I don't think this is just a flute thing, but as a flute player maybe I notice it more in other flute players.
Some players don't mind losing the overall rhythm or drive of a tune just so they can get all the twiddly bits in...and revel in what they assume is the Glory of doing so. I've noticed this even in some "good" players. (With others a problem of breath punctuation in the course of playing the tune may exist.)
Other players are prepared to sacrifice ornamentation to keep the rhythm and drive of the tune uppermost, thus maintaining the Power of the tune. (But again breath control may impact this.)
A lesser number of course can achieve both Power and Glory, and the greater number of all can only *aspire* to one or the other or both.
Personally speaking, **whether or not I achieve any of it in reality**, I prefer aspiring to keeping the Power in a set of tunes. Rhythm. This is not anything to do with speed, in fact I don't like playing fast for the sake of it (but I can. Sort of. Reasonably, anyway.....sometimes....)
Others may argue that it is the ornamentation which *gives* the tune its soul, or its rhythm. But surely ornamentation is a means to this end, not the end in itself?
The ornamentation adds energy to the drive and rhythm, but if it's not done properly it takes away from the drive and rhythm more than it adds. Do the math.
Gray Larsen eschews the use of the word 'ornamentation' in favour of the word 'articulation'. He argues, if I understand him correctly, that it's not about decorating the notes by adding others, which is what ornamentation suggests, but about sounding the notes of the tune in particular ways to emphasise things about individual notes or about the tune in general. Which is why you want 'ornaments' or 'articulations' that buzz or ripple or whatever, rather than ones that add in a lot of extra complete notes. If you get it right, you don't really interfere with the power of the rhythmic structure or the flavour of the underlying melody. I like the sound of this theory, and only wish I could do something with it...
I just think that "ornamentation" that disrupts the rhythm is plain wrong and unmusical. I have a CD somewhere that has a Northumbrian piper doing just that. He appears not to realise the abomination he's perpetrating. If in doubt leave it out!
i was told in by a mighty box player that it is not about tthe ornamentation and effects. it is about the emotional expression and the lift. so bearing that in mind, i'd say the ornamentation is great when it serves those imperatives, less great when it doesn't. after that it's all personal aesthetic choices in style..... but i have seen the phenom of people who have their hearts set on doing a bunch of complex & flashy ornaments (the noel hill concertina style comes to mind), but aren't being honest with themselves about the fact that their chops are not at a point where they can play fluently with all that stuff in there.
i generally agree with what's been said. and will add that it always confounds me how beginners and sometimes even more advanced players get obsessed with ornamentation, and some can't even maintain a steady pulse clapping their hands together! For chrissake, forget about trying to learn to cran and focus rather on generating an even rhythm and pulse.
Both are important and a good player is one who can achieve both of these. IMO, the rhythm is the most important because we are playing dance music, you can't dance to a player who has more twiddly than rhythm.
Emperor Joseph II: My dear young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.
I was wondering how many of the over-ornamenting culprits have experience of playing for dancing, by which I would mean social dancing, as opposed to those whose rhythm is spot on ? In my experience getting the direct feedback from those whose happy dancing depends on your keeping the rhythm sharp tightens up your technique considerably.
Having read all this and thinking I understand what you're saying, I have to say that occasionally I hear someone whose playing is almost all ornamentation, but very rhythmic, so that you may not be able to discern exactly what the tune is for some time but you can sure dance to it. I quite like that in an abstract expressionist sort of way, for a while.
I find a similiar thing with some box players.when i was competing in a fleadh there was a few player that if they missed a bass note they would stop the tune until they pressed the bass and continued on.This was continues!!!
In learning the box, and listening to some really great players both with 'articulation', and some really spare, I am increasingly with the "KISS" (Keep It Simple) school. The tunes have survived this long because of their lyrical power.
Someone mentioned Noel Hill. Also Johhny Connoly's (Sr. -don't have many recordings of Jr.) clean style is wonderful. As a US player wannabe, I have to get in a plug for Patty Furlong. Got some sort of solo recordings of her work. When she plays her trad (her crossover stuff is pretty interesting) the tune is beautifully clear.
Minimal 'articulation' (nice turn of the phrase actually), focus on tune a rythym.
