So a lot of people make a big deal about either trad that is 'pure or authentic' or trad that is 'progressive', it would seem that this had a lot to do with the World Fleadh vs Comhaltas Fleadh thing. (I dislike them both!)
Well to me most of the people on the World Fleadh side are not progressive and most of the people on the Comhaltas side are not 'pure or authentic', both have an air of smugness about them though.
Innovation has been an essential part of the evolution of ITM, so in order to be really 'authentic' as a trad musician then it is important to be creative, to look for new ways of being expressive within the tradition.
For example the pipes regulators were an innovative addition to the tradition in the 1850's, concertinas and accordions are relatively recent additions to the tradition, string accompaniment be it guitar, bouzouki or whatever was a 20th Century innovation to the music, Tommy Potts was completely innovative in his approach to the music, as were John Doherty, Willie Clancy, Michael Coleman and so on and this innovation continues today with people like Caoimhín O'Raghallaigh and even someone like Harry Bradley.
Despite his reputation as a trad nazi he is to me very inventive and has developed an individual style.
Even with tune composition there has come innovation, the compositions of people like Ed Reavy, Paddy Fahey, Junior Crehan, Paddy O'Brien and so on built on the music that went before but extended the melodic range.
The achievements of the people I mentioned are examples of an equally 'pure authentic' and 'progressive' approach to ITM. In all these cases the music is still clearly recognisable as fundamentally ITM.
It's also important to know that being innovative within the tradition doesn't mean any new approach to trad is 'progressive', sometimes such 'progression' actually causes the music to regress and become secondary and like it or not much of the current trad trends are sacrificing the trad side in favour of soft-rock and MOR jazz leanings to the point where the trad element is actually less than the other elements, particularly the commercial element.
It is not 'pure and authentic' to play exactly like Michael Coleman, it is not 'pure and authentic' to play sets of 3 tunes in D, G and A played 3 times each, it is not 'progressive' to put trad tunes into bland, soft-rock arrangements, it is not 'progressive' to manufacture new tunes to fit in with 'cool' chord progressions.
To be truly innovative, pure, authentic and progressive in this tradition you have to first learn the music and learn to play it with feeling, then be yourself, bring your own personality into the music.
I'm not claiming I've actually managed this myself, it's a hard thing to attain, but I've played with, spoken to and heard enough players who have achieved this to know that the truly great trad musicians are ones who have a good to great technical ability on their instruments, who don't go by the book but who really know the musical traditions they come from and understand that it is futile to just try and play exactly like some great piper played 100 years ago.
These are the people that create trad that is pure, authentic, progressive and innovative all at the same time.
"Pure" and "Progressive" are unrealistically extreme concepts of something that doesn't really exist in that way.
The truth, as always, is much messier. But, people haven't time for sublties any more. Melodic line is generally being devalued to the benifit of chordal accompaniment: That is not a "progression" where I'm standing from (unless maybe a cheesy chord progression). But, these values are, and will be, relative to the user and abuser alike.
"Pure" is a complete waste of time, its a nonsense idea, another crap, confusing product label from an increasingly squlid market place.
When Irish music starts to look at itself like a grown up; to be able to see what it consists of in actual content be it influences from Coleman and/or cheesy, sub-standard Jazz accompaniment; then we can dispense with BS terms like "Pure" and "Progressive" because we will be able to see, hear and say *exactly* what we are dealing with.
see you try to start a serious debate on this page and you get moronic responses like that.
it's the same mentality as idiots who think it's cool not to educate yourself, or people whose only response to things they don't understand is to ridicule them.
I agree that the terms Pure and Progressive are BS marketing terms for the music, I only used them because they are used all the time, in fact I think what you said Harry is basically in agreement with what I said, or is it?!
I was about to post a challenge to those who say the essential discussions have already been brought up on the mustard board. The challenge would be ~ add to an existing thread. Spontaneity is going quite well. There is something amiss in recalling the past. Sometimes it is 2 years ago, sometimes 2 months, sometimes even closer than you think.
So, on with your discussion & thanks for the link backwards, lest we forget.
getting back to the serious debate, Harry without wanting to sound like some raving groupie, I think you play in an original way, by that I mean if I heard a track of yours on the radio or so on I'd immediately recognise you, so you've developed an original sound and play in a way that doesn't sound like anyone (I know of) that came before you. In other words you have been innovative in your approach to the music.
do you realise this? if so was that a consious decision or did it come naturally?
So Harry what you're saying is that you realise you have your own sound, it came naturally through conscious thinking and you ripped off some unknown Belfast flute player......
So there you have it kids the path to developing an original trad style is to consiously try to develop one whilst developing naturally and ripping people off!!
I'm interested in the proposal that, "melodic line is generally being devalued to the benefit of chordal accompaniment". I'm aware of the preponderance of discussions of what chords go with certain tunes. Like it's the tune that is set in stone and it's the variation of the chords that make it interesting.
