I've been on this site a few years now, and have come across the term "pure drop" used many times, with varying degrees of enthusiasm. As far as I understand, this means an unaccompanied harp, fiddle or pipes playing a tune whose composer has been forgotten (in just intonation, of course). Am I right?
The "pure drop" is a metaphor--understand what it is to taste the best poteen, and apply that to "homemade" music that creates a similar lift and joy of life.
As the song says: "Stick to the crather, the best thing in nature for drowning your sorrows and raising your joys."
'The pure drop' is a poor rendering into English of 'an braon úr'. This is a good example of how it is impossible to translate language exactly. 'Braon' is usually rendered in English as 'drop' and yes, 'úr' is usually rendered in English as pure. But it does not mean 'pure drop'. A better translation would be the 'very thing' in the sense of its essence.
Cervantes said translation is worthless. 'The best it can ever be is the reverse side of the tapestry'. And i can never know what that really means because, sadly for me, I do not speak Spanish
Well said, Pol. "The very essence" it is, and Mariajef's mention on the Branch Line is indeed a good example (even if it is just a recording--I have a hard time accepting any recording of this music as the "essence" of it--better to hear it and play it live).
So...pure drop connotes 'not diluted or fused,' and 'with a deep understanding of the tradition.' "Living in the tune," as they say.
Spare me that romanticized garbage about translation! Then, Cervantes didn't say that; that's an English sentence. You'll never even know WHAT he really said, except for what the noises sounded like. So, for all you know, it was complete drivel, and there's no point in referring to his writings. "A rose by any other name," is much more sober talk.
Pol, if you're a native Irish speaker then how do you know what 'pure drop' means? If you're a native English speaker then how do you know 'an braon ur' doesn't mean 'pure drop'?
Of course it can be translated. There's just no guarantee that it won't take more than 3 words.
Why do you not understad this very simple propositiion. Your misunderstanding of Cervantes is exactly the point I was making.
Your comment 'if i am a native irish speaker then how do you know what pure drop means,betrays a complete ignorance of the relationship between English and Irish. I have never experienced before,in my very happy time on this site an example of someone who so obviously did not get the point of the discussion.
It is so obvious that you are a monoglot English speaker. I really, really do not mind that. But your attitude to language is so specific to English speakers. Irish speakers, or french speakers ( I am tri lingual) never provoke such inappropriate responses,
The starting point for this discussion was a very reasonale request to understand how to understand a phrase in my language. I tried to help
Errr ... pardon me for being pedantic, but exactly *how* is one going to know what Cervantes' language sounded like when spoken? It's not written in anything recognisable as Spanish. Well, at least, not as we know it. I didn't follow the rest of your argument any better, m_gavin.
I followed Pól's argument much better ...
Of course, I would argue that 'pure drop' probably does mean something different from 'an braon úr', since it has taken on a life of its own, complete with its own connotations, which are probably very different from the connotations of the Irish phrase.
Maybe this shows that there's no such thing as an entirely *pure* 'pure drop'.
I understand that you "tried to help" to the extent you thought it possible. And it is sort of a socially accepted bit of small-talk to say, "oh, exact translation isn't possible." But when you do that, despite trying to help, you take away all hope of real help with your other hand. You are saying to the English speaker, well I'll try but I really can't help you in the final analysis, you are hopeless because you don't speak that language. AND ( a consequence you may not realize your statement has) you can NEVER learn it because really learning the language would require exact translation at some point. Verstest du?
Of course, my response was somewhat facetious, but I really do find that statement, however innocuous it appears, to be a pet pieve and thoughtless thing to say. People just rattle it off as if tt were obvious. And it's wrong. It's not even true. Chomsky has proven through the empirical science of linguistics that it is false. We all share virtually the same linguistic system because the basis of language is a biological endowment, not a culturally created system.
You can also see how UNOBVIOUS it is, just by thinking about it a while. How would one find out that "exact translation" is impossible. We have two phrases, 'the pure drop' and 'an braon ur', and we want to know whether or not one exactly translates the other. We do know that they are similar in meaning, so what else do we need to know to determine whether they are exactly intertranslatable. I submit to you that what we would seem to need is THE EXACT TRANSLATION itself (although possibly into some third language). Only then can we say, 'an braon ur' doesn't quite mean 'the pure drop' in English, because what it means isn't quite what 'the pure drop' means. In order to prove that exact translation was not possible, you would need ACCESS to an exact translation. Now there's a conundrum I don't think has a solution, hence the problematic nature of the claim, "I'm sure exact translation isn't possible."
