I've seen his name thrown around here quite negatively as of late so I'd like to clear the air. I know alot of you already have your minds made up about the man and nothing I can say will change that, which is fine. I'm just saying my bit for those who don't have an opinion of the man and aren't biased against him, his line of thinking or his brand of traditional Irish music.
Sure the episode on the radio was ugly but it helps to understand background to such things. Tansey is a man who has lived the tradition. He grew up playing at the feet of some of the masters like Fred Finn, Johnny Watt Henry, Jim Donohue, and countless other musicians. He won the all Ireland in 1965 and then learned that he didn't know the first thing about Irish music. Which was when Jim Donohue took him under his wing and "it was only then that (tansey) learned how to the play the flute". He learned that there is more to playing the flute than just rolls, the standard battery of technique and homogenized rhythm. He took what he learned from his elders and made it his own which is exactly what any good traditional musician should do.
And in turn he has tried to do his part in handing down the music as it was handed to him. The man is extremely generous with his time. He's sat down with me for hours playing tunes, sharing his opinions and showing me various tricks on different tunes. I've seen him do the same with many different people at festivals. He's been a driving force behind some of the greatest records of all time. Check out Coleman Country Revisted if you have doubts. He's been a champion for the music for the last forty years.
But he's also seen alot of changes to the music. He's witnessed the commercialization of the music. He's seen the music shift away from "tradition." It doesn't take a genius to listen to the Peter Horan and Fred Finn and then listen to some of the newer players (that I won't name cause I don't wanna be branded like Tansey) and realize that the music has been changed and alot of the wild, interesting bits have been replaced by gimmics and modern aesthetics. And being a man who is passionate about the music, he has fought to preserve those endangered characterics. And natually alot of what he's said in that aim have flown in the face of alot of people. So naturally he has been a target. Which in turn has made him to be to prickly to say the least. It ain't easy being a heretic... but we should respect them and their place in society to call a spade a spade and keep it real.
Some people might think that he's way out there with his music and he's taken it too far but I've seen him turn it down a bit to play with musicians he knows and respects. But I've also seen him turn in on when he's around people to show them what the flute is capable of. And in many ways this approach has yeilded results and he's been able to influence a lot of the musicians that matter in traditional Irish music. And alot of these same musicians that I'm talking about will tell you the same things I am.
And contrary to what that radio program shows, the man is not a monster. He has a sense of humor and you don't have to walk on egg shells around him. In fact, I've even taken the piss out of him on many occasions (even on some seemingly sensative issues) and gone against him on a few arguments and we had a great time and lots of laughs.
Tansey is a man cursed with musical talent, a keen intelect, strong opinions and the balls to air them. You don't have to like the man, just listen to his opinions and see what you make of them. He's a character, a gas man and you can learn alot from him. Don't judge the man from one radio show or from a few old opinions on this board.
I appologize that this post isn't more cleverly crafted but I had to speak my mind.
Fair play Jack, however, the issue of Seamus Tansey's popularity or otherwise is surely a minor issue in the world of Irish Trad. music. Certainly, he has the provenance, the talent , the charisma, the openness, the generosity, that you praise. But did the music stop developing when Fred Finn etc. died? Were The Bothy Band the only trad band worth emulating? Is there a time line when the basic tenets and rules were set down, never to be questioned? Should the importation of technique from other musics be stopped?
All of us have moments when we think WE are the ones carrying the flame. Not so, not for me, for Tony Mac Mahon, or for all his genius, not for Sheamus.
This worries me. It is so easy to be judgemental of individuals, jumping on the critical band wagon, without knowing the facts, yet it can be so damaging not only to the person being put down, but to everyone who contributes or lets it happen. Have horrified myself by being involved in sour rumour mungering in the past - it isn't pretty.
I don't know anything about Seamus Tansey except from what I have read here. However I am led to ponder on what happened to Princess Dianna. Ars**ole, misunderstood or a bluudy good story, just because you are well known or famous does not mean you should have to be open slather to be hounded and harrassed like the paparatzi after Dianna. Sorry. It should not be the price of fame, and it should not be part of the session scene here or anywhere (although unfortunately sometimes it is).
I know I have had some issues about what should and should not be discussed on this site. I think we should resolve not to discuss other musicians or things we know little or nothing about.
It isn't a great idea to compare Diana and Mr Tansey's treatments by the media. The latter showed the world a very unpleasant side to his character. There really were no excuses. But if I examine my conscience I'm possibly a bit like that meself. That's the point.
Thanks Jack, always good to get both sides of a story. If the passion folks have for this music didn't put us at odds from time to time, it would be a sad day for all--the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference.......
If I have this right, according to the dates I see on the link provided by Backer (and thanks for that link, Backer) this row started nearly 3 years' ago.
And over that time, some have referred to it as an "interview" that Tansey did for a radio station. Time seems to have made the whole thing something more than what initiially started out as a private letter between two folks who'd had a disagreement, and the matter, it seems to me, has been blown out of proportion.
Now, I doubt there is anyone who was there (aside from Miss Langston) who can provide an honest 'other side of the story' as to what took place at their gig that evening. And yet, it seems to be Tansey who is taking all the heat for it.
So Tansey decided to put his thoughts and feelings of the matter in a letter. Nothing wrong with that - (though personally, he could have been equally effective without resorting to the foul language, but that's another matter, IMO) - and in reading the letter, it seems he exposes Miss Langston and what she apparently claims is "Irish trad. music".
Now... how many of us have sat in a "IRTrad session" and heard all manner of cacophony of music that is anything BUT the tradition? And of course, complained openly about it on this and other forums?
Backer, I don't want to turn this thread into a rehashed old vs new debate. I've done that enough.
My view on the tradition is evident in what I wrote up there, "He took what he learned from his elders and made it his own which is exactly what any good traditional musician should do." To me that is what the music is about. Sure the music has developed. Sure new techniques may be brought in but it all should be grounded in the tradition and consistent with the essence of Irish music, which sadly alot of today's music isn't.
"But did the music stop developing when Fred Finn etc. died? Were The Bothy Band the only trad band worth emulating? Is there a time line when the basic tenets and rules were set down, never to be questioned? Should the importation of technique from other musics be stopped?"
While it is undisputed that the music did not stop developing when Fred Finn died, I think it is well worth taking a look at what directions it is developing and considering - in one's opinion - the merits or demerits of the said developments. And this has to be done with a more-than-vague understanding of what has gone before.
I think Harry Bradley sums it up very well here:
"I have to question the reasons for change though. I will not accept it blindly and I will not accept that we are powerless to plot it's course for better and worse (bit of a cop out if we think it innevitable and one directional really). Change in itself is simply not always good, and it is never just black and white (which is why the famously tired 'innovator' vs 'purist' debate was never going to come to anything more than a mutual penis measuring excercise). " http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=23950&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
I don't understand why you would propose that people like Tony MacMahon and Seamus Tansey are not carrying the flame of a musical tradition though.
I don't believe anyone ever questioned Tansey's value and contributions as a musician and teacher, or any of the other things Murphy has mentioned; they had nothing to do with the incident involving the box player. The issue was his abusive and unnecessary letter as well as his behavior on that radio program. I wasn't at the gig, so I have no firsthand knowledge of the incident, but I did read the account, the letter and I heard the radio program. It didn't matter to me that the person on the radio who wrote the letter was Seamus Tansey the brilliant ITM legend; I was responding to how Seamus Tansey the human being was behaving. If he were a bricklayer or electrician or any other professional it wouldn't have mattered either. It was Seamus Tansey the man and how he was treating another person that was at issue.
Some people seem to think that a person's fame or musical brilliance provides an excuse for rude and abusive behavior. I don't agree. I respect Seamus Tansey the musician and I appreciate all the good and generous things he does as a person, but I was disappointed in how he carried himself off in that particular incident.
"but it all should be grounded in the tradition and consistent with the essence of Irish music, which sadly a lot of today's music isn't"
Jack I totally agree with your statement.
Change will come, and it will be painful for some people. I don't dislike the man, because I never had the privilege to meet him, but at the end of the day when this forum and it's contributors are long gone, some of the changes abhorred by the "old school" will be part of the tradition, hopefully in the good company of all that Seamus holds dear and passes on willingly. Indeed I don't think he's a curmudgeon really, he was just having a bad day!
"I don't understand why you would propose that people like Tony MacMahon and Seamus Tansey are not carrying the flame of a musical tradition though."
Eldarion, I did'nt propose it and I would'nt.......... but there are litteraly thousands of others who carry the flame as well, most of them not household names................and if it's worth saying, I dont like a lot of what is going around in the guise of trad. either, but most of it will sink out of view in the long term. Can you visualise any electronic instruments being mainstream in 10 years time? Probably not, but there have been changes, and people should be encouraged to test the limits a little bit!
Too many people have had bad expieriences with cranky old farts who are limited in their knowledge, without a genius like Mr. Tansey joining in the slaughter. Those of us who are on the edge of the wave need help, not missiles!
I don't believe anyone mentioned that a person's fame or musical brilliance provides an excuse for rude and abuse behavior. The point is this is simply Tansey being himself, an honest to self and fallible human being (as I hope you are aware we all are). Brilliant ITM legends are humans with characters too, and not one dimensional haloed saints like people might imagine them to be.
While it seems very clear cut and simple to isolate everything into discreet incidents and express approval (generousity) or disapproval (nasty letter) accordingly, I think it is highly disconnected way to view things in the real world. Sometimes it is better to take a wholistic perspective and accept and understand the person for who he is, warts and all.
So we're talking about him. He's on a pedestal of some sort. I doubt that we would be discussing his carrying of the flame had it not been for that very ugly incident. Let's keep it (and him) in proportion and remember that the real carriers of the flame are the thousands of enthusiasts who turn out for free beer or less and take the music seriously beyond the call of duty.
