used to play piano, and before that I played recorder. I've had an opportunity to try both again in the last few months, but neither instrument called to me me the way fiddle does every day. And while Celtic is my favourite genre of music, and while it's what my fiddle teacher teaches me, I've taught myself a handful of tunes from other genres; I'd far rather play those on fiddle than play my Irish tunes on another instrument.
(Kennedy - what's this Yiddish tune - I might know it, as we appear to share part of a bloodline - and what the hell sadist writes in E flat minor?)
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by Tall, Dark, and Mysterious
Re: The music or the instrument
Hi TDM---I just called my mother and played it for her and she says it's "Rozhinkes mit Mandlen" (Raisins and Almonds). My grandmother used to sing it to me all the time when I was a kid and it was one of my favorite songs. Don't know if it's really in E flat minor or not, but that's the way it came out on my fiddle when I was remembering it, and it sounds much better in the minor key than just E flat.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by kennedy
Re: The music or the instrument
Nope, Mom's wrong, I just checked it on a Yiddish website and it's "Oyfn Pripetshik".
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by kennedy
Re: The music or the instrument
You can take my instruments off me but you won't stop me whistling the tune or singing it to myself!!
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by geoffwright
Re: The music or the instrument
Hey, I know that tune! And yeah, when I try to figure tunes out from memory I always end up playing them in goofy keys, so I've taken to starting on open strings so that the left hand doesn't become a nightmare.
Incidentally, I was staying with a friend, who happens to be of Irish descent, a few weeks ago, and one day when she was cooking I was in the guest room practicing my repertoire of twenty-odd tunes, one of which had her running into the room. "That was amazing!" she said. "What was that? Play it again!" It wasn't a jig or a reel or a polka or any of the tunes my teacher gave me. It was the Israeli national anthem.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by Tall, Dark, and Mysterious
Re: The music or the instrument
I would feel sorry for anyone who had to hear me transferring my music to the fiddle. Have just heard Tom Paley twice this last week, who took up the fiddle maybe 30 years ago, having already been a great banjo and guitar-picker, and it took him a long time to produce a pleasant sound out of his fiddle - he's there now but it was a long haul. Having said all that I never stuck to one instrument anyway, although most are fretted except the bodrhan and concertina.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by Guernsey Pete
Re: The music or the instrument
TDM, Kennedy - I put Raisins And Almonds in the Tunes database a little while back, with the odd mistake (noted in the Comments bit). I could do so with Oyfn Pripetchik, though I mustn't overdo the non - ITM input. The Israeli National Anthem ("Hatikvah" - "The Hope") has a great tune. Apparently it's a Czech folk tune that happened to come in handy.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by nicholas
Re: The music or the instrument
For many people, myself included, this is no doubt a moot question. I play six different instruments and have played all sorts of music--punk, rock, blues, folk, Irish trad, bluegrass, etc. But Irish trad on fiddle is where my heart is, Irish trad on flute a growing second.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: The music or the instrument
nah, nicholas, don't bother if it's not Irish (but thanks anyway). It's not like we would play it in a session. One of these days I'm going to learn the Hitler's Downfall Jig, though. It's on my Martin Byrnes cd and it's pretty catchy.
# Posted on January 22nd 2007 by kennedy
Re: The music or the instrument
Dunno - I'm going against the grain here, probably because I only play the one instrument - so for me it would have to be the instrument over the music (given the choice between one or the other) since I find the harp very satisfying (harmonies / counterpoint) altho' you could get that from a piano. I don't think I'd enjoy playing a melody-only instrument although I love hearing good players of eg whistle / fiddle.
At the same time, I like hearing (for example) Carolan's melodies played on the fiddle / flutes / mix of whatever's turned up at a session, because they're just melodies and I don't personally think it matters that they were written for the harp.
# Posted on January 23rd 2007 by Mark Harmer
Re: The music or the instrument
i know that when i was playing classical, i liked the instrument more than the music i was playing on it. i was quite aware of that. now i'd be torn between the two. i wouldnt mind learning another instrument, but i couldn't stop playing the flute.
# Posted on January 23rd 2007 by flisstle
Re: The music or the instrument
ITM is my favorite music, but, like a lot of folks, I've played *lots* of other genres over many years and would not be interested in giving up all of that. I think the question's just a little too unrealistic for me to produce an realistic answer.
# Posted on January 23rd 2007 by Bob himself
Re: The music or the instrument
there might be a "p.c." type of smug glow to be achieved in claiming that the lousiest players have the fine instruments and the good players don't, but it just ain't true, outside of the beginner level, at least. i was at the catskills irish arts week, and not one of the box or concertina teachers, master musicians all, was playing a less-than top-class instrument. sure, once in a while, you encounter an individualist master-level musician who sticks with a middling to lower-quality instrument, but it is rare. the majority of master players have upgraded as their skill improved. now, all of those teachers would probably sound fantastic on a lower-quality box or concertina. but their instruments of choice were without exception superior quality boxes.
having made that point, i do agree that there are those less-than-master-level players out there who seem to believe that getting the hot, expensive instrument du jour will somehow confer technique or replace years of practice, and that that phenom is depressing. and i say it as somebody who admittedly became kind of a collector of my chosen instrument.....but it was because i fell in love with the instrument as an art object as well as to play.
# Posted on January 24th 2007 by ceemonster