There are other problems with the idea as well, but I think that should be enough at the very least, to vanquish it from the domain of safe, innocuous, and obvious platitudes.
And I didn't mean to get real dead serious on you. I just don't like when people just toss that one out there and wanted to bring it to your attention that it's hardly so harmless as it seems.
But surely the essence of translation, as de Selby once said, is to "metamorphose the unknowability of existence into the farmyard of being", where the translation of "translation", or "metatranslation" itself becomes indistinguishable from the "other".
Agreed about the tunes. Here is a page on Chomsky; he argues the opposite of what you thought. The reason is that all humans, regardless what language they speak, have the same concept-machine in their brains, from which they produce utterances in their own language. If it's in one language, then it's in the concept-machine. Hence it can be expressed in any other language, although it could take many many more words.
m_gavin - you mentioned Chomsky's notion of neuronal hardwiring of language in the brain...hmmm...maybe you didn't say exactly that but, anyway, there is more to it than just being a biological endowment - yes, vocabulary and grammar seem to require hardwiring. Particularly with grammar and there is a critical age which if not nurtured the child will grow up unable to communicate effectively as was the famous but tragic case of Jeanie, the girl emotionally abused by her father in LA in the 60's. But Stuff that is coming out now such as the discovery of mirror neurons and also so called evolved psychological mechanisms demonstrate there is more than just mere biological endowment, although that is important. Sorry for butting in but thought youse might be interested in that deviation.
Pure drop is an invention of crusty auld ITM musicians who hark back to a non-existent golden age in which itinerant musicians (what's that bloody poem about the blind piper and his friggin' dog that Ciaran Mac Mathuna used to read out about once a fortnight...) would play unaccompanied without mics and amps yet still fill the O'Albert Hall and get everyone up and dancing. No accompaniment whatsoever was allowed and absolutely no dots, which means we have at least one potential ITM "musician" here on The Session!. Actually, no-one is really sure where these legendary types played, but big kitchens with Agas or wooden platforms at crossroads, shortly prior to arrest, would be a good guess. It was in the era when sessions didn't exist and so every performance was ...er, a performance. O'Carolan couldn't have been pure drop because he "wrote his tunes." This was clearly not allowed, as only tunes that mysteriously survived in spite of anonymity were permitted. Only traditional instruments are allowed such as violins (aka "fiddles") and whistles, the latter permissible as they were found in Neanderthal burial chambers. Unfortunately, none were found with wooden fipples and, distressingly, only models in E and F sharp were ever unearthed. Pipes were allowed as this was the only way that the ancient Irish, ever mindful of their environmental responsibilities, could recycle cows' bladders. Certain instruments are particularly frowned upon, such as melodeons, banjos, bouzoukis and shaky eggs though, puzzlingly, the abomination known as "the bodhran" is occasionally tolerated even though there is no evidence that it was used as anything but a sieve until at least 1992. The apparent justification for it, again on environmental grounds, is that it enables the recycling of goats and silly little knobbly twigs. If you ever ask a pure drop musician if harmonica is acceptable you'll get a blank look as he'll think you're talking about his sister.
"you can NEVER learn it because really learning the language would require exact translation at some point"
I disagree with this point, I think in learning a second language you eventually reach a point at which you understand the meaning of a word without reference to your native language. Often the specific connotations of certain words may be difficult to learn and can only be learnt through intense exposure to the language in its native form, it's still possible.
The old chestnut that "exact translation is impossible" is just a special case of the fact that we can never know for certain exactly what anyone else is thinking when they say or write something. Every language is changing, understood differently by different users, and non-trivial statements are always incompletely defined. Translation is as possible as communication in general; it also has many of the same problems.
It is, of course, quite possible (actually quite usual, even trivial) that single words and succinct phrases in one language cannot be expressed so pithily, and certainly not with the same constellation of denotations and connotations, in a different language. Poetry, which is essentially dense in expression, is a particular case in point; translations of poetry tend either to be ponderous, heavily annotated explanations or to be new creations that only parallel the original.