Backer, this is going into the whole oversimplistic, dualistic way of seeing things in ITM - "purist" vs "innovators" and what not. I don't feel that any discussion founded on such a perspective can go very far because it is an inherently flawed and limited perspective. I'm not sure if you've clicked the link I've posted above but I thought that to be quite a good discussion on that matter.
Steve, I'm not sure I agree with your last sentence there but again I really don't want this to turn into one of those. And I am aware that you are a bit sarcastic there.
So I'll just say briefly that I do agree with the premise of your statement but in reality alot of these "enthusiasts", while being warm bodies carrying on the music, don't do their homework and end up detracting from the music. The sort a person who believes the music started with the bothy band and have little idea of what the tradition is about beyond the "free pints" and music of a session. Whereas people like Tansey and Macmahon truely understand Irish music and bring something positive towards it. I don't think you can compare the two.
I've re-read my own post and examined my conscience, and I still can't find a scintilla of sarcasm, either deliberate or unintended. And there are some amazingly-talented, unpaid, unsung, wonderful ITM musicians out there.
There are just as many yahoos pimping this music out for money who have no clue about 'tradition' or the history of the ethnicity, culture or the music, as there are clueless amateurs.
We can make sweeping generalizations about both groups if you like, but they'll still be wrong, as sweeping generalizations always are.
The fact remains that because someone has made money and achieved notoriety doesn't mean that their contribution to the tradition is any more important than one who hasn't, or who has chosen not to bother and instead, prefers being the gentleman amateur. After all, it’s traditional music, not rock and roll.
What's truly important is where their heart and head is at.
I am a gentleman amateur which is why I don't do gigs, lessons, record or lead sessions... I know exactly what you're on about. Your putting words into my mouth that I never said.
The fact that someone has made money and achieved notoriety doesn't mean their contribution is any more important than one who hasn't, according to the above. It doesn't make it any less, as some try to imply with Tansey. The man is a legend, and has promoted the music for 40 years or more.
We used to just tell him to sit quietly and play, and drink. Never gave us any problems.
Thanks for the link to the interview, I think it's important to read it all and take it all into context though the "tits on a bull" comment is a great discription and very funny , I love it, perhaps because it's one to stir up some fun from people who seem to picture him as some ogre, and never learn more of the story. I can understand why you wrote what you did at the start of the topic, though if anyone wouldn't listen to him or any one else, because of some political correctness or whatever then it's his or her loss. He's as fluent and descriptive in speaking as playing I reckon. I don't think he's so much "on a pedestal" just taking his stand Controversy is great for debate.
Heaven forbid anyone doesn't do their "traditional homework." Honestly, Murphy... what is this a college course or enjoying a few tunes and some craic?
These debates are always interesting. They exist in other activities I've done, like whitewater river rafting or horseback riding. Of course, the main difference is that if you don't do your "homework" rafting or riding, you can end up dead or injured. It all seems a bit pedantic when it's regarding music. No one ever ended up dead from a badly played reel.
It's about respect Gilder. If one claims to play traditional music he or she should have an understanding of what that tradition is and what that tradition means. It's possible to respect the tradition and have a few chunes and craic at the same time.
I don't understand the letter. Surely before expecting to recieve money for a gig Tansey would have sat down and played with the accordion player? And he would have needed a soundcheck? Anything less than this is hardly professional. So how could the flute Vs accordion tuning be an issue? They should have known about any issues 2 hours before they went on.
Or am I being really naive about how much work people actually expect to put in to for their £200/hr wage?
I asked the same question, Andy, and I think some of the blame has to be with the management for a sloppy gig arrangement. If they would have been adaquately prepared to encounter each other I doubt anything like that would have happened.
That's ok, Murphy, now that we know you'll be "irked" if we haven't done enough traditional homework to suit you, we'll feel all ashamed when you walk in the room and know we don't respect the music.
Silverspear, people have been killed for playing reels, badly or brilliantly.
Andy@newcastle. You are being naive. Chuck Berry, the professionals professional, would arrive at a gig 5 minutes before the start, look at his local back up band (too mean and professional to have his own band) and say "Right, let's go". Bruce Springstein, who once played in one of these bands said they asked Berry "but what are we playing" and he replied "Chuck Berry songs" and headed onto the stage.
I don't know when you got the idea that everything I ever said applied to you. Get off it. I don't spend any part of my day analyzing you or thinking about you. Or are you determined to turn this thread into another "Jackspat"?
I'm sorry, Mr Murphy, but there really is no "unintentional implied message." Whatever else I am around here I call a spade a spade and I don't need to go around "implying," intentionally or otherwise. And yes, it is the internet, and you're trolling on it.
Ok, Murphy, I assumed you were talking to those of us following this thread when you said, "I just find people who don't do their traditional homework to be quite irksome." So why don't you elaborate on this and explain exactly what you meant and who you were referring to... just to clear up any misunderstanding.
Just read the letter, maybe a trifle strong, but no more than what is often said about another female box player, in the safety of a session in a pub.
And I remember one night at our "performance" when people were nearly getting killed because Seamus was asked to pay for drink because he had exceeded his alloted ration. So if he didn't get paid, the letter is mild by his standards.
I said "I just find people who don't do their traditional homework to be quite irksome."
I did not say " I find Jack Gilder, who doesn't do his traditional homework, to be quite irksome?"
I did not say "I find those following this thread don't do their traditional homework and are, therefore, quite irksome."
I didn't say "Nobody besides me does their traditional homework, and I find that irksome."
What I said means this: there are some people out there who don't do their traditional homework and I don't agree with that. If you're (you generally not you Gilder) one of those people then I'm sorry and I hope you come around sooner or later.
Steve, I didn't mean to troll. I'm just trying to express my ideas on this terrible medium.
Murphy, I realize you weren't talking about me specifically, but we can only assume you were addressing the Irish music playing population at large, of which I am one. But don't worry... we will now know that you're very concerned about our ITM education when you walk into the room. *yawn*
Fair play. I guess if you can act like that then you might as well. I'm not a clearly not a "name" trad musician, but if I hadn't arrived in time to sound check I'd be expecting a hassle in extracting my money from the venue, let alone expecting a repeat booking. If I walked off I'd be more worried about whether I'd destroyed my reputation then not being paid.
The reference to £200/hr was what I'd consider about the ceiling for myself in terms of a "very well paid gig" (ie I've only ever got that kind of money once), not to how much Tansey himself would be being paid. Must be nice to be famous in your world....
Just looked up "trolling" in the dictionary, and to think people used to accuse me of that, and I didn't know what they meant. I am affronted.
Andy, I was agreeing with every thing you said, then you had to let yourself down. I never claimed to be famous, well not for music, just good, albeit on a humble bodhran. I would always do a sound check, would like to rehearse a live "gig" with the mics and such, and £200, especially an hour, would be a very welcome booking. We do one of those a year at present.
I just happened by the way to have played with a load of "famous people" by circumstance. And having the ability, albeit on a humble bodhran, helps. I am not going to start playing mandolin with O'Flynn, Molloy or Tansey for that matter.
I have been reading this particular thread [obviously], and assessing how I think some of you communicated your messages. If I may:
Plaudits all around for trying to keep your points clear, and, I will note, clarifying when there seems to be any confusion leading to feelings of insultedness. Seems some friction developed, though...
Now, it seems to me that Murphy was mainly defending the positive contributions of Mr. Tansey, and asking that the rest of the ITM world not throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, over a few issues with Seamus rather roughly speaking his mind over the years. That is the man, not the music.
It seems to me that Phantom was taking a bit of exception to having anyone's choice of involvment in ITM be subjected to the standards of another, fairly or unfairly. I really did not think Mr. Murphy was trying to be authoritarian or judgemental, but simply speaking his personal feelings upon the matter. He was not sneering, and should not be sneered at.
It seems to me that Andy was talking about applying some professional standards of behavior to the two performers, re. tuning, soundchecks, etc. but I am not clear on whether he was actually there at the gig, or has spoken to someone who was. (I know I was definately was not, so I would not even attempt to say what sort of arrangement was made or should have been made.)
It seemed to me that Bodhran had little trouble taking Mr. Tansey as he was, apparently in person on the same bill with him, perhaps with a grain of salt, and keeping to the music.
You may just happened to have accidentally played with some famous people, bliss. I happen to have played with some people who would have been famous had they never played with me.
Thanks for your input, Rook, there are many ways to interpret the comments on this thread. I don't know how long you've been a member here, but some of us have been participating in this forum for a long time and have developed impressions of one another that go way beyond this topic and this thread. Being that this is the first time I've seen you on this board I wouldn't know how to judge your comments, and I doubt I'd even want to try, nor would I appoint myself as a judge for the comments in this forum. If you feel comfortable doing that, it's your choice.
No point, just seeing if I was understanding certain points of the thread. I guess not.
As Phantom rightly pointed out, I am new here, I do not have any history with most of the contributors (yourself included), I was merely curious as to what seemed to be becoming inflammatory with certain portions of the conversation between the players, and wanted to see if I understood. Probably me reading more into things than there was, then beeing nosey. That is my fault, no one else's. Sorry.
In courtesy to Phantom, I do apologise for butting in, and if my inquiry is immediately interpretted as judgement and , then I will politely withdraw from this and any future interaction with him.
David, you're an evil man
But i think that Rook should write a precis of the messages conveyed by the main participants in that thread.
But I'm off to bed!
p.s. we must organise a session or something so that I can retrieve my coffee-pot
David, so you want to know about trolls?