I'm constantly frustrated by this. Simple and slight variations in melodic line are often the bread and butter of this music. But making such changes, especially on the fly, as to enhance the turns in the melody, may inadvertently completely alter the accompanying chords. This makes a change to the music greater than it should so you avoid such variation.
However, I think when you get it into your head about the micro elements to variation you can understand more how you really are not playing the music unless you have the fluidity of it. And if it is fluid, then it can't be pure.
Oh, I understand the "things" here alright Dave, since a variation of this type of discussion comes up about twice a week these days. What I don't understand is the need to spin it out into an online PhD thesis, all the while painting yourself into a corner whilst chasing your tail. Harry, please email this poor lad some of that valium.
"books are neither moral nor immoral. they are either well written or badly written."(oscar wilde) i do not or never will consider myself a traditional musician; pure or progressive... i'd always rather think that i just play music. if whatever sounds i make makes me happy, then i feel it's justified. couldn't care less if it p*sses anyone else off...
ITM, celtic music, pure, progressive are only marketing terms to me. from now on, i'm a tourishional musician. neither pure nor progressive and thus NOT open to debate!!
well excuse me Danny for using a bigger than average amount of words to explain myself. By comparing what I've written to 'an online PhD thesis' you are once again setting yourself up as one of these idiots who like to knock people who try to share a bit of knowledge and start serious debates.
The fact is this is a complex issue and what I wrote tried to cover a lot of bases and all the counter-arguments that would come my way, the fact that it didn't just shows that I could have written a lot more!
i know variations of this discussion come up a lot but they normally come on the side of the 'progressive' trendy trad brigade or the comhaltas 'purists', my point is that neither side is right and as Harry points out
"Pure" and "Progressive" are unrealistically extreme concepts of something that doesn't really exist in that way."
Anyway it's kind of rich for you to knock me for talking about an issue that comes up a lot, just look at the last discussion you started
"Nor do Iike it when the thankfully few ignoramuses come on here and trumpet out ill-formed opinions and half-truths, using ill-formed punctuation, syntax and grammar, with unreadable English - or they belittle or patronise a younger, or older, member."
Not only were you patronising and belittling me, you have unreadable English in that very sentence! Look at the first phrase "Nor do like it..." Shouldn't that be "Nor do I like it.."?
One of the biggest reasons I love playing tradional Irish music is its relationship with personality. I used to play a lot of rock and roll in my teens, and played around town in bars and clubs adn such. That was when, in my opinion, the music scene was rife with originality. Then a period hit where music reverted to 1987 and it was all sh*t metal and (empty) personalities.
It seems to me that in order to really play traditional music you need to be completely secondary to the music you're playing. You see very few "rock stars" in ITM and very little want for them. The people that I was seeing in ITM and on the covers of albums in the 90's, when I first started getting into this music, were not the "prettiest" people around, in the sense that pop musicians tend to be. I mean, look at Paul Brady back in the day, and those old pictures of Liz Carroll. But that doesn't seem to matter to anyone, musician or fan.
The people that make it "big"--respected and understood as archetypes or key players--do so not because of personality, or perhaps "persona," but because of actual accomplishments and actual talent.
Its the real-ness of trad that intrigued me and got my respect.
What about personality in ITM today? When I start to see it, and see things that appeal to a sense of pride or something in me, then I start to get wary. You see a lot of trendy groups popping up all over. Man, they're COOL. And you see videos of them on tour, playing some groovy rockin' tune. With their sideburns and moppy hair or something and the crowd all dancing and hooting and hollering. Damn, it looks like FUN! But then I get afraid that those things are all the wrong reasons to play this music, and the whole reason I left rock music. But maybe these things are an inevitability in a growing "genre"?
"The people that I was seeing in ITM and on the covers of albums in the 90's, when I first started getting into this music, were not the "prettiest" people around. I mean, look at those old pictures of Liz Carroll."
Ha, I was bemused by this. So, "to keep the keyboard droolers interested" ...
Harry,
An interesting question. Certainly, members of the university faculty have no difficulty in saying "I don't really like that", or "that's too over-complicated for my tastes". And we are encouraged to analyse our own music down to its componant parts and understand something is played in a certain way (and look at how it could be improved) - and if we're looking to perform that music we're given guidance on how to present it well. But we're never encouraged to stop a project on the grounds that it isn't very traditional or present something in a manner that requires us to change who we are - it lies with us to decide what we want from it.
I think provided people know their place in the hierarchy of what is traditional and what isn't, does it really matter if some people are working on and listening to different things? Some people are going to learn to love listening to 90 year old recordings of JSS, others will get not further than Lau.
I think that being in a position to object to certain groups and individuals as a matter of taste is a good thing, it means (from a commercially available recording perspective) that there's enough going on to enable diversity.