I agree that rhythm is paramount, but there is one danger to focusing on that rather than ornamentation---some players are unable to resist speeding up when they don't have to contend with all those pesky ornaments (not me, of course, as I can't do a good job of either one). The ornaments/articulations are central to the music, they emphasize the rhythm, express the player's style---and they build and evolve over time from player to player. It's not really an either/or kind of question for me.
I am relatively new to ITM session work. The session that I am working to become a regular at has several very experienced players (I always say they have forgotten much more than I have even attempted). My first time, the challenge was getting the pace and rhythm the group was comfortable with. The individuals I had played with before joining this session had speed as a priority.
The experienced players insisted on a moderate pace and focused on the rhythm and tune. Their ornament was spare, but always felt like it was in the right place.
Going to the parking lot afterwards, their advice-worry about the tune. It will drive everything else.
The Power...or The Glory
The Power...or The Glory
I don't think this is just a flute thing, but as a flute player maybe I notice it more in other flute players.
Some players don't mind losing the overall rhythm or drive of a tune just so they can get all the twiddly bits in...and revel in what they assume is the Glory of doing so. I've noticed this even in some "good" players. (With others a problem of breath punctuation in the course of playing the tune may exist.)
Other players are prepared to sacrifice ornamentation to keep the rhythm and drive of the tune uppermost, thus maintaining the Power of the tune. (But again breath control may impact this.)
A lesser number of course can achieve both Power and Glory, and the greater number of all can only *aspire* to one or the other or both.
Personally speaking, **whether or not I achieve any of it in reality**, I prefer aspiring to keeping the Power in a set of tunes. Rhythm. This is not anything to do with speed, in fact I don't like playing fast for the sake of it (but I can. Sort of. Reasonably, anyway.....sometimes....)
Others may argue that it is the ornamentation which *gives* the tune its soul, or its rhythm. But surely ornamentation is a means to this end, not the end in itself?
# Posted on June 4th 2007 by Alf Tupper
Re: The Power...or The Glory
The ornamentation adds energy to the drive and rhythm, but if it's not done properly it takes away from the drive and rhythm more than it adds. Do the math.
# Posted on June 4th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: The Power...or The Glory
Gray Larsen eschews the use of the word 'ornamentation' in favour of the word 'articulation'. He argues, if I understand him correctly, that it's not about decorating the notes by adding others, which is what ornamentation suggests, but about sounding the notes of the tune in particular ways to emphasise things about individual notes or about the tune in general. Which is why you want 'ornaments' or 'articulations' that buzz or ripple or whatever, rather than ones that add in a lot of extra complete notes. If you get it right, you don't really interfere with the power of the rhythmic structure or the flavour of the underlying melody. I like the sound of this theory, and only wish I could do something with it...
# Posted on June 4th 2007 by E
Re: The Power...or The Glory
Exactly what I meant, Jack. Except I didn't feel I could say "not done properly."
And as you say Stan, it's about getting it right.
# Posted on June 4th 2007 by Alf Tupper
Re: The Power...or The Glory
A pretty famous fiddler once told us at a workshop, flat out:
"This music is all about the rhythm; if an ornament gets in the way of that, you're better off leaving it out."
# Posted on June 4th 2007 by mickray
Re: The Power...or The Glory
I'm personally quite happy to leave up to half a bar out, if my breathing (or lack of it) gets in the way of the rhythm of the tune.
# Posted on June 4th 2007 by Wurzel
Re: The Power...or The Glory
I just think that "ornamentation" that disrupts the rhythm is plain wrong and unmusical. I have a CD somewhere that has a Northumbrian piper doing just that. He appears not to realise the abomination he's perpetrating. If in doubt leave it out!
# Posted on June 4th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: The Power...or The Glory
i was told in by a mighty box player that it is not about tthe ornamentation and effects. it is about the emotional expression and the lift. so bearing that in mind, i'd say the ornamentation is great when it serves those imperatives, less great when it doesn't. after that it's all personal aesthetic choices in style..... but i have seen the phenom of people who have their hearts set on doing a bunch of complex & flashy ornaments (the noel hill concertina style comes to mind), but aren't being honest with themselves about the fact that their chops are not at a point where they can play fluently with all that stuff in there.
# Posted on June 5th 2007 by ceemonster
Re: The Power...or The Glory
But Noel can do it innit...