As a noun, "troll" is discussed in detail in references such as these: http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll-tactics.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Troll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll - the troll in mythology
In modern literature the trolls of mythology turn up, for example, in The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, some of the Harry Potter books, and in many of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels.
"Troll" as a verb is unfamiliar to me, other than a variant of "trawl", except that those two characters Jules and Sandy in the Round The Horne radio comedy series used "troll" as a verb, but I was too young and innocent to work out exactly what they meant.. , and now I don't remember the context
My point wasn't political, bb, but a vaguely wiseass observation that these things can get quite pedantic after a while, especially in the context of what someone has cleverly called a "Jackspat." Hilarious.
Discussing the use of the word "troll" as a verb, on the other hand, is not pedantic at all.
Rook's first post floated over the rest of us like an ofsted school inspector. I'm surprised we didn't get individual grades. Hey, wait a minute...am I seeing a link here...traditional homework? Grades?
"Trolling" was a term used in fishing when I were a lad in Australia, meaning to slowly trail a bait through the water (from a boat), presumably derived from "trawling" which means something different. I'm quite certain that that is how the word is meant on internet forums: baiting, and hoping for a response, or a "rise" as someone said.
I have no particular opinion on Seamus Tansey or either of the Jacks , or even on "ITM" (apart from noting that there are some nice Irish tunes which I enjoy playing now and then, and some great players whom I listen to with interest and enjoyment) but have enjoyed reading this discussion while I am housebound on a rainy day.
BB, I probably wasn't too clear. I wasn't accusing you of being a well known musician, just trying to protect myself from the accusations that I was claiming to be one.
I wasn't at the gig, and my comments were based on nothing other than the letter. The incident was touched upon briefly as a marker of how not to behave at a paid gig, when a couple of other people and myself were relating St Paddy's day experiences to a tutor and how we'd dealt with stropy/drunk/angry/naive landlords and troublesome musicians when people had been drafted in to dep. The Seamus Tansey incident was mentioned by someone who had been at the gig, but I didn't learn anything more from that than I would have from the letter.
Because I'm not good enough to earn my keep by playing, I hauled equipment around for years, all types of gigs and music, and found it more common than not that the "star" was a bit of a wan*er, what's new, big deal, might happen to me if I could play better. You don't have to look at someone's picture while you listen to them.
Hi all - what we need to keep in perspective here is that Seamus is a wee bit mad at the best of times. He used to go round the sessions with a crowd of really crap guitar players, dressed in broad Black Brimmer and Sam Browne Belt!
He also famously lambasted Martin Dowling when he was at the Arts Council for not giving him a grant to wander the hedgerows of Armagh to record bird song!
Having said all that, he was once one of the greatest exponents of the flute in Irish Music. He once borrowed my Mozani and showed me what it was capable of.
I have some very fond memories of him - one time at the Roscommon Fleadh we entered Keadue and over the noise of the fleadh could be heard this amazing flute playing - none other than the boul Seamus standing with his back to a van blasting the tunes out.
On another occasion I had a session with him in a corridor of a bar near the shores of Lough neagh and the steam generated in that session had the wall paper dripping off the walls before we were done.
In my humble opinion his strengths as a musician and a generous hander on of the diddley dee faith far outway any flaws attibutable to his slight lunacy
Humble apologies to Andy, my misreading of your post was entirely at fault.
Silverspear: My comment about being killed for playing reels was political. And discussing whether a made uop word (computer wise) is a verb or whatever, is certainly pedantic and giving too much credance to this modern trendy craze of massacring the English language, mainly with the use of text speak.
And Breandan, one of those crap guitar players is an undiscovered living genius, who I believe has played in your kitchen on occasion. If he could stand up that is.
Yeah, dude, I know your point was political. Mine wasn't.
I don't know if making up words like "trolling" is massacring. Languages change, much like -- wait for it -- music. I'm not going to put any value judgments like good or bad on that change, but simply observe that things like language and music have not nor have they ever been completely static.
Hey dude? Is that one of those pulpy, banal pop songs yer man writes, and still is writing by the looks of things?
Oops, it says Yeah, Dude. That's so cooooool! Reminds me of "77 Sunset Strip".
And I am glad you mentioned change in music, I am all for it. Remember Horslips, Fairport, Planxty, Bothy Band, Pogues and countless others? A bit of experiment is great, although not necessarily to everyone's taste. On reading Tansey's letter, the bit about Bluegrass, Cajun and such, I was thinking "That's exactly what I am always saying about Gerry O'Connor", the banjo player. But maybe he is bringing the banjo back to its American roots.
Bren, Here in the USA, we used the word trolling the same way as you, proceeding at a slow bell with fishing lines over the side.
Regarding this conversation, people are beginning to read things into statements, and become overly agitated. I would suggest that at this point we all remember that this is a medium where a minor misunderstanding can flash up into flames rather quickly, and give each other the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps we should stop before a yellow board equivalent of the infamous "letter" is produced!
Have a nice weekend, folks, may your evenings be full of good tunes!
An interesting discussion, but I was shocked to read the original letter. Whatever the rights and wrongs, to use abusive and sexist language in this way is terrible. I do not dispute that Séamus is a great player, not for a moment. But a relative of mine had to stop Séamus teaching her daughter not because of the quality of his playing, obviously, but because of the continued use of inappropriate language, The child is doing great on the fiddle now.. could have been the flute
After reviewing this thread and trying to give myself a fresh perspective a couple of things come to mind. To be fair to Murphy, I share his appreciation for the older players and the tradition. I have met a few on my visits to Ireland and I've gotten to know a couple that have spent time here in SF. Their value is immeasurable and we're fortunate to have any opportunity to spend time with them. But what I don't understand is why contemporary musicians have to be disparaged in the process.
I have a great appreciation for musicians like Paddy Keenan, Tommy Peoples, Kevin Burke, Jackie Daly, Frankie Gavin, Kevin Crawford, etc., etc. and any of the revival and post revival musicians. I think there contributions are valid as well and have added a lot to what makes this music so great. I really find nothing wrong with the Bothy Band, Planxty, De Dannan, etc., and don't understand why they and other contemporary groups have to be considered something less for the older musicians to be adequately respected and appreciated.
I mentioned the Bothy Band because it was mentioned on this thread, and I mentioned the revival musicians because they have been disparaged in previous threads where this topic has come up. I'm certainly not suggesting that everything contemporary is great either, but weren’t there also less than desirable musical projects happening during the pre-revival period as well that we don't associate with Tansey and other ITM greats?
Anyway… that’s my point. I appreciate the great older players as well as the great contemporary ones. I think we can sing the praises of one without disparaging the other. And I also think we can get together with friends for a few tunes and craic without worrying about doing “traditional homework” or being right or wrong about the history of the music. I think the history of ITM and people involved is just as interesting as the music that’s being celebrated and played today is without bothering over political correctness.
I am not sure I understand your last sentence. I am not sure what is meant by 'political correctness' in this context. I am sure we can agree that debate about the music can be conducted in terms which are not offensive to any one
Gilder, I'm not trying to stir up crap, but in all fairness it's a bit presumptious to say you "share my appreciation." You aren't inside my head, you don't feel what I feel and you don't share my thoughts. I think completely different than you do. I can honestly say you don't know where I'm coming from. If you did you wouldn't act as you do and you wouldn't play like you do.
I'm not trying to put down ANYBODY! I know you like to keep bringing up that old thread but my thinking has progressed and my theories have been refined. That was almost two years ago. And I've since learned to express myself better if only marginally. You should also bear in mind that I support all of those people you mentioned up there when they come to town. I've seen Lunasa at least 5 or 6 times now just so I could go out and support the lads. I can't remember the last time I saw you at a gig (not session) where you weren't paid to be there... again not trying to stir crap up, just making a point.
Again, I'm not trying to put down ANYBODY! The fact of the matter is that the music that I enjoy scratches some kind of primal side of my brain. Any music that does this I enjoy. A wildness, spark, fire, emotion or whatever. It just so happens that most of the music that gets me going comes from the older crowd of players. Anything that doesn't do this to me I find to be uninteresting, and sadly most of todays music falls into this catagory. I never sat down and drew an artificial timeline where I would divide music that I could like and music that I can't like. As a result of my natural preferences, I've come to look at the tradition from a different angle and naturally my opinions and thought process reflect that angle. Which has taken me down and different road and allowed me to learn alot of things. And being the passionate young man I am, I fight to preserve what I enjoy in Irish music.
Honestly, Murphy, when someone says they "share your appreciation" for something it doesn't mean they've climbed inside your head or they're having a mind-meld or anything; it's just a common expression for having similar sentiments. In this case all I'm saying is that I also appreciate and admire the older players.
If you've had a change of heart about your declaration from a passed thread where you said everyone between the age of 30 and 60 is "ruining the music" because they might have been inspired by the revival period and the Bothy Band etc. -- that's great. I would love to put that behind us and move on. I could very well have been wrong when I read your words on this page and detected a similar sentiment. If I was in error, and you’ve reconcidered your stance – then please accept my apologies.
Yea, I know, Blissters... I saw that too. It's interesting how he claims he's not getting personal and then says something like that. He's just going through some sort of judgmental stage I guess. But in all fairness -- my playing IS crap. I'd love to stay and chat but I must get back to my traditional homework.
I'll explain to you what I mean when I say I've revised my thinking.
Earlier in my musical endeavors I was a bit raviness and dogmatic. I've since come to understand things and the tradition a bit better. I've since learned that these people took what they learned from their elders and made it their own which is all I can really ask anyone to do. Innovation within the tradition, as Tony Mac put it, which is excellent. And I've since come to appreciate the difficulties playing in a modern world and the corrupting influences of commercialization and modern aesthetics. It's something I struggle with on a daily basis. Those people you mentioned up there, as I'm sure you know well, witnessed alot of changes, including the prominence of the radio, ease of travel, the band sound and avalibility of recordings. Being aware of other styles and having to fit in other musicians is a blessing and a challenge all at the same time. I've come to appreciate that.