Yeah, exactly. No great impetus to think beyond accepted, narrow concepts. You know, to promote thinking and hearing analytically and critically like artists and grown ups.
First, I'll assume I have the same definitions of progressive and pure you have in mind. That being the case, I hope to play prue trad in sessions when blending with an ensemble of melody players is my goal and when playing for dancers as in a ceili band when predictability and stability are what the dancers need. However, if it's a preformance (uh-oh - here we go again - lol) I find more room to be a bit on the progressive side of the ole Trad-O-Meter. cheers ~ Ken
Just so long as none of the staircases in the Sage start moving around, I don't mind. Actually, some people used to call the old university practice rooms (which were underground and very dingy) the potions labs!
>....hot topic for people with a little something stuck to the end of their spinal chord.
Wow! Profs HB and DF, I bow to the power of your mega-sized cerebral cortex...or shouldn't that be cortices. If your brains are so powerful why don't you get them put in jars so they can send out telepathic thought waves, that'll save you the bother of having to come on here, and suffer the likes of me.
Look, if you do want my honest opinion on this, I suspect it's the kind of question that has troubled musicians, also traditional ones, down through the years. (Hence chasing your tail). But also pigeonholing recordings, compositions, playing styles, as either progressive or pure whatever, is really up to the observer (or listener in this case) being subject to interpretation. The assessment criteria might also be contradictory - what you think is "pure" traditional in one player/band/recording, may "sound" progressive from someone else. (Hence you could paint yourself into a corner.) But I still think this topic, or some variant, has been done before here, several times. I'll leave it now.
If you think of "pure" and "progressive" as absolutes, you're going to get the pedantic bickering that often surrounds this debate. And people on this site love to argue semantics, which just makes it worse.
I agree with Danny's point that these are issues that have troubled the tradition for years - but in my opinion, these very issues are what keep the tradition alive. I'll explain:
I like to look at it as a gradient. There are people that push for "preserving tradition", and there are people that try to "push the envelope" in progressive ways. And everything in between. That's the important part - most of us fall somewhere in the middle - in the gray area of the gradient. And so the very fact that the extremes exist is what allows the "middle" to exist. The push and pull that inevitably happens on this very debate has ALWAYS been there!
As Michael said, "... if it is fluid, then it can't be pure...", but the fluidity is what makes it live and breathe. If it were pure - or "preserved", it would be dead. Something that you hang on the wall to look at.
>>> "Pete, that's a wonderfully reasonable and balanced explanation..."
Heh, either that or a complete cop-out from a total wimp, who shies away from conflict
Actually, I can't really take credit for these ideas, which were first given to me by Zina. But I think she's right, personally, so I often expound on them as if they were my own...
It is too bad that the people who inhabit the middle ground are so often maligned. The world would be a better place if those of us on the middle ground were to wrest control from extremists. Unfortunately, we are probably too mellow to take such actions.......
Al, That's pure pure nonsense. The vast majoroty of everything is controled by the middle ground. That's why it's so bloody boring. And specifically diddly sessions are a prime example of the hottest bed of middle of the roaders ever.
It's so true. What's that golden rule? Play with the other sessionistas? How can you do that without the whole session striving to play right down the middle so everyone can join in? "He/She is a really good player, they can blend in and play with just about anyone..."
That is surely *part* of being a good player - being able to communicate with other players through music. Being able to communicate with an audience (whether an audience of 1 or 20,000) is another part of it. I suspect that it is often when one or more of these qualities is lacking in a musician (or other basic qualities, such as solid technique and creativity) that they start to compensate by trying to fit into some kind of mould, whether 'pure' or 'progressive'.
i'm with tony macmahon----i'm all for "innovation" and "experimentation," and fair play to the fusionists & postmodernists----just don't tell me it replaces or surpassess, or renders obsolete, the older "pure drop" way of expressing the music....
Just a hunch, but If you wore leather pants, Tony Macmahon would forget all his judgements pretty quickly, and be quite content to watch you get down to R.Kelly, or something more pure drop.
i did read the original post, as well as at least one comment finding the oirignal post, er,.....not terribly clearly expressed. i also read dozens of responses to the original post that were no more or less to the point (whatever the point is now being claimed to be, dozens of posts later) than mine. if the thread was meant to be a one-post pontificate, certainly a note would have made that clear.
Michael a écrit: "Al, That's pure pure nonsense. The vast majoroty of everything is controled by the middle ground. That's why it's so bloody boring. And specifically diddly sessions are a prime example of the hottest bed of middle of the roaders ever."