In general, there is however no problem that faces translation other than the problems that face saying anything a second time but in other words and under other circumstances. So Paul is right if he says that the connotations of pure drop and his Irish version differ; but if he were to say (I'm not sure if he does) that there is some secret meaning of the Irish phrase that is forever inaccessible to non-Irish speakers (or even natives), then he would be wrong.
Bis demnächst
Added to which, I suspect that to many native English speakers, including those who have never learnt another language, "pure drop" may easily be understood as a metaphorical way of referring to "the very thing" or essence of something. I wonder how Paul would describe his assumptions as to how English speakers in general would respond to the term.
Interestingly enough, "thig.le", the Tibetan for "drop", is widely used in "mystical" literature, alone and in combinations such as "heart-drop", to refer to the quintessence of something.
Ciao
as far as i understand it pure drop is traditional music without anything fancy. compare your grandma to matt molloy. both are great, but one style is a highly developed artform and the other was a nice old lady's way of passing the time when there was no farm work to be done.
even back in the days when there were people whose main sources of entertainment were stories, dancing and music, there were people who were dedicated artists who pushed the boundaries of their tradition.
it's all a matter of opinion. i played a willie clancy set (molly brannigan as an air, jig and reel) that i learned from noel hill for my cousin's grandmother and she thought it was the strangest, most modern thing she ever heard to rewrite the same tune three ways. when i told her it was from noel hill, she said he had too much time on his hands. when i told her it was from willy clancy, she said so did he.
Erm, I was just trying to be light and cute about the metaphor thing.
Geesh, every thought gets lost in translation as soon as we try to mold it into words, pictures, sounds. Let alone convey it to someone else. Especially if we're going to split hairs and divvy up angels on pinheads.
I've been fluent in four languages at different times in my life--my experience is that we come to understand idioms like "pure drop" within the context of the culture, which is only partially linguistic.
Anyway, the range of responses to the original post is starting to shed some light on what we mean when we say someone's playing is pure drop. At least a better working sense of the phrase (to my mind) than Joe started out with....
"I'm mad about my flat" = I love my apartment.
"I'm mad about my flat" = I'm angry about my punctured tire.
And this in the same language!
But who knew of the number of intellectuals lurking in the woodwork on this site?
Please carry on, I am making notes with which to impress everyone at Friday's session.
it`s something that is different for everybody because of their own perception of it, many may think they understand what it is, few ever truly experience it. it`s that moment where you realise what you are playing and are engulfed.
But what it's worth (admittedly, not much) i think m_gavin has it right on this one. But I think the position is best articulated not by reference to some Chompskesque conginational uinversal langauage structure. I think the position is best understood in Donald Davidson's work 'truth and meaning': http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/davidson/#Tru
Rough and dirty explication: both the phases 'the pure drop' and 'an braon u' have a truth value that can be empirically verified by the way it is used in living cultural context(s). if the phrases did not have a truth value they would be meaningless, jibberish. but since they do have meaning, we can compare their truth values and, if we want, translate them in various ways.
Traditional music played "in just intonation, of course".
Quite right!
If you listen to old recordings and old players they are playing much more natural scales. Listen to the brilliant Hughie Gillespie, for example. Also there was a fondness for a bit of discord on occasion. You still hear natural scales as the norm in Sweden and Norway. Ireland a few guys learned to read music and concluded: “These old players couldn't read music, they were a bit thick, clearly this tune is in G major!” Some players do make an effort to get the old style of playing right, and keep an open mind that if C# is played slightly natural throughout a tune, maybe it’s meant to be!
The Drop of Purity
The Drop of Purity
I've been on this site a few years now, and have come across the term "pure drop" used many times, with varying degrees of enthusiasm. As far as I understand, this means an unaccompanied harp, fiddle or pipes playing a tune whose composer has been forgotten (in just intonation, of course). Am I right?
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by Joe CSS
Re: The Drop of Purity
No.
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by Kenny
Re: The Drop of Purity
Yes.
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by AlBrown
Re: The Drop of Purity
The "pure drop" is a metaphor--understand what it is to taste the best poteen, and apply that to "homemade" music that creates a similar lift and joy of life.