Do I take back everything I said? No. Would I prefer the guitar or bouzouki to have never been brought into Irish music? Absolutely but I can deal with it. Would I prefer if the revival had never happened or the "bands" had never been invented? Probably but then I probably wouldn't be playing this music and not too many people would be either. I can't change history; all I can do is try to inspire and challenge others to look beyond the Crawford's, Egan's, McGoldrick's, Finnagan's and hope that someway somehow the endangered naunces that I so enjoy come back from the edges of the abiss.
Gilder, I wasn't insulting your playing. I never have on this board and I never will. I was just pointing out that there is a fundamental difference between how you and I approach our music.
I didn't say "You wouldn't play as you do, which is crap."
I didn't say "Your fingers touching the flute are like milking the tits on a bull."
I didn't say any of that.
Having read the whole of this, I'm forced to conclude that neither Mr Murphy of Mr Gilder are terribly well mannered. Call me old fashioned, but I believe the right to refer to someone by their surname without the prefix "Mr" is usually reserved for people who went to school together.
Jack Murphy states only about himself that he "play[s] the flute and...[is] interested in the old styles of playing." A noble sentiment, alas I have no idea what you mean by it. Do you mean old technical styles, old repetoire, the old arrangement styles, the old dance styles, the old presentation styles, the old ornamentation styles, the old variations, the old practical applications, ...... the old teaching styles?
If you reply to this I would rather you elected not to use my surname to address me. The use of the surname will offend (unless you're an alumni of a small school in Fulford, York). It's only fair I warn you of this in advance.
Andy - I have met Jack Murphy [ hope you enjoyed the rest of your trip, Jack ], and can assure you he is very "well-mannered". The 2 Jacks have differences of opinion about Irish traditional music and flute-playing in particular, and there's nothing wrong with that. The guys seem finally to have settled on a state of peaceful co-existence judging from a few posts above, so I hope it can stay at that, because when I saw the first few posts in this thread, I was pretty sure the whole thing was going to end in what we in Scotland refer to as a "rammy".
It can get confusing when you have 2 people with the same name cross-posting, so it is actually probably easier for them to use surnames. If the 2 Jacks wish to address each other by their surnames on this board then that's a matter for them - nothing to do with you or me, really.
You've stated your preference for how you wish to be addressed, so fair enough. I'm sure everyone will go along with your wishes.
Jack Murphy is well able to answer for himself, but I would imagine that you've answered your own question in that 2nd paragraph. Jack is interested in all you've listed there, as am I.
Jack Murphy - I thought your initial post very well put.
Jack Gilder - I posted that "Mysterious Ireland" [ !!! ] recording in the recordings section last night, if you haven't come across it yet.
Hope you are both well.
Kenny, I haven't forgotten about the Tom Morrison! I've been meaning to get in touch with you but you know how that is. I'm bushed now but I'll send you a message you know where tomorrow filling you in on the details of the end of the trip.
Murphy writes: "I was just pointing out that there is a fundamental difference between how you and I approach our music."
I'm not interested in starting anything up again, but I couldn't let this go without commenting on it. Earlier in this thread you said I was being a bit "presumptuous" to say I share your appreciation of the older players with you. As I said, I don't think there was anything presumptuous about that statement, but isn't it a bit presumptuous for you to claim you know anything about how I approach the music? I don't understand how you could possibly understand my approach to music, or anything else for that matter. What IS my approach to the music, how exactly does it differ from yours, and when and where did you learn all about my approach to the music in the first place?
I disagree; there was nothing presumptuous in what I said... you stated very clearly at the beginning of this thread (and on other threads) how you felt about Tansey and other older players -- it was no mystery. I looked at it, compared it to my own feelings and realized that I share your appreciation.
Since you admit you don't know how I approach the music, then I guess we can assume you don't really know if my approach is any different than yours or not. For all we know it might be the same. If you think it's different, please elucidate.
Gilder, I'm not going to play this game anymore. You ain't me, I ain't you. We are like oil and water. Anytime I post on this forum you show up and make it about you and me. I pay no attention to all of your posts unless it's in a thread that I'm participating in because you always make it an issue between us. Why can't you extend the same courtesy? I propose we treat each other exactly like we treat each other in person. Ignore eachother and pretend the other isn't in the room. I'll start.
Might I suggest, Jack the Younger, that you avoid gratuitous pejorative remarks in your posts from now on. You did it to me, twice, and it isn't EVEN as if you and I have any "history. " You did it to Jack in that reference to his playing. What you post here is for public consumption so don't post stuff that might make us take it a certain way unless that's what you intend. We aren't inside your head, you know. And that WAS intended to be sarcastic.
He saw sarcasm in a post of mine when there wasn't any and he told everyone. He wouldn't back down and said he didn't like my unintentional implied message. You find an implied message because I can't. You know me. I'm up for a ding-dong with anyone but I don't like to be misrepresented. I can assure you that I'm not losing much sleep. I really don't want to keep going over this.
And just when I thought I was actually going to find some common ground with Murphy, but he seems to think this is a private discussion board wit private threads. Last time I checked, everyone is allowed to participate in discussions here. I guess I didn't realize agreeing with Murphy's point of view was a requirement. Oh well... my bad.
Oh. Didn't realise that both parties were called Jack (although I did realise that PB was a pseudomyn, just to be clear). How do I get the embarrassed face thing??
I think it would have been funny if both parties had called each other Jack though. In fact, maybe we should all be called Jack. Then our enemies won't know which way to turn.....
Seamus Tansey
Seamus Tansey
I've seen his name thrown around here quite negatively as of late so I'd like to clear the air. I know alot of you already have your minds made up about the man and nothing I can say will change that, which is fine. I'm just saying my bit for those who don't have an opinion of the man and aren't biased against him, his line of thinking or his brand of traditional Irish music.
Sure the episode on the radio was ugly but it helps to understand background to such things. Tansey is a man who has lived the tradition. He grew up playing at the feet of some of the masters like Fred Finn, Johnny Watt Henry, Jim Donohue, and countless other musicians. He won the all Ireland in 1965 and then learned that he didn't know the first thing about Irish music. Which was when Jim Donohue took him under his wing and "it was only then that (tansey) learned how to the play the flute". He learned that there is more to playing the flute than just rolls, the standard battery of technique and homogenized rhythm. He took what he learned from his elders and made it his own which is exactly what any good traditional musician should do.
And in turn he has tried to do his part in handing down the music as it was handed to him. The man is extremely generous with his time. He's sat down with me for hours playing tunes, sharing his opinions and showing me various tricks on different tunes. I've seen him do the same with many different people at festivals. He's been a driving force behind some of the greatest records of all time. Check out Coleman Country Revisted if you have doubts. He's been a champion for the music for the last forty years.
But he's also seen alot of changes to the music. He's witnessed the commercialization of the music. He's seen the music shift away from "tradition." It doesn't take a genius to listen to the Peter Horan and Fred Finn and then listen to some of the newer players (that I won't name cause I don't wanna be branded like Tansey) and realize that the music has been changed and alot of the wild, interesting bits have been replaced by gimmics and modern aesthetics. And being a man who is passionate about the music, he has fought to preserve those endangered characterics. And natually alot of what he's said in that aim have flown in the face of alot of people. So naturally he has been a target. Which in turn has made him to be to prickly to say the least. It ain't easy being a heretic... but we should respect them and their place in society to call a spade a spade and keep it real.
Some people might think that he's way out there with his music and he's taken it too far but I've seen him turn it down a bit to play with musicians he knows and respects. But I've also seen him turn in on when he's around people to show them what the flute is capable of. And in many ways this approach has yeilded results and he's been able to influence a lot of the musicians that matter in traditional Irish music. And alot of these same musicians that I'm talking about will tell you the same things I am.
And contrary to what that radio program shows, the man is not a monster. He has a sense of humor and you don't have to walk on egg shells around him. In fact, I've even taken the piss out of him on many occasions (even on some seemingly sensative issues) and gone against him on a few arguments and we had a great time and lots of laughs.
Tansey is a man cursed with musical talent, a keen intelect, strong opinions and the balls to air them. You don't have to like the man, just listen to his opinions and see what you make of them. He's a character, a gas man and you can learn alot from him. Don't judge the man from one radio show or from a few old opinions on this board.
I appologize that this post isn't more cleverly crafted but I had to speak my mind.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by JackMurphy
Re: Seamus Tansey
So where can I find the radio interview on mp3?
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by polkageist
Re: Seamus Tansey
Thanks for showing the other side, Jack. I have probably been swayed by that interview. I'll now take on board what you say.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Rudall the time
Re: Seamus Tansey
Seems pretty erudite to me, Jack. Thanks
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Rhod
Re: Seamus Tansey
Fair play Jack, however, the issue of Seamus Tansey's popularity or otherwise is surely a minor issue in the world of Irish Trad. music. Certainly, he has the provenance, the talent , the charisma, the openness, the generosity, that you praise. But did the music stop developing when Fred Finn etc. died? Were The Bothy Band the only trad band worth emulating? Is there a time line when the basic tenets and rules were set down, never to be questioned? Should the importation of technique from other musics be stopped?
All of us have moments when we think WE are the ones carrying the flame. Not so, not for me, for Tony Mac Mahon, or for all his genius, not for Sheamus.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Backer
Re: Seamus Tansey
This worries me. It is so easy to be judgemental of individuals, jumping on the critical band wagon, without knowing the facts, yet it can be so damaging not only to the person being put down, but to everyone who contributes or lets it happen. Have horrified myself by being involved in sour rumour mungering in the past - it isn't pretty.