I agree absolutely, Michael, except for the "boring" bit. Why do you think diddly sessions are so popular? Because they're boring? I don't think so. I think it's because an awful lot of people find that they're a way of having fun whilst playing music that they love. What that's doing to the music is another matter, but I suspect the answer is "not too much harm really."
sorry mate, but diddly sessions aren't popular. Going to football matches is popular, watching telly is popular. The extreemly small amount of people who find that diddly sessions are a way of having fun whilst playing music that they love may prove exceptional, but within the circle of diddlers, the vast majority of that small minority are extreemly tedious. I'm not knocking it, have fun in what ever way you want, just don't have the arrogance to claim it's any good.
I don't make any claims for their good or otherwise. And it's not fair to compare it with going to football matches or watching telly, which are entirely passive pastimes requiring no participative skills, and you know it! I could possibly agree that there are many tedious exponents of ITM at large but there are also many unsung heroes whom no-one has ever heard of. The crock of sh!te just might have one or two diamonds embedded therein. Just like any other genre really.
In a world where people actually interacted with each other, going to a diddly session might be popular and fun.
Most people would rather interact with video screens. Nothing can possibly be considered 'fun' or 'popular' unless the flickering screen says so, and it must require lots of gratious sex and violence. Perhaps we should all dress scantily and hold human sacrifices while playing?
Hugo, why are you offing yourself? Sell too much cheap oil or something?
'Perhaps we should all dress scantily and hold human sacrifices while playing?'
A certain flute player once told me that he reckoned he'd only ever make any money if he changed his name to Dolores and started wearing revealing dresses ... and then we began to discuss his musical career.
In the title, the term 'Progressive' suggests movement as opposed to 'Pure' suggesting static.
The great geniuses of Trad music have effected change from within the form, rhythms within rhythms, rephrasings, nuances, inversions, hues of emotion, playing with cadences, subtly pushing the boundaries - sea changes...
The more subtle the more powerful the effect.
This is the sort of 'Progression' that has always been taking place in trad music as well as the obvious effects of external influences such as the advent of the recording era, the commercial boom in IM in USA (1900s) and at later periods whilst today the legacy of the seventies and eighties bands and the response by current bands and soloists to the commercial dictats of folk festivals.
increasingly tastes in Irish music are dictated my an audience who are 1 not Irish, 2 who may have little or no knowledge of IM past or present, 3 whose tastes may be in turn manipulated by what they are 'educated' with at festivals where the selectors may know nothing about IM, where bands try to please the tastes of BBC 'Young Musician of the Year', the panel of whom may know very little about IM, (so what are the criteria here?)
In any case there are those who have followed in the slip stream of the is newly developing (sub?)culture. This is what some call progressive. Many are fine musicians and this music can be fun, but the ultimate end would sem to be commercialism. In my opinion it would only take one Patrick J.Touhy or S. Ennis, J. Doran etc to blow them all into the Past.
Ultimately the balance of the debate proposed lies in ones personal taste and we will all vote with our feet. We might be AC/DC about this (pardonnez moi!), listening to Patsy at home and going to hear Lunasa in Whelans.
Ultimately it will be in that order for myself.
The term Progressive in this sense is as truthful or meaningful as the tag Progressive Democrat, or Soldier of Destiny.
Having said all of this i have to hand it to John Mc Sherry who many would lump in with the Progressives - he didn't win the Oireachtas on his leaky bag for nothing!
To further the paradox, some iconoclasts have freaked us all out and got off with it.
Here's a quotation on improvisation from a source that will surprise many:
"As long as you don't think that you're bigger than the music."
(Sean Maguire.)
Though it may not always be someones cup of tea, I don't think the Mc Goldricks and Mc Sherries of trad have overlooked this golden rule. Real music will survive because real musicians will always be playing it, be it Desy Wilkinson, Lunasa etc
Crap music will always be around too and always has been.
PS one element I forgot to mention is that people also like to have fun at these festivals which I look down my snout at, so Trad bands play fun music now too - groove factor etc
I'd like to go to one sometime and see if my parlour room affectations will be helped any by it.
Maybe I'd get my flute out and space out to it man!
Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
So a lot of people make a big deal about either trad that is 'pure or authentic' or trad that is 'progressive', it would seem that this had a lot to do with the World Fleadh vs Comhaltas Fleadh thing. (I dislike them both!)
Well to me most of the people on the World Fleadh side are not progressive and most of the people on the Comhaltas side are not 'pure or authentic', both have an air of smugness about them though.
Innovation has been an essential part of the evolution of ITM, so in order to be really 'authentic' as a trad musician then it is important to be creative, to look for new ways of being expressive within the tradition.
For example the pipes regulators were an innovative addition to the tradition in the 1850's, concertinas and accordions are relatively recent additions to the tradition, string accompaniment be it guitar, bouzouki or whatever was a 20th Century innovation to the music, Tommy Potts was completely innovative in his approach to the music, as were John Doherty, Willie Clancy, Michael Coleman and so on and this innovation continues today with people like Caoimhín O'Raghallaigh and even someone like Harry Bradley.