As the song says: "Stick to the crather, the best thing in nature for drowning your sorrows and raising your joys."
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by Will CPT
Re: The Drop of Purity
the pure drop is mike and charlies coen's record "the branch line."
get that record and you'll understand the term better than any words can.
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by Mariajef
Re: The Drop of Purity
'The pure drop' is a poor rendering into English of 'an braon úr'. This is a good example of how it is impossible to translate language exactly. 'Braon' is usually rendered in English as 'drop' and yes, 'úr' is usually rendered in English as pure. But it does not mean 'pure drop'. A better translation would be the 'very thing' in the sense of its essence.
Cervantes said translation is worthless. 'The best it can ever be is the reverse side of the tapestry'. And i can never know what that really means because, sadly for me, I do not speak Spanish
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by Pól
Re: The Drop of Purity
somewhere in the "alexandrian quartet" lawrence durrell writes that "words are halved in their utterance." not that you shouldn't try , of course.
but in this case, examples i think are more powerful and useful.
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by Mariajef
Re: The Drop of Purity
Well said, Pol. "The very essence" it is, and Mariajef's mention on the Branch Line is indeed a good example (even if it is just a recording--I have a hard time accepting any recording of this music as the "essence" of it--better to hear it and play it live).
So...pure drop connotes 'not diluted or fused,' and 'with a deep understanding of the tradition.' "Living in the tune," as they say.
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by Will CPT
Translation
Spare me that romanticized garbage about translation! Then, Cervantes didn't say that; that's an English sentence. You'll never even know WHAT he really said, except for what the noises sounded like. So, for all you know, it was complete drivel, and there's no point in referring to his writings. "A rose by any other name," is much more sober talk.
Pol, if you're a native Irish speaker then how do you know what 'pure drop' means? If you're a native English speaker then how do you know 'an braon ur' doesn't mean 'pure drop'?
Of course it can be translated. There's just no guarantee that it won't take more than 3 words.
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by m_gavin
Re: The Drop of Purity
M gavin,
Why do you not understad this very simple propositiion. Your misunderstanding of Cervantes is exactly the point I was making.
Your comment 'if i am a native irish speaker then how do you know what pure drop means,betrays a complete ignorance of the relationship between English and Irish. I have never experienced before,in my very happy time on this site an example of someone who so obviously did not get the point of the discussion.
It is so obvious that you are a monoglot English speaker. I really, really do not mind that. But your attitude to language is so specific to English speakers. Irish speakers, or french speakers ( I am tri lingual) never provoke such inappropriate responses,
The starting point for this discussion was a very reasonale request to understand how to understand a phrase in my language. I tried to help
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by Pól
Re: The Drop of Purity
Errr ... pardon me for being pedantic, but exactly *how* is one going to know what Cervantes' language sounded like when spoken? It's not written in anything recognisable as Spanish. Well, at least, not as we know it. I didn't follow the rest of your argument any better, m_gavin.
I followed Pól's argument much better ...
Of course, I would argue that 'pure drop' probably does mean something different from 'an braon úr', since it has taken on a life of its own, complete with its own connotations, which are probably very different from the connotations of the Irish phrase.
Maybe this shows that there's no such thing as an entirely *pure* 'pure drop'.
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by benhall.1
Re: The Drop of Purity
I am aware! In your language! 'misunderstanding' and 'reasonable'.
Criticise by all means. But be fair, do it in Irish or French?
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by Pól
Re: The Drop of Purity
Sorry, Pól. Cross post ...
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by benhall.1
Re: The Drop of Purity
uh ... and again ...
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by benhall.1
Re: The Drop of Purity
Umm ...
You do know I was supporting what you were saying, Pól, don't you?
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by benhall.1
Re: The Drop of Purity
Pol,
I understand that you "tried to help" to the extent you thought it possible. And it is sort of a socially accepted bit of small-talk to say, "oh, exact translation isn't possible." But when you do that, despite trying to help, you take away all hope of real help with your other hand. You are saying to the English speaker, well I'll try but I really can't help you in the final analysis, you are hopeless because you don't speak that language. AND ( a consequence you may not realize your statement has) you can NEVER learn it because really learning the language would require exact translation at some point. Verstest du?