I don't know anything about Seamus Tansey except from what I have read here. However I am led to ponder on what happened to Princess Dianna. Ars**ole, misunderstood or a bluudy good story, just because you are well known or famous does not mean you should have to be open slather to be hounded and harrassed like the paparatzi after Dianna. Sorry. It should not be the price of fame, and it should not be part of the session scene here or anywhere (although unfortunately sometimes it is).
I know I have had some issues about what should and should not be discussed on this site. I think we should resolve not to discuss other musicians or things we know little or nothing about.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Clear Drops
Re: Seamus Tansey
It isn't a great idea to compare Diana and Mr Tansey's treatments by the media. The latter showed the world a very unpleasant side to his character. There really were no excuses. But if I examine my conscience I'm possibly a bit like that meself. That's the point.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Seamus Tansey
Bad English. Sorry.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Seamus Tansey
Can I ask - is this interview available anywhere on the net? It sounds intriguing... Thanks
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Rhod
Re: Seamus Tansey
Thanks Jack, always good to get both sides of a story. If the passion folks have for this music didn't put us at odds from time to time, it would be a sad day for all--the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference.......
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by AlBrown
Re: Seamus Tansey
For what it's worth...
http://foot.ie/forums/showthread.php?t=18702
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Backer
Re: Seamus Tansey
Interesting.
If I have this right, according to the dates I see on the link provided by Backer (and thanks for that link, Backer) this row started nearly 3 years' ago.
And over that time, some have referred to it as an "interview" that Tansey did for a radio station. Time seems to have made the whole thing something more than what initiially started out as a private letter between two folks who'd had a disagreement, and the matter, it seems to me, has been blown out of proportion.
Now, I doubt there is anyone who was there (aside from Miss Langston) who can provide an honest 'other side of the story' as to what took place at their gig that evening. And yet, it seems to be Tansey who is taking all the heat for it.
So Tansey decided to put his thoughts and feelings of the matter in a letter. Nothing wrong with that - (though personally, he could have been equally effective without resorting to the foul language, but that's another matter, IMO) - and in reading the letter, it seems he exposes Miss Langston and what she apparently claims is "Irish trad. music".
Now... how many of us have sat in a "IRTrad session" and heard all manner of cacophony of music that is anything BUT the tradition? And of course, complained openly about it on this and other forums?
The
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by brianc
Re: Seamus Tansey
Backer, I don't want to turn this thread into a rehashed old vs new debate. I've done that enough.
My view on the tradition is evident in what I wrote up there, "He took what he learned from his elders and made it his own which is exactly what any good traditional musician should do." To me that is what the music is about. Sure the music has developed. Sure new techniques may be brought in but it all should be grounded in the tradition and consistent with the essence of Irish music, which sadly alot of today's music isn't.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by JackMurphy
Re: Seamus Tansey
"But did the music stop developing when Fred Finn etc. died? Were The Bothy Band the only trad band worth emulating? Is there a time line when the basic tenets and rules were set down, never to be questioned? Should the importation of technique from other musics be stopped?"
While it is undisputed that the music did not stop developing when Fred Finn died, I think it is well worth taking a look at what directions it is developing and considering - in one's opinion - the merits or demerits of the said developments. And this has to be done with a more-than-vague understanding of what has gone before.
I think Harry Bradley sums it up very well here:
"I have to question the reasons for change though. I will not accept it blindly and I will not accept that we are powerless to plot it's course for better and worse (bit of a cop out if we think it innevitable and one directional really). Change in itself is simply not always good, and it is never just black and white (which is why the famously tired 'innovator' vs 'purist' debate was never going to come to anything more than a mutual penis measuring excercise). "
http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=23950&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
I don't understand why you would propose that people like Tony MacMahon and Seamus Tansey are not carrying the flame of a musical tradition though.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Eldarion
Re: Seamus Tansey
I don't believe anyone ever questioned Tansey's value and contributions as a musician and teacher, or any of the other things Murphy has mentioned; they had nothing to do with the incident involving the box player. The issue was his abusive and unnecessary letter as well as his behavior on that radio program. I wasn't at the gig, so I have no firsthand knowledge of the incident, but I did read the account, the letter and I heard the radio program. It didn't matter to me that the person on the radio who wrote the letter was Seamus Tansey the brilliant ITM legend; I was responding to how Seamus Tansey the human being was behaving. If he were a bricklayer or electrician or any other professional it wouldn't have mattered either. It was Seamus Tansey the man and how he was treating another person that was at issue.
Some people seem to think that a person's fame or musical brilliance provides an excuse for rude and abusive behavior. I don't agree. I respect Seamus Tansey the musician and I appreciate all the good and generous things he does as a person, but I was disappointed in how he carried himself off in that particular incident.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
Oops when I said "more-than-vague" I meant more than a vague understanding, instead of more-than-vague like vaguer ;)
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Eldarion
Re: Seamus Tansey
"but it all should be grounded in the tradition and consistent with the essence of Irish music, which sadly a lot of today's music isn't"
Jack I totally agree with your statement.
Change will come, and it will be painful for some people. I don't dislike the man, because I never had the privilege to meet him, but at the end of the day when this forum and it's contributors are long gone, some of the changes abhorred by the "old school" will be part of the tradition, hopefully in the good company of all that Seamus holds dear and passes on willingly. Indeed I don't think he's a curmudgeon really, he was just having a bad day!
"I don't understand why you would propose that people like Tony MacMahon and Seamus Tansey are not carrying the flame of a musical tradition though."
Eldarion, I did'nt propose it and I would'nt.......... but there are litteraly thousands of others who carry the flame as well, most of them not household names................and if it's worth saying, I dont like a lot of what is going around in the guise of trad. either, but most of it will sink out of view in the long term. Can you visualise any electronic instruments being mainstream in 10 years time? Probably not, but there have been changes, and people should be encouraged to test the limits a little bit!
Too many people have had bad expieriences with cranky old farts who are limited in their knowledge, without a genius like Mr. Tansey joining in the slaughter. Those of us who are on the edge of the wave need help, not missiles!
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Backer
Re: Seamus Tansey
I don't believe anyone mentioned that a person's fame or musical brilliance provides an excuse for rude and abuse behavior. The point is this is simply Tansey being himself, an honest to self and fallible human being (as I hope you are aware we all are). Brilliant ITM legends are humans with characters too, and not one dimensional haloed saints like people might imagine them to be.
While it seems very clear cut and simple to isolate everything into discreet incidents and express approval (generousity) or disapproval (nasty letter) accordingly, I think it is highly disconnected way to view things in the real world. Sometimes it is better to take a wholistic perspective and accept and understand the person for who he is, warts and all.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Eldarion
Re: Seamus Tansey
So we're talking about him. He's on a pedestal of some sort. I doubt that we would be discussing his carrying of the flame had it not been for that very ugly incident. Let's keep it (and him) in proportion and remember that the real carriers of the flame are the thousands of enthusiasts who turn out for free beer or less and take the music seriously beyond the call of duty.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Seamus Tansey
Hear hear Mister Shaw. (Thumps bar furiously.)
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Seamus Tansey
Backer, this is going into the whole oversimplistic, dualistic way of seeing things in ITM - "purist" vs "innovators" and what not. I don't feel that any discussion founded on such a perspective can go very far because it is an inherently flawed and limited perspective. I'm not sure if you've clicked the link I've posted above but I thought that to be quite a good discussion on that matter.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Eldarion
Re: Seamus Tansey
Eldarion -- I was referring to other discussions and not this thread.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
Steve, I'm not sure I agree with your last sentence there but again I really don't want this to turn into one of those. And I am aware that you are a bit sarcastic there.
So I'll just say briefly that I do agree with the premise of your statement but in reality alot of these "enthusiasts", while being warm bodies carrying on the music, don't do their homework and end up detracting from the music. The sort a person who believes the music started with the bothy band and have little idea of what the tradition is about beyond the "free pints" and music of a session. Whereas people like Tansey and Macmahon truely understand Irish music and bring something positive towards it. I don't think you can compare the two.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by JackMurphy
Re: Seamus Tansey
I've re-read my own post and examined my conscience, and I still can't find a scintilla of sarcasm, either deliberate or unintended. And there are some amazingly-talented, unpaid, unsung, wonderful ITM musicians out there.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Seamus Tansey
I agree Steve, I just didn't like the unintentional implied message there.
And this is the internet ;)
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by JackMurphy
Re: Seamus Tansey
There are just as many yahoos pimping this music out for money who have no clue about 'tradition' or the history of the ethnicity, culture or the music, as there are clueless amateurs.
We can make sweeping generalizations about both groups if you like, but they'll still be wrong, as sweeping generalizations always are.
The fact remains that because someone has made money and achieved notoriety doesn't mean that their contribution to the tradition is any more important than one who hasn't, or who has chosen not to bother and instead, prefers being the gentleman amateur. After all, it’s traditional music, not rock and roll.
What's truly important is where their heart and head is at.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Seamus Tansey
I am a gentleman amateur which is why I don't do gigs, lessons, record or lead sessions... I know exactly what you're on about. Your putting words into my mouth that I never said.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by JackMurphy
Re: Seamus Tansey
The fact that someone has made money and achieved notoriety doesn't mean their contribution is any more important than one who hasn't, according to the above. It doesn't make it any less, as some try to imply with Tansey. The man is a legend, and has promoted the music for 40 years or more.