Despite his reputation as a trad nazi he is to me very inventive and has developed an individual style.
(see this discussion for his own reference to trad nazism!
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/14999/comments#comment309720)
Even with tune composition there has come innovation, the compositions of people like Ed Reavy, Paddy Fahey, Junior Crehan, Paddy O'Brien and so on built on the music that went before but extended the melodic range.
The achievements of the people I mentioned are examples of an equally 'pure authentic' and 'progressive' approach to ITM. In all these cases the music is still clearly recognisable as fundamentally ITM.
It's also important to know that being innovative within the tradition doesn't mean any new approach to trad is 'progressive', sometimes such 'progression' actually causes the music to regress and become secondary and like it or not much of the current trad trends are sacrificing the trad side in favour of soft-rock and MOR jazz leanings to the point where the trad element is actually less than the other elements, particularly the commercial element.
It is not 'pure and authentic' to play exactly like Michael Coleman, it is not 'pure and authentic' to play sets of 3 tunes in D, G and A played 3 times each, it is not 'progressive' to put trad tunes into bland, soft-rock arrangements, it is not 'progressive' to manufacture new tunes to fit in with 'cool' chord progressions.
To be truly innovative, pure, authentic and progressive in this tradition you have to first learn the music and learn to play it with feeling, then be yourself, bring your own personality into the music.
I'm not claiming I've actually managed this myself, it's a hard thing to attain, but I've played with, spoken to and heard enough players who have achieved this to know that the truly great trad musicians are ones who have a good to great technical ability on their instruments, who don't go by the book but who really know the musical traditions they come from and understand that it is futile to just try and play exactly like some great piper played 100 years ago.
These are the people that create trad that is pure, authentic, progressive and innovative all at the same time.
Discuss
# Posted on September 3rd 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Erm....could you run that past me again please, it was a bit quick and I missed it.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Rudall the time
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
"Pure" and "Progressive" are unrealistically extreme concepts of something that doesn't really exist in that way.
The truth, as always, is much messier. But, people haven't time for sublties any more. Melodic line is generally being devalued to the benifit of chordal accompaniment: That is not a "progression" where I'm standing from (unless maybe a cheesy chord progression). But, these values are, and will be, relative to the user and abuser alike.
"Pure" is a complete waste of time, its a nonsense idea, another crap, confusing product label from an increasingly squlid market place.
When Irish music starts to look at itself like a grown up; to be able to see what it consists of in actual content be it influences from Coleman and/or cheesy, sub-standard Jazz accompaniment; then we can dispense with BS terms like "Pure" and "Progressive" because we will be able to see, hear and say *exactly* what we are dealing with.
Now, are they teaching THAT in universities?
Regards,
Harry.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Harry B
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
see you try to start a serious debate on this page and you get moronic responses like that.
it's the same mentality as idiots who think it's cool not to educate yourself, or people whose only response to things they don't understand is to ridicule them.
How about a constructive response Danny?
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
sorry Harry that comment wasn't aimed at you!
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Too late, I've taken the Valium!!!
Regards,
H.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Harry B
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
I agree that the terms Pure and Progressive are BS marketing terms for the music, I only used them because they are used all the time, in fact I think what you said Harry is basically in agreement with what I said, or is it?!
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
I don't know. I'm still going to punch your lights out next time I see you regardless. Or would that be moronic???
Regards,
Harry.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Harry B
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
how do you know I won't punch your lights out first
Regards,
Dave
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
I'm standing behind you right now. I can smell your fear.
Regards,
H.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Harry B
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
no that's not my fear, I just forgot to shower today
Give my Regards to Broadstreet
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
...Or is it pizza?
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Harry B
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
you see you try and start a serious debate and it gets turned into a bunch of silly remarks!
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
I was about to post a challenge to those who say the essential discussions have already been brought up on the mustard board. The challenge would be ~ add to an existing thread. Spontaneity is going quite well. There is something amiss in recalling the past. Sometimes it is 2 years ago, sometimes 2 months, sometimes even closer than you think.
So, on with your discussion & thanks for the link backwards, lest we forget.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by ain't fluffed
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
getting back to the serious debate, Harry without wanting to sound like some raving groupie, I think you play in an original way, by that I mean if I heard a track of yours on the radio or so on I'd immediately recognise you, so you've developed an original sound and play in a way that doesn't sound like anyone (I know of) that came before you. In other words you have been innovative in your approach to the music.
do you realise this? if so was that a consious decision or did it come naturally?
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
or is there some little known flute player in Belfast who you basically ripped off?
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
All of the above. Its messy, very messy.
You think I'd intentionally want to sound like that... jaysus...
Regards,
H.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Harry B
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
So Harry what you're saying is that you realise you have your own sound, it came naturally through conscious thinking and you ripped off some unknown Belfast flute player......