Of course, my response was somewhat facetious, but I really do find that statement, however innocuous it appears, to be a pet pieve and thoughtless thing to say. People just rattle it off as if tt were obvious. And it's wrong. It's not even true. Chomsky has proven through the empirical science of linguistics that it is false. We all share virtually the same linguistic system because the basis of language is a biological endowment, not a culturally created system.
You can also see how UNOBVIOUS it is, just by thinking about it a while. How would one find out that "exact translation" is impossible. We have two phrases, 'the pure drop' and 'an braon ur', and we want to know whether or not one exactly translates the other. We do know that they are similar in meaning, so what else do we need to know to determine whether they are exactly intertranslatable. I submit to you that what we would seem to need is THE EXACT TRANSLATION itself (although possibly into some third language). Only then can we say, 'an braon ur' doesn't quite mean 'the pure drop' in English, because what it means isn't quite what 'the pure drop' means. In order to prove that exact translation was not possible, you would need ACCESS to an exact translation. Now there's a conundrum I don't think has a solution, hence the problematic nature of the claim, "I'm sure exact translation isn't possible."
There are other problems with the idea as well, but I think that should be enough at the very least, to vanquish it from the domain of safe, innocuous, and obvious platitudes.
And I didn't mean to get real dead serious on you. I just don't like when people just toss that one out there and wanted to bring it to your attention that it's hardly so harmless as it seems.
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by m_gavin
Re: The Drop of Purity
And I didn't mean to provoke any inappropriate responses; if there were any, you may just as well blame those responding as blame me.
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by m_gavin
Re: The Drop of Purity
Sorry, bit of unclarity in my 3rd paragraph there. Here's the information one would need to show translation impossible
'The pure drop' means exactly X
'An braon ur" means exactly Y
X does not mean exactly Y.
But of course this requires knowledge of exact translations.
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by m_gavin
Re: The Drop of Purity
But surely the essence of translation, as de Selby once said, is to "metamorphose the unknowability of existence into the farmyard of being", where the translation of "translation", or "metatranslation" itself becomes indistinguishable from the "other".
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by maxF
Re: The Drop of Purity
Sorry if this appear blunt. but I put it better in the contribution I posted earlier and got lost.
You do not need to speak Irish to play well. Some Non irish speakers play better than i ever will. Fair play to them.
As I understand Chomsky one of the points that is central to his contribution is that exact translation is imposiible.
Lets get a few tunes together some day
Slan leat
Au revoir
Goodbye, but not for ever
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by Pól
Re: The Drop of Purity
Ah, de Sebly, that old sage. I'm still living in a domicile with no walls because of his recommendation of exposure to the elements.
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by m_gavin
Re: The Drop of Purity
Agreed about the tunes. Here is a page on Chomsky; he argues the opposite of what you thought. The reason is that all humans, regardless what language they speak, have the same concept-machine in their brains, from which they produce utterances in their own language. If it's in one language, then it's in the concept-machine. Hence it can be expressed in any other language, although it could take many many more words.
Auf Wiedersehen
Salve
Later
http://www.logos.it/pls/dictionary/linguistic_resources.cap_1_26_en?lang=en
# Posted on June 20th 2007 by m_gavin
Re: The Drop of Purity
m_gavin - you mentioned Chomsky's notion of neuronal hardwiring of language in the brain...hmmm...maybe you didn't say exactly that but, anyway, there is more to it than just being a biological endowment - yes, vocabulary and grammar seem to require hardwiring. Particularly with grammar and there is a critical age which if not nurtured the child will grow up unable to communicate effectively as was the famous but tragic case of Jeanie, the girl emotionally abused by her father in LA in the 60's. But Stuff that is coming out now such as the discovery of mirror neurons and also so called evolved psychological mechanisms demonstrate there is more than just mere biological endowment, although that is important. Sorry for butting in but thought youse might be interested in that deviation.