We used to just tell him to sit quietly and play, and drink. Never gave us any problems.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Seamus Tansey
My apologies Jack. I took your comment demeaning a lot of these 'enthusiasts' as 'warm bodies filling seats' a little too personally.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Seamus Tansey
I should appologize as well. I didn't mean to demean anybody. I just find people who don't do their traditional homework to be quite irksome.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by JackMurphy
Re: Seamus Tansey
Thanks for the link to the interview, I think it's important to read it all and take it all into context though the "tits on a bull" comment is a great discription and very funny , I love it, perhaps because it's one to stir up some fun from people who seem to picture him as some ogre, and never learn more of the story. I can understand why you wrote what you did at the start of the topic, though if anyone wouldn't listen to him or any one else, because of some political correctness or whatever then it's his or her loss. He's as fluent and descriptive in speaking as playing I reckon. I don't think he's so much "on a pedestal" just taking his stand Controversy is great for debate.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by stevecomputer
Re: Seamus Tansey
Heaven forbid anyone doesn't do their "traditional homework." Honestly, Murphy... what is this a college course or enjoying a few tunes and some craic?
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
These debates are always interesting. They exist in other activities I've done, like whitewater river rafting or horseback riding. Of course, the main difference is that if you don't do your "homework" rafting or riding, you can end up dead or injured. It all seems a bit pedantic when it's regarding music. No one ever ended up dead from a badly played reel.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by DrSilverSpear
Re: Seamus Tansey
What? This one time in Carna.....and a Yank walks in..............
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by stevecomputer
Re: Seamus Tansey
It's about respect Gilder. If one claims to play traditional music he or she should have an understanding of what that tradition is and what that tradition means. It's possible to respect the tradition and have a few chunes and craic at the same time.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by JackMurphy
Re: Seamus Tansey
I don't understand the letter. Surely before expecting to recieve money for a gig Tansey would have sat down and played with the accordion player? And he would have needed a soundcheck? Anything less than this is hardly professional. So how could the flute Vs accordion tuning be an issue? They should have known about any issues 2 hours before they went on.
Or am I being really naive about how much work people actually expect to put in to for their £200/hr wage?
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Andy V
Re: Seamus Tansey
I asked the same question, Andy, and I think some of the blame has to be with the management for a sloppy gig arrangement. If they would have been adaquately prepared to encounter each other I doubt anything like that would have happened.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
That's ok, Murphy, now that we know you'll be "irked" if we haven't done enough traditional homework to suit you, we'll feel all ashamed when you walk in the room and know we don't respect the music.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
Silverspear, people have been killed for playing reels, badly or brilliantly.
Andy@newcastle. You are being naive. Chuck Berry, the professionals professional, would arrive at a gig 5 minutes before the start, look at his local back up band (too mean and professional to have his own band) and say "Right, let's go". Bruce Springstein, who once played in one of these bands said they asked Berry "but what are we playing" and he replied "Chuck Berry songs" and headed onto the stage.
And he was getting more than £200 an hour.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Seamus Tansey
I don't know when you got the idea that everything I ever said applied to you. Get off it. I don't spend any part of my day analyzing you or thinking about you. Or are you determined to turn this thread into another "Jackspat"?
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by JackMurphy
Re: Seamus Tansey
I'm sorry, Mr Murphy, but there really is no "unintentional implied message." Whatever else I am around here I call a spade a spade and I don't need to go around "implying," intentionally or otherwise. And yes, it is the internet, and you're trolling on it.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Seamus Tansey
Ok, Murphy, I assumed you were talking to those of us following this thread when you said, "I just find people who don't do their traditional homework to be quite irksome." So why don't you elaborate on this and explain exactly what you meant and who you were referring to... just to clear up any misunderstanding.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
Just read the letter, maybe a trifle strong, but no more than what is often said about another female box player, in the safety of a session in a pub.
And I remember one night at our "performance" when people were nearly getting killed because Seamus was asked to pay for drink because he had exceeded his alloted ration. So if he didn't get paid, the letter is mild by his standards.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Seamus Tansey
I said "I just find people who don't do their traditional homework to be quite irksome."
I did not say " I find Jack Gilder, who doesn't do his traditional homework, to be quite irksome?"
I did not say "I find those following this thread don't do their traditional homework and are, therefore, quite irksome."
I didn't say "Nobody besides me does their traditional homework, and I find that irksome."
What I said means this: there are some people out there who don't do their traditional homework and I don't agree with that. If you're (you generally not you Gilder) one of those people then I'm sorry and I hope you come around sooner or later.
Steve, I didn't mean to troll. I'm just trying to express my ideas on this terrible medium.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by JackMurphy
Re: Seamus Tansey
Murphy, I realize you weren't talking about me specifically, but we can only assume you were addressing the Irish music playing population at large, of which I am one. But don't worry... we will now know that you're very concerned about our ITM education when you walk into the room. *yawn*
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
Gilder, I say what I say not because I want to judge people, I say it because I care about Irish music. I'm sorry if that offends you.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by JackMurphy
Re: Seamus Tansey
Bodhran Bliss;
Fair play. I guess if you can act like that then you might as well. I'm not a clearly not a "name" trad musician, but if I hadn't arrived in time to sound check I'd be expecting a hassle in extracting my money from the venue, let alone expecting a repeat booking. If I walked off I'd be more worried about whether I'd destroyed my reputation then not being paid.
The reference to £200/hr was what I'd consider about the ceiling for myself in terms of a "very well paid gig" (ie I've only ever got that kind of money once), not to how much Tansey himself would be being paid. Must be nice to be famous in your world....
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Andy V
Re: Seamus Tansey
Yawning is very disrespectful BTW. In the primate world it's a sign of aggression. You wouldn't yawn at me in I was in front of you so why do it here?
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by JackMurphy
Re: Seamus Tansey
zzzzZZZZZzzzzzZZZZZzzzzzz
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
Just looked up "trolling" in the dictionary, and to think people used to accuse me of that, and I didn't know what they meant. I am affronted.
Andy, I was agreeing with every thing you said, then you had to let yourself down. I never claimed to be famous, well not for music, just good, albeit on a humble bodhran. I would always do a sound check, would like to rehearse a live "gig" with the mics and such, and £200, especially an hour, would be a very welcome booking. We do one of those a year at present.
I just happened by the way to have played with a load of "famous people" by circumstance. And having the ability, albeit on a humble bodhran, helps. I am not going to start playing mandolin with O'Flynn, Molloy or Tansey for that matter.
# Posted on July 19th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Seamus Tansey
I have been reading this particular thread [obviously
], and assessing how I think some of you communicated your messages. If I may:
Plaudits all around for trying to keep your points clear, and, I will note, clarifying when there seems to be any confusion leading to feelings of insultedness. Seems some friction developed, though...
Now, it seems to me that Murphy was mainly defending the positive contributions of Mr. Tansey, and asking that the rest of the ITM world not throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, over a few issues with Seamus rather roughly speaking his mind over the years. That is the man, not the music.
It seems to me that Phantom was taking a bit of exception to having anyone's choice of involvment in ITM be subjected to the standards of another, fairly or unfairly. I really did not think Mr. Murphy was trying to be authoritarian or judgemental, but simply speaking his personal feelings upon the matter. He was not sneering, and should not be sneered at.
It seems to me that Andy was talking about applying some professional standards of behavior to the two performers, re. tuning, soundchecks, etc. but I am not clear on whether he was actually there at the gig, or has spoken to someone who was. (I know I was definately was not, so I would not even attempt to say what sort of arrangement was made or should have been made.)
It seemed to me that Bodhran had little trouble taking Mr. Tansey as he was, apparently in person on the same bill with him, perhaps with a grain of salt, and keeping to the music.
Am I reading some of this thread right, gentles?
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Piece
Re: Seamus Tansey
You may just happened to have accidentally played with some famous people, bliss. I happen to have played with some people who would have been famous had they never played with me.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Seamus Tansey
And your point being, Rook...?
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Seamus Tansey
Rook, Tansey and me on a bill, you make it sound important. A GAA club in Belfast, Sunday night session, a few drinks thrown in for the musicians.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Seamus Tansey
Thanks for your input, Rook, there are many ways to interpret the comments on this thread. I don't know how long you've been a member here, but some of us have been participating in this forum for a long time and have developed impressions of one another that go way beyond this topic and this thread. Being that this is the first time I've seen you on this board I wouldn't know how to judge your comments, and I doubt I'd even want to try, nor would I appoint myself as a judge for the comments in this forum. If you feel comfortable doing that, it's your choice.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
Rook,
you're reading it completely without any context. Try this for a start:
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/9687
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Ottery
Re: Seamus Tansey
No point, just seeing if I was understanding certain points of the thread. I guess not.
As Phantom rightly pointed out, I am new here, I do not have any history with most of the contributors (yourself included), I was merely curious as to what seemed to be becoming inflammatory with certain portions of the conversation between the players, and wanted to see if I understood. Probably me reading more into things than there was, then beeing nosey. That is my fault, no one else's. Sorry.
In courtesy to Phantom, I do apologise for butting in, and if my inquiry is immediately interpretted as judgement and , then I will politely withdraw from this and any future interaction with him.
Good night.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Piece
Re: Seamus Tansey
David, you're an evil man
But i think that Rook should write a precis of the messages conveyed by the main participants in that thread.
But I'm off to bed!
p.s. we must organise a session or something so that I can retrieve my coffee-pot
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Ottery
Re: Seamus Tansey
Ottery, What?!!?... this is the thread you're looking for:
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/8421/comments
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
Nil desperandum, Rook, you were mostly right, in my humble opinion. Problem is, some touchy people on this site.
And some who troll. My God, using a new word.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Seamus Tansey
David, so you want to know about trolls?