So there you have it kids the path to developing an original trad style is to consiously try to develop one whilst developing naturally and ripping people off!!
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
I'm interested in the proposal that, "melodic line is generally being devalued to the benefit of chordal accompaniment". I'm aware of the preponderance of discussions of what chords go with certain tunes. Like it's the tune that is set in stone and it's the variation of the chords that make it interesting.
I'm constantly frustrated by this. Simple and slight variations in melodic line are often the bread and butter of this music. But making such changes, especially on the fly, as to enhance the turns in the melody, may inadvertently completely alter the accompanying chords. This makes a change to the music greater than it should so you avoid such variation.
However, I think when you get it into your head about the micro elements to variation you can understand more how you really are not playing the music unless you have the fluidity of it. And if it is fluid, then it can't be pure.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by ...
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Oh, I understand the "things" here alright Dave, since a variation of this type of discussion comes up about twice a week these days. What I don't understand is the need to spin it out into an online PhD thesis, all the while painting yourself into a corner whilst chasing your tail. Harry, please email this poor lad some of that valium.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Rudall the time
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
"books are neither moral nor immoral. they are either well written or badly written."(oscar wilde) i do not or never will consider myself a traditional musician; pure or progressive... i'd always rather think that i just play music. if whatever sounds i make makes me happy, then i feel it's justified. couldn't care less if it p*sses anyone else off...
ITM, celtic music, pure, progressive are only marketing terms to me. from now on, i'm a tourishional musician. neither pure nor progressive and thus NOT open to debate!!
Martin Tourish.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by martin t
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
well excuse me Danny for using a bigger than average amount of words to explain myself. By comparing what I've written to 'an online PhD thesis' you are once again setting yourself up as one of these idiots who like to knock people who try to share a bit of knowledge and start serious debates.
The fact is this is a complex issue and what I wrote tried to cover a lot of bases and all the counter-arguments that would come my way, the fact that it didn't just shows that I could have written a lot more!
i know variations of this discussion come up a lot but they normally come on the side of the 'progressive' trendy trad brigade or the comhaltas 'purists', my point is that neither side is right and as Harry points out
"Pure" and "Progressive" are unrealistically extreme concepts of something that doesn't really exist in that way."
Anyway it's kind of rich for you to knock me for talking about an issue that comes up a lot, just look at the last discussion you started
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/14811
Wow, what an original post
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
martin I'd like to debate the idea that you are "NOT open to debate"
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Danny you should also practice what you preach -
This comes from YOUR profile!
"Nor do Iike it when the thankfully few ignoramuses come on here and trumpet out ill-formed opinions and half-truths, using ill-formed punctuation, syntax and grammar, with unreadable English - or they belittle or patronise a younger, or older, member."
Not only were you patronising and belittling me, you have unreadable English in that very sentence! Look at the first phrase "Nor do like it..." Shouldn't that be "Nor do I like it.."?
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Rewind. Start over.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Bob himself
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
I want to re-read all the tradpiper vs. session.org posts.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Greg the Piano Tuner
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Anyway, back to the discussion....
One of the biggest reasons I love playing tradional Irish music is its relationship with personality. I used to play a lot of rock and roll in my teens, and played around town in bars and clubs adn such. That was when, in my opinion, the music scene was rife with originality. Then a period hit where music reverted to 1987 and it was all sh*t metal and (empty) personalities.
It seems to me that in order to really play traditional music you need to be completely secondary to the music you're playing. You see very few "rock stars" in ITM and very little want for them. The people that I was seeing in ITM and on the covers of albums in the 90's, when I first started getting into this music, were not the "prettiest" people around, in the sense that pop musicians tend to be. I mean, look at Paul Brady back in the day, and those old pictures of Liz Carroll. But that doesn't seem to matter to anyone, musician or fan.
The people that make it "big"--respected and understood as archetypes or key players--do so not because of personality, or perhaps "persona," but because of actual accomplishments and actual talent.
Its the real-ness of trad that intrigued me and got my respect.
What about personality in ITM today? When I start to see it, and see things that appeal to a sense of pride or something in me, then I start to get wary. You see a lot of trendy groups popping up all over. Man, they're COOL. And you see videos of them on tour, playing some groovy rockin' tune. With their sideburns and moppy hair or something and the crowd all dancing and hooting and hollering. Damn, it looks like FUN! But then I get afraid that those things are all the wrong reasons to play this music, and the whole reason I left rock music. But maybe these things are an inevitability in a growing "genre"?
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by MDuckett
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
shut it frisbee. what a pish thread
cant believe there are so many boring ar&eholes that reply to this kind of sh*te. go get a decent hobby
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by kings taxes
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
It's obvious then you don't know what the term Big Tune means.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Rudall the time
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Its clear from the responses that this is still a hot topic for people with a little something stuck to the end of their spinal chord.