# Posted on June 5th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: The Power...or The Glory
i generally agree with what's been said. and will add that it always confounds me how beginners and sometimes even more advanced players get obsessed with ornamentation, and some can't even maintain a steady pulse clapping their hands together! For chrissake, forget about trying to learn to cran and focus rather on generating an even rhythm and pulse.
# Posted on June 5th 2007 by Brendan
Re: The Power...or The Glory
Both are important and a good player is one who can achieve both of these. IMO, the rhythm is the most important because we are playing dance music, you can't dance to a player who has more twiddly than rhythm.
# Posted on June 5th 2007 by Unseen122
Re: The Power...or The Glory
Emperor Joseph II: My dear young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.
Mozart: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?
# Posted on June 5th 2007 by Ray Mariani
Re: The Power...or The Glory
I was wondering how many of the over-ornamenting culprits have experience of playing for dancing, by which I would mean social dancing, as opposed to those whose rhythm is spot on ? In my experience getting the direct feedback from those whose happy dancing depends on your keeping the rhythm sharp tightens up your technique considerably.
# Posted on June 5th 2007 by Guernsey Pete
Re: The Power...or The Glory
Wolfie: My dear emperor, write yer own bloody concertos from now on then.
# Posted on June 5th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: The Power...or The Glory
Having read all this and thinking I understand what you're saying, I have to say that occasionally I hear someone whose playing is almost all ornamentation, but very rhythmic, so that you may not be able to discern exactly what the tune is for some time but you can sure dance to it. I quite like that in an abstract expressionist sort of way, for a while.
# Posted on June 5th 2007 by Bren
Re: The Power...or The Glory
I like it - abstract expressionist Irish traditional music.
(I know what you mean though.)
# Posted on June 5th 2007 by Alf Tupper
Re: The Power...or The Glory
well I don't like it if it goes on too long - but , you know, at times it's just perfect
# Posted on June 5th 2007 by Bren
Re: The Power...or The Glory
I find a similiar thing with some box players.when i was competing in a fleadh there was a few player that if they missed a bass note they would stop the tune until they pressed the bass and continued on.This was continues!!!
# Posted on June 5th 2007 by dinn2
Re: The Power...or The Glory
In learning the box, and listening to some really great players both with 'articulation', and some really spare, I am increasingly with the "KISS" (Keep It Simple) school. The tunes have survived this long because of their lyrical power.
Someone mentioned Noel Hill. Also Johhny Connoly's (Sr. -don't have many recordings of Jr.) clean style is wonderful. As a US player wannabe, I have to get in a plug for Patty Furlong. Got some sort of solo recordings of her work. When she plays her trad (her crossover stuff is pretty interesting) the tune is beautifully clear.
Minimal 'articulation' (nice turn of the phrase actually), focus on tune a rythym.
# Posted on June 5th 2007 by zippydw
Re: The Power...or The Glory
Now it looks like we're getting back to that old idea - "the tune is the king".
# Posted on June 5th 2007 by Alf Tupper
Re: The Power...or The Glory
I agree that rhythm is paramount, but there is one danger to focusing on that rather than ornamentation---some players are unable to resist speeding up when they don't have to contend with all those pesky ornaments (not me, of course, as I can't do a good job of either one). The ornaments/articulations are central to the music, they emphasize the rhythm, express the player's style---and they build and evolve over time from player to player. It's not really an either/or kind of question for me.
# Posted on June 5th 2007 by kennedy
Re: The Power...or The Glory
Sounds like we generally agree on "Maintain the rhythm, and ornament when you like and can without disrupting that."
# Posted on June 5th 2007 by E
Re: The Power...or The Glory
I am relatively new to ITM session work. The session that I am working to become a regular at has several very experienced players (I always say they have forgotten much more than I have even attempted). My first time, the challenge was getting the pace and rhythm the group was comfortable with. The individuals I had played with before joining this session had speed as a priority.
The experienced players insisted on a moderate pace and focused on the rhythm and tune. Their ornament was spare, but always felt like it was in the right place.
Going to the parking lot afterwards, their advice-worry about the tune. It will drive everything else.
# Posted on June 5th 2007 by zippydw
Re: The Power...or The Glory
It's dance music, so dance to the music.
You can dance to the beat without twiddly bits, but not to the twiddly bits without the beat!
# Posted on June 5th 2007 by SWFL Fiddler