, and now I don't remember the context 
As a noun, "troll" is discussed in detail in references such as these:
http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll-tactics.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Troll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll - the troll in mythology
In modern literature the trolls of mythology turn up, for example, in The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, some of the Harry Potter books, and in many of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels.
"Troll" as a verb is unfamiliar to me, other than a variant of "trawl", except that those two characters Jules and Sandy in the Round The Horne radio comedy series used "troll" as a verb, but I was too young and innocent to work out exactly what they meant..
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Seamus Tansey
Fair play to you Rook, I think you basically had the jist of it.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by JackMurphy
Re: Seamus Tansey
My point wasn't political, bb, but a vaguely wiseass observation that these things can get quite pedantic after a while, especially in the context of what someone has cleverly called a "Jackspat." Hilarious.
Discussing the use of the word "troll" as a verb, on the other hand, is not pedantic at all.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by DrSilverSpear
Re: Seamus Tansey
Ok... enough of this thread. Now everyone go away and get busy with your "traditional homework" before murphy gets irked.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
Troll: to walk about (esp. looking for trade)
Yes, *that* meaning of "trade".
Google for "polari" if you want to know more.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Alex Wilding
Re: Seamus Tansey
Rook's first post floated over the rest of us like an ofsted school inspector. I'm surprised we didn't get individual grades. Hey, wait a minute...am I seeing a link here...traditional homework? Grades?
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Seamus Tansey
"Trolling" was a term used in fishing when I were a lad in Australia, meaning to slowly trail a bait through the water (from a boat), presumably derived from "trawling" which means something different. I'm quite certain that that is how the word is meant on internet forums: baiting, and hoping for a response, or a "rise" as someone said.
I have no particular opinion on Seamus Tansey or either of the Jacks , or even on "ITM" (apart from noting that there are some nice Irish tunes which I enjoy playing now and then, and some great players whom I listen to with interest and enjoyment) but have enjoyed reading this discussion while I am housebound on a rainy day.
Thanks all
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Bren
Polari, Mr. Horne!
Ooh Er Matron!
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by yhaalhouse
Re: Seamus Tansey
BB, I probably wasn't too clear. I wasn't accusing you of being a well known musician, just trying to protect myself from the accusations that I was claiming to be one.
I wasn't at the gig, and my comments were based on nothing other than the letter. The incident was touched upon briefly as a marker of how not to behave at a paid gig, when a couple of other people and myself were relating St Paddy's day experiences to a tutor and how we'd dealt with stropy/drunk/angry/naive landlords and troublesome musicians when people had been drafted in to dep. The Seamus Tansey incident was mentioned by someone who had been at the gig, but I didn't learn anything more from that than I would have from the letter.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Andy V
And, having re-read my last sentance, the "...famous in your own world" reference was to Seamus Tansey, not yourself.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Andy V
Re: Seamus Tansey
Because I'm not good enough to earn my keep by playing, I hauled equipment around for years, all types of gigs and music, and found it more common than not that the "star" was a bit of a wan*er, what's new, big deal, might happen to me if I could play better. You don't have to look at someone's picture while you listen to them.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by stevecomputer
Re: Seamus Tansey
Hi all - what we need to keep in perspective here is that Seamus is a wee bit mad at the best of times. He used to go round the sessions with a crowd of really crap guitar players, dressed in broad Black Brimmer and Sam Browne Belt!
He also famously lambasted Martin Dowling when he was at the Arts Council for not giving him a grant to wander the hedgerows of Armagh to record bird song!
Having said all that, he was once one of the greatest exponents of the flute in Irish Music. He once borrowed my Mozani and showed me what it was capable of.
I have some very fond memories of him - one time at the Roscommon Fleadh we entered Keadue and over the noise of the fleadh could be heard this amazing flute playing - none other than the boul Seamus standing with his back to a van blasting the tunes out.
On another occasion I had a session with him in a corridor of a bar near the shores of Lough neagh and the steam generated in that session had the wall paper dripping off the walls before we were done.
In my humble opinion his strengths as a musician and a generous hander on of the diddley dee faith far outway any flaws attibutable to his slight lunacy
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by breandan
Re: Seamus Tansey
Humble apologies to Andy, my misreading of your post was entirely at fault.
Silverspear: My comment about being killed for playing reels was political. And discussing whether a made uop word (computer wise) is a verb or whatever, is certainly pedantic and giving too much credance to this modern trendy craze of massacring the English language, mainly with the use of text speak.
And Breandan, one of those crap guitar players is an undiscovered living genius, who I believe has played in your kitchen on occasion. If he could stand up that is.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Seamus Tansey
Yeah, dude, I know your point was political. Mine wasn't.
I don't know if making up words like "trolling" is massacring. Languages change, much like -- wait for it -- music. I'm not going to put any value judgments like good or bad on that change, but simply observe that things like language and music have not nor have they ever been completely static.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by DrSilverSpear
Re: Seamus Tansey
Hey dude? Is that one of those pulpy, banal pop songs yer man writes, and still is writing by the looks of things?
Oops, it says Yeah, Dude. That's so cooooool! Reminds me of "77 Sunset Strip".
And I am glad you mentioned change in music, I am all for it. Remember Horslips, Fairport, Planxty, Bothy Band, Pogues and countless others? A bit of experiment is great, although not necessarily to everyone's taste. On reading Tansey's letter, the bit about Bluegrass, Cajun and such, I was thinking "That's exactly what I am always saying about Gerry O'Connor", the banjo player. But maybe he is bringing the banjo back to its American roots.
By the way, have you finished your Masters?
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Seamus Tansey
Forgot to add, Durham is great, the owl Geordies' are salt of the earth. And if there is an exception to every rule, that will be Dow.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Seamus Tansey
Bren, Here in the USA, we used the word trolling the same way as you, proceeding at a slow bell with fishing lines over the side.
Regarding this conversation, people are beginning to read things into statements, and become overly agitated. I would suggest that at this point we all remember that this is a medium where a minor misunderstanding can flash up into flames rather quickly, and give each other the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps we should stop before a yellow board equivalent of the infamous "letter" is produced!
Have a nice weekend, folks, may your evenings be full of good tunes!
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by AlBrown
Re: Seamus Tansey
An interesting discussion, but I was shocked to read the original letter. Whatever the rights and wrongs, to use abusive and sexist language in this way is terrible. I do not dispute that Séamus is a great player, not for a moment. But a relative of mine had to stop Séamus teaching her daughter not because of the quality of his playing, obviously, but because of the continued use of inappropriate language, The child is doing great on the fiddle now.. could have been the flute
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Pól
Re: Seamus Tansey
After reviewing this thread and trying to give myself a fresh perspective a couple of things come to mind. To be fair to Murphy, I share his appreciation for the older players and the tradition. I have met a few on my visits to Ireland and I've gotten to know a couple that have spent time here in SF. Their value is immeasurable and we're fortunate to have any opportunity to spend time with them. But what I don't understand is why contemporary musicians have to be disparaged in the process.
I have a great appreciation for musicians like Paddy Keenan, Tommy Peoples, Kevin Burke, Jackie Daly, Frankie Gavin, Kevin Crawford, etc., etc. and any of the revival and post revival musicians. I think there contributions are valid as well and have added a lot to what makes this music so great. I really find nothing wrong with the Bothy Band, Planxty, De Dannan, etc., and don't understand why they and other contemporary groups have to be considered something less for the older musicians to be adequately respected and appreciated.
I mentioned the Bothy Band because it was mentioned on this thread, and I mentioned the revival musicians because they have been disparaged in previous threads where this topic has come up. I'm certainly not suggesting that everything contemporary is great either, but weren’t there also less than desirable musical projects happening during the pre-revival period as well that we don't associate with Tansey and other ITM greats?
Anyway… that’s my point. I appreciate the great older players as well as the great contemporary ones. I think we can sing the praises of one without disparaging the other. And I also think we can get together with friends for a few tunes and craic without worrying about doing “traditional homework” or being right or wrong about the history of the music. I think the history of ITM and people involved is just as interesting as the music that’s being celebrated and played today is without bothering over political correctness.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
I am not sure I understand your last sentence. I am not sure what is meant by 'political correctness' in this context. I am sure we can agree that debate about the music can be conducted in terms which are not offensive to any one
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Pól
Re: Seamus Tansey
Yea... I struggled a bit to come up with that term. I don't know how else to express it. There's probably a better term.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
Gilder, I'm not trying to stir up crap, but in all fairness it's a bit presumptious to say you "share my appreciation." You aren't inside my head, you don't feel what I feel and you don't share my thoughts. I think completely different than you do. I can honestly say you don't know where I'm coming from. If you did you wouldn't act as you do and you wouldn't play like you do.
I'm not trying to put down ANYBODY! I know you like to keep bringing up that old thread but my thinking has progressed and my theories have been refined. That was almost two years ago. And I've since learned to express myself better if only marginally. You should also bear in mind that I support all of those people you mentioned up there when they come to town. I've seen Lunasa at least 5 or 6 times now just so I could go out and support the lads. I can't remember the last time I saw you at a gig (not session) where you weren't paid to be there... again not trying to stir crap up, just making a point.
Again, I'm not trying to put down ANYBODY! The fact of the matter is that the music that I enjoy scratches some kind of primal side of my brain. Any music that does this I enjoy. A wildness, spark, fire, emotion or whatever. It just so happens that most of the music that gets me going comes from the older crowd of players. Anything that doesn't do this to me I find to be uninteresting, and sadly most of todays music falls into this catagory. I never sat down and drew an artificial timeline where I would divide music that I could like and music that I can't like. As a result of my natural preferences, I've come to look at the tradition from a different angle and naturally my opinions and thought process reflect that angle. Which has taken me down and different road and allowed me to learn alot of things. And being the passionate young man I am, I fight to preserve what I enjoy in Irish music.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by JackMurphy
Re: Seamus Tansey
Honestly, Murphy, when someone says they "share your appreciation" for something it doesn't mean they've climbed inside your head or they're having a mind-meld or anything; it's just a common expression for having similar sentiments. In this case all I'm saying is that I also appreciate and admire the older players.