Pity we can't post a few pictures to keep the keyboard droolers interested.
Regards,
Harry.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Harry B
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
"The people that I was seeing in ITM and on the covers of albums in the 90's, when I first started getting into this music, were not the "prettiest" people around. I mean, look at those old pictures of Liz Carroll."
Ha, I was bemused by this. So, "to keep the keyboard droolers interested" ...
http://cover6.cduniverse.com/MuzeAudioArt/190/192988.jpg
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by ...
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Harry,
An interesting question. Certainly, members of the university faculty have no difficulty in saying "I don't really like that", or "that's too over-complicated for my tastes". And we are encouraged to analyse our own music down to its componant parts and understand something is played in a certain way (and look at how it could be improved) - and if we're looking to perform that music we're given guidance on how to present it well. But we're never encouraged to stop a project on the grounds that it isn't very traditional or present something in a manner that requires us to change who we are - it lies with us to decide what we want from it.
I think provided people know their place in the hierarchy of what is traditional and what isn't, does it really matter if some people are working on and listening to different things? Some people are going to learn to love listening to 90 year old recordings of JSS, others will get not further than Lau.
I think that being in a position to object to certain groups and individuals as a matter of taste is a good thing, it means (from a commercially available recording perspective) that there's enough going on to enable diversity.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Andy V
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Have a good term at Hogwarts, Andy!
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by nicholas
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Andy,
Yeah, exactly. No great impetus to think beyond accepted, narrow concepts. You know, to promote thinking and hearing analytically and critically like artists and grown ups.
Regards,
Harry.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Harry B
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
First, I'll assume I have the same definitions of progressive and pure you have in mind. That being the case, I hope to play prue trad in sessions when blending with an ensemble of melody players is my goal and when playing for dancers as in a ceili band when predictability and stability are what the dancers need. However, if it's a preformance (uh-oh - here we go again - lol) I find more room to be a bit on the progressive side of the ole Trad-O-Meter. cheers ~ Ken
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by RogueFiddler
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
(I wasn't out to knock you there, Andy - "Hogwarts" is just my name for university folk music courses, Folkworks and all that sort of thing...)
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by nicholas
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Just so long as none of the staircases in the Sage start moving around, I don't mind. Actually, some people used to call the old university practice rooms (which were underground and very dingy) the potions labs!
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Andy V
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Mr. Gill -- HA! That's exactly the one I was thinking of. Well, that and the one with Tommy Maguire.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by MDuckett
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
>....hot topic for people with a little something stuck to the end of their spinal chord.
Wow! Profs HB and DF, I bow to the power of your mega-sized cerebral cortex...or shouldn't that be cortices. If your brains are so powerful why don't you get them put in jars so they can send out telepathic thought waves, that'll save you the bother of having to come on here, and suffer the likes of me.
Look, if you do want my honest opinion on this, I suspect it's the kind of question that has troubled musicians, also traditional ones, down through the years. (Hence chasing your tail). But also pigeonholing recordings, compositions, playing styles, as either progressive or pure whatever, is really up to the observer (or listener in this case) being subject to interpretation. The assessment criteria might also be contradictory - what you think is "pure" traditional in one player/band/recording, may "sound" progressive from someone else. (Hence you could paint yourself into a corner.) But I still think this topic, or some variant, has been done before here, several times. I'll leave it now.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Rudall the time
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Couldn't resist giving your opinion then, No?
Wonderful. Bye.
Regards,
Harry.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Harry B
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
If you think of "pure" and "progressive" as absolutes, you're going to get the pedantic bickering that often surrounds this debate. And people on this site love to argue semantics, which just makes it worse.
I agree with Danny's point that these are issues that have troubled the tradition for years - but in my opinion, these very issues are what keep the tradition alive. I'll explain:
I like to look at it as a gradient. There are people that push for "preserving tradition", and there are people that try to "push the envelope" in progressive ways. And everything in between. That's the important part - most of us fall somewhere in the middle - in the gray area of the gradient. And so the very fact that the extremes exist is what allows the "middle" to exist. The push and pull that inevitably happens on this very debate has ALWAYS been there!
As Michael said, "... if it is fluid, then it can't be pure...", but the fluidity is what makes it live and breathe. If it were pure - or "preserved", it would be dead. Something that you hang on the wall to look at.
Pete
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Reverend
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Pete, that's a wonderfully reasonable and balanced explanation...which is why it will be ignored in favor of more bickering over semantics.
Woo hoo! Bicker on, lads! [/sarcasm]
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
>>> "Pete, that's a wonderfully reasonable and balanced explanation..."
Heh, either that or a complete cop-out from a total wimp, who shies away from conflict
Actually, I can't really take credit for these ideas, which were first given to me by Zina. But I think she's right, personally, so I often expound on them as if they were my own...