# Posted on June 21st 2007 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: The Drop of Purity
Tried twice to respond to your interesting points. both were lost. No energy to try again Speak tomorrow
# Posted on June 21st 2007 by Pól
Re: The Drop of Purity
Pure drop is an invention of crusty auld ITM musicians who hark back to a non-existent golden age in which itinerant musicians (what's that bloody poem about the blind piper and his friggin' dog that Ciaran Mac Mathuna used to read out about once a fortnight...) would play unaccompanied without mics and amps yet still fill the O'Albert Hall and get everyone up and dancing. No accompaniment whatsoever was allowed and absolutely no dots, which means we have at least one potential ITM "musician" here on The Session!. Actually, no-one is really sure where these legendary types played, but big kitchens with Agas or wooden platforms at crossroads, shortly prior to arrest, would be a good guess. It was in the era when sessions didn't exist and so every performance was ...er, a performance. O'Carolan couldn't have been pure drop because he "wrote his tunes." This was clearly not allowed, as only tunes that mysteriously survived in spite of anonymity were permitted. Only traditional instruments are allowed such as violins (aka "fiddles") and whistles, the latter permissible as they were found in Neanderthal burial chambers. Unfortunately, none were found with wooden fipples and, distressingly, only models in E and F sharp were ever unearthed. Pipes were allowed as this was the only way that the ancient Irish, ever mindful of their environmental responsibilities, could recycle cows' bladders. Certain instruments are particularly frowned upon, such as melodeons, banjos, bouzoukis and shaky eggs though, puzzlingly, the abomination known as "the bodhran" is occasionally tolerated even though there is no evidence that it was used as anything but a sieve until at least 1992. The apparent justification for it, again on environmental grounds, is that it enables the recycling of goats and silly little knobbly twigs. If you ever ask a pure drop musician if harmonica is acceptable you'll get a blank look as he'll think you're talking about his sister.
# Posted on June 21st 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: The Drop of Purity
"you can NEVER learn it because really learning the language would require exact translation at some point"
I disagree with this point, I think in learning a second language you eventually reach a point at which you understand the meaning of a word without reference to your native language. Often the specific connotations of certain words may be difficult to learn and can only be learnt through intense exposure to the language in its native form, it's still possible.
Plus, I think you mean Auf Wiederlesen ;)
# Posted on June 21st 2007 by kjay_bc_box
Re: The Drop of Purity
The old chestnut that "exact translation is impossible" is just a special case of the fact that we can never know for certain exactly what anyone else is thinking when they say or write something. Every language is changing, understood differently by different users, and non-trivial statements are always incompletely defined. Translation is as possible as communication in general; it also has many of the same problems.
It is, of course, quite possible (actually quite usual, even trivial) that single words and succinct phrases in one language cannot be expressed so pithily, and certainly not with the same constellation of denotations and connotations, in a different language. Poetry, which is essentially dense in expression, is a particular case in point; translations of poetry tend either to be ponderous, heavily annotated explanations or to be new creations that only parallel the original.
In general, there is however no problem that faces translation other than the problems that face saying anything a second time but in other words and under other circumstances. So Paul is right if he says that the connotations of pure drop and his Irish version differ; but if he were to say (I'm not sure if he does) that there is some secret meaning of the Irish phrase that is forever inaccessible to non-Irish speakers (or even natives), then he would be wrong.
Bis demnächst
# Posted on June 21st 2007 by Lingpupa
Re: The Drop of Purity
Added to which, I suspect that to many native English speakers, including those who have never learnt another language, "pure drop" may easily be understood as a metaphorical way of referring to "the very thing" or essence of something. I wonder how Paul would describe his assumptions as to how English speakers in general would respond to the term.
Interestingly enough, "thig.le", the Tibetan for "drop", is widely used in "mystical" literature, alone and in combinations such as "heart-drop", to refer to the quintessence of something.
Ciao
# Posted on June 21st 2007 by Lingpupa
Re: The Drop of Purity
as far as i understand it pure drop is traditional music without anything fancy. compare your grandma to matt molloy. both are great, but one style is a highly developed artform and the other was a nice old lady's way of passing the time when there was no farm work to be done.
even back in the days when there were people whose main sources of entertainment were stories, dancing and music, there were people who were dedicated artists who pushed the boundaries of their tradition.
it's all a matter of opinion. i played a willie clancy set (molly brannigan as an air, jig and reel) that i learned from noel hill for my cousin's grandmother and she thought it was the strangest, most modern thing she ever heard to rewrite the same tune three ways. when i told her it was from noel hill, she said he had too much time on his hands. when i told her it was from willy clancy, she said so did he.