If you've had a change of heart about your declaration from a passed thread where you said everyone between the age of 30 and 60 is "ruining the music" because they might have been inspired by the revival period and the Bothy Band etc. -- that's great. I would love to put that behind us and move on. I could very well have been wrong when I read your words on this page and detected a similar sentiment. If I was in error, and you’ve reconcidered your stance – then please accept my apologies.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
Very sporting Jack, especially after the post above saying "you wouldn't play as you do". Very "other cheek" indeed.
Mind you it sounds like Mr Murphy knows you so perhaps it was a perfectly innocent remark.
Thankfully, I hardly go to a session unless I am being paid. Except on holidays, in Mayo.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Seamus Tansey
Yea, I know, Blissters... I saw that too. It's interesting how he claims he's not getting personal and then says something like that. He's just going through some sort of judgmental stage I guess. But in all fairness -- my playing IS crap. I'd love to stay and chat but I must get back to my traditional homework.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
I'll explain to you what I mean when I say I've revised my thinking.
Earlier in my musical endeavors I was a bit raviness and dogmatic. I've since come to understand things and the tradition a bit better. I've since learned that these people took what they learned from their elders and made it their own which is all I can really ask anyone to do. Innovation within the tradition, as Tony Mac put it, which is excellent. And I've since come to appreciate the difficulties playing in a modern world and the corrupting influences of commercialization and modern aesthetics. It's something I struggle with on a daily basis. Those people you mentioned up there, as I'm sure you know well, witnessed alot of changes, including the prominence of the radio, ease of travel, the band sound and avalibility of recordings. Being aware of other styles and having to fit in other musicians is a blessing and a challenge all at the same time. I've come to appreciate that.
Do I take back everything I said? No. Would I prefer the guitar or bouzouki to have never been brought into Irish music? Absolutely but I can deal with it. Would I prefer if the revival had never happened or the "bands" had never been invented? Probably but then I probably wouldn't be playing this music and not too many people would be either. I can't change history; all I can do is try to inspire and challenge others to look beyond the Crawford's, Egan's, McGoldrick's, Finnagan's and hope that someway somehow the endangered naunces that I so enjoy come back from the edges of the abiss.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by JackMurphy
Re: Seamus Tansey
Gilder, I wasn't insulting your playing. I never have on this board and I never will. I was just pointing out that there is a fundamental difference between how you and I approach our music.
I didn't say "You wouldn't play as you do, which is crap."
I didn't say "Your fingers touching the flute are like milking the tits on a bull."
I didn't say any of that.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by JackMurphy
Re: Seamus Tansey
That's ok, Murphy... I know what you think of my playing. To each his own. I only wish you the best... good luck with the music.
# Posted on July 20th 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
I think you should stop reading the worst possible interpretation into my posts.
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by JackMurphy
Re: Seamus Tansey
All the best to you too Gilder
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by JackMurphy
Re: Seamus Tansey
It was me who read that into it.
As for the revival, EVERYONE knows how it was really done, O'Riada revived the bodhran because "The punters' love bodhrans"
After that, it was easy and the rest is history.
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Seamus Tansey
Having read the whole of this, I'm forced to conclude that neither Mr Murphy of Mr Gilder are terribly well mannered. Call me old fashioned, but I believe the right to refer to someone by their surname without the prefix "Mr" is usually reserved for people who went to school together.
Jack Murphy states only about himself that he "play[s] the flute and...[is] interested in the old styles of playing." A noble sentiment, alas I have no idea what you mean by it. Do you mean old technical styles, old repetoire, the old arrangement styles, the old dance styles, the old presentation styles, the old ornamentation styles, the old variations, the old practical applications, ...... the old teaching styles?
If you reply to this I would rather you elected not to use my surname to address me. The use of the surname will offend (unless you're an alumni of a small school in Fulford, York). It's only fair I warn you of this in advance.
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by Andy V
Re: Seamus Tansey
bring back rook
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by pavlf
Re: Seamus Tansey
Hahahaha.... yea, let's do the whole thing over and Murphy and I will call each other Jack. hahaha... s'funny.
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
Andy - I have met Jack Murphy [ hope you enjoyed the rest of your trip, Jack ], and can assure you he is very "well-mannered". The 2 Jacks have differences of opinion about Irish traditional music and flute-playing in particular, and there's nothing wrong with that. The guys seem finally to have settled on a state of peaceful co-existence judging from a few posts above, so I hope it can stay at that, because when I saw the first few posts in this thread, I was pretty sure the whole thing was going to end in what we in Scotland refer to as a "rammy".
It can get confusing when you have 2 people with the same name cross-posting, so it is actually probably easier for them to use surnames. If the 2 Jacks wish to address each other by their surnames on this board then that's a matter for them - nothing to do with you or me, really.
You've stated your preference for how you wish to be addressed, so fair enough. I'm sure everyone will go along with your wishes.
Jack Murphy is well able to answer for himself, but I would imagine that you've answered your own question in that 2nd paragraph. Jack is interested in all you've listed there, as am I.
Jack Murphy - I thought your initial post very well put.
Jack Gilder - I posted that "Mysterious Ireland" [ !!! ] recording in the recordings section last night, if you haven't come across it yet.
Hope you are both well.
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by Kenny
Re: Seamus Tansey
Kenny, I haven't forgotten about the Tom Morrison! I've been meaning to get in touch with you but you know how that is. I'm bushed now but I'll send you a message you know where tomorrow filling you in on the details of the end of the trip.
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by JackMurphy
Re: Seamus Tansey
Murphy writes: "I was just pointing out that there is a fundamental difference between how you and I approach our music."
I'm not interested in starting anything up again, but I couldn't let this go without commenting on it. Earlier in this thread you said I was being a bit "presumptuous" to say I share your appreciation of the older players with you. As I said, I don't think there was anything presumptuous about that statement, but isn't it a bit presumptuous for you to claim you know anything about how I approach the music? I don't understand how you could possibly understand my approach to music, or anything else for that matter. What IS my approach to the music, how exactly does it differ from yours, and when and where did you learn all about my approach to the music in the first place?
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
It was presumptuous.... just as presumptuous as what you said.
I don't know how you approach your music. Just basing it on what I've read from you and what I've heard from you.
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by JackMurphy
Re: Seamus Tansey
I disagree; there was nothing presumptuous in what I said... you stated very clearly at the beginning of this thread (and on other threads) how you felt about Tansey and other older players -- it was no mystery. I looked at it, compared it to my own feelings and realized that I share your appreciation.
Since you admit you don't know how I approach the music, then I guess we can assume you don't really know if my approach is any different than yours or not. For all we know it might be the same. If you think it's different, please elucidate.
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
Gilder, I'm not going to play this game anymore. You ain't me, I ain't you. We are like oil and water. Anytime I post on this forum you show up and make it about you and me. I pay no attention to all of your posts unless it's in a thread that I'm participating in because you always make it an issue between us. Why can't you extend the same courtesy? I propose we treat each other exactly like we treat each other in person. Ignore eachother and pretend the other isn't in the room. I'll start.
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by JackMurphy
Re: Seamus Tansey
Might I suggest, Jack the Younger, that you avoid gratuitous pejorative remarks in your posts from now on. You did it to me, twice, and it isn't EVEN as if you and I have any "history. " You did it to Jack in that reference to his playing. What you post here is for public consumption so don't post stuff that might make us take it a certain way unless that's what you intend. We aren't inside your head, you know. And that WAS intended to be sarcastic.
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Seamus Tansey
"Even" in small letters there. Thank you.
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Seamus Tansey
Steve, I don't see where "Jack the Younger" has directed any gratuitous pejorative remarks at you. Maybe you're just being oversensitive?
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by Eldarion
Re: Seamus Tansey
He saw sarcasm in a post of mine when there wasn't any and he told everyone. He wouldn't back down and said he didn't like my unintentional implied message. You find an implied message because I can't. You know me. I'm up for a ding-dong with anyone but I don't like to be misrepresented. I can assure you that I'm not losing much sleep. I really don't want to keep going over this.
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Seamus Tansey
And just when I thought I was actually going to find some common ground with Murphy, but he seems to think this is a private discussion board wit private threads. Last time I checked, everyone is allowed to participate in discussions here. I guess I didn't realize agreeing with Murphy's point of view was a requirement. Oh well... my bad.
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
Lots of mind reading going on here by all involved. Anyone bent any spoons lately, or tipped a cow?
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: Seamus Tansey
Some mind-reading by some involved maybe but not by all. Not by me. I can't even read my own so I really can't be arsed to try to read anyone else's.
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Seamus Tansey
Gordon Lightfoot? Always loved him.
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Seamus Tansey
Oh. Didn't realise that both parties were called Jack (although I did realise that PB was a pseudomyn, just to be clear). How do I get the embarrassed face thing??
I think it would have been funny if both parties had called each other Jack though. In fact, maybe we should all be called Jack. Then our enemies won't know which way to turn.....
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by Andy V
Re: Seamus Tansey
Father Jack? Now he would remind you of Seamus.
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: Seamus Tansey
Feck! Drink! Gay-rells!
# Posted on July 21st 2007 by Phantom Button
Re: Seamus Tansey
True. The man is a fecking legend.
# Posted on March 18th 2012 by Tommmm