# Posted on June 21st 2007 by daiv
Re: The Drop of Purity
Erm, I was just trying to be light and cute about the metaphor thing.
Geesh, every thought gets lost in translation as soon as we try to mold it into words, pictures, sounds. Let alone convey it to someone else. Especially if we're going to split hairs and divvy up angels on pinheads.
I've been fluent in four languages at different times in my life--my experience is that we come to understand idioms like "pure drop" within the context of the culture, which is only partially linguistic.
Anyway, the range of responses to the original post is starting to shed some light on what we mean when we say someone's playing is pure drop. At least a better working sense of the phrase (to my mind) than Joe started out with....
# Posted on June 21st 2007 by Will CPT
Re: The Drop of Purity
Your English is coming on, Will.
# Posted on June 21st 2007 by Dow
Re: The Drop of Purity
That'd be my American, eh?
# Posted on June 21st 2007 by Will CPT
Re: The Drop of Purity
"I'm mad about my flat" = I love my apartment.
"I'm mad about my flat" = I'm angry about my punctured tire.
And this in the same language!
But who knew of the number of intellectuals lurking in the woodwork on this site?
Please carry on, I am making notes with which to impress everyone at Friday's session.
# Posted on June 21st 2007 by oldstrings
Re: The Drop of Purity
"Bantam Futon" - I love it, but the giant has not yet awakened. Be afraid, be very afraid.
# Posted on June 21st 2007 by oldstrings
A rose is a rose is a rose...
‘Pure-Drop’ is probably one of those things that can only be described through poetry.
# Posted on June 21st 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: The Drop of Purity
it`s something that is different for everybody because of their own perception of it, many may think they understand what it is, few ever truly experience it. it`s that moment where you realise what you are playing and are engulfed.
# Posted on June 21st 2007 by iluvpints
Re: The Drop of Purity
You can't describe it but you know it when you hear it.
To follow on from a point made earlier, just because Chomsky says something doesn't mean it's true; language isn't an empirical science.
# Posted on June 21st 2007 by Conán McDonnell
Re: The Drop of Purity
Wow, thanks for all the insightful responses.
Anyway......
I think I prefer McGoldrick and Flook.
# Posted on June 21st 2007 by Joe CSS
Re: The Drop of Purity
wow, thesession has really gone "meta" here
But what it's worth (admittedly, not much) i think m_gavin has it right on this one. But I think the position is best articulated not by reference to some Chompskesque conginational uinversal langauage structure. I think the position is best understood in Donald Davidson's work 'truth and meaning': http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/davidson/#Tru
Rough and dirty explication: both the phases 'the pure drop' and 'an braon u' have a truth value that can be empirically verified by the way it is used in living cultural context(s). if the phrases did not have a truth value they would be meaningless, jibberish. but since they do have meaning, we can compare their truth values and, if we want, translate them in various ways.
# Posted on June 21st 2007 by Brendan
Re: The Drop of Purity: Just or True Intonation
Traditional music played "in just intonation, of course".
Quite right!
If you listen to old recordings and old players they are playing much more natural scales. Listen to the brilliant Hughie Gillespie, for example. Also there was a fondness for a bit of discord on occasion. You still hear natural scales as the norm in Sweden and Norway. Ireland a few guys learned to read music and concluded: “These old players couldn't read music, they were a bit thick, clearly this tune is in G major!” Some players do make an effort to get the old style of playing right, and keep an open mind that if C# is played slightly natural throughout a tune, maybe it’s meant to be!
# Posted on June 21st 2007 by neddiescotus
Re: The Drop of Purity
So the pure drop is like the Platonic ideal that I learned about when studying philosophical history?
# Posted on June 21st 2007 by AlBrown
Re: The Drop of Purity
According a certain Buddhist sutra, nothing is defiled or immaculate.
Here's what's closest to "pure drop": http://comhaltas.ie/music/detail/comhaltaslive_198_segment_1_the_brady_family
It's a shame, their duet playing is spoiled by the guitar backing!
# Posted on June 22nd 2007 by slainte
Re: The Drop of Purity
So that must be the sis 'n' da of Adrian who's been here in Sydney? It's good, all right.
# Posted on June 22nd 2007 by Lingpupa