Pete
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Reverend
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Pete, If these opinions were actually your own, I might actually agree with you...
Although it goes against everything I've studied to suggest that gradients all have a grey area.
In fact most don't...uh oh...is this semantics?
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Hugo Chavez
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
I thought being anti-semantic was very non-PC...?
Oi!
Harry.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Harry B
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
It is too bad that the people who inhabit the middle ground are so often maligned. The world would be a better place if those of us on the middle ground were to wrest control from extremists. Unfortunately, we are probably too mellow to take such actions.......
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by AlBrown
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Al, That's pure pure nonsense. The vast majoroty of everything is controled by the middle ground. That's why it's so bloody boring. And specifically diddly sessions are a prime example of the hottest bed of middle of the roaders ever.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by ...
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
It's so true. What's that golden rule? Play with the other sessionistas? How can you do that without the whole session striving to play right down the middle so everyone can join in? "He/She is a really good player, they can blend in and play with just about anyone..."
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
.... Communication
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
That is surely *part* of being a good player - being able to communicate with other players through music. Being able to communicate with an audience (whether an audience of 1 or 20,000) is another part of it. I suspect that it is often when one or more of these qualities is lacking in a musician (or other basic qualities, such as solid technique and creativity) that they start to compensate by trying to fit into some kind of mould, whether 'pure' or 'progressive'.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Yes, that and leather pants... oh, and sunglasses, even when its dark.
Regards,
Harry.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Harry B
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
i'm with tony macmahon----i'm all for "innovation" and "experimentation," and fair play to the fusionists & postmodernists----just don't tell me it replaces or surpassess, or renders obsolete, the older "pure drop" way of expressing the music....
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by ceemonster
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Just a hunch, but If you wore leather pants, Tony Macmahon would forget all his judgements pretty quickly, and be quite content to watch you get down to R.Kelly, or something more pure drop.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Hugo Chavez
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
ceemonster, did you actually read my original post or just the title?
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
It may be more productive to answer this young lad's questions:
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/15024/comments#comment310040
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Rudall the time
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
i did read the original post, as well as at least one comment finding the oirignal post, er,.....not terribly clearly expressed. i also read dozens of responses to the original post that were no more or less to the point (whatever the point is now being claimed to be, dozens of posts later) than mine. if the thread was meant to be a one-post pontificate, certainly a note would have made that clear.
but hugo, i DO wear leather pants!
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by ceemonster
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Hear hear KML, everyone should head over to http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/15024 and help the lad out. He's preparing a dissertation en Gaelige on the music.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Im preparing my suicide note "en Gaelige"
Cee...you are a woman so.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Hugo Chavez
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
no chaps, though.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by ceemonster
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Michael a écrit: "Al, That's pure pure nonsense. The vast majoroty of everything is controled by the middle ground. That's why it's so bloody boring. And specifically diddly sessions are a prime example of the hottest bed of middle of the roaders ever."
I agree absolutely, Michael, except for the "boring" bit. Why do you think diddly sessions are so popular? Because they're boring? I don't think so. I think it's because an awful lot of people find that they're a way of having fun whilst playing music that they love. What that's doing to the music is another matter, but I suspect the answer is "not too much harm really."
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
sorry mate, but diddly sessions aren't popular. Going to football matches is popular, watching telly is popular. The extreemly small amount of people who find that diddly sessions are a way of having fun whilst playing music that they love may prove exceptional, but within the circle of diddlers, the vast majority of that small minority are extreemly tedious. I'm not knocking it, have fun in what ever way you want, just don't have the arrogance to claim it's any good.
# Posted on September 4th 2007 by ...
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
I don't make any claims for their good or otherwise. And it's not fair to compare it with going to football matches or watching telly, which are entirely passive pastimes requiring no participative skills, and you know it! I could possibly agree that there are many tedious exponents of ITM at large but there are also many unsung heroes whom no-one has ever heard of. The crock of sh!te just might have one or two diamonds embedded therein. Just like any other genre really.
# Posted on September 5th 2007 by Steve Shaw
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
Going to football matches is an 'entirely passive' pastime? Try telling that to my team's supporters!
# Posted on September 5th 2007 by MacCruiskeen
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
In a world where people actually interacted with each other, going to a diddly session might be popular and fun.
Most people would rather interact with video screens. Nothing can possibly be considered 'fun' or 'popular' unless the flickering screen says so, and it must require lots of gratious sex and violence. Perhaps we should all dress scantily and hold human sacrifices while playing?
Hugo, why are you offing yourself? Sell too much cheap oil or something?
# Posted on September 5th 2007 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
'Perhaps we should all dress scantily and hold human sacrifices while playing?'
A certain flute player once told me that he reckoned he'd only ever make any money if he changed his name to Dolores and started wearing revealing dresses ... and then we began to discuss his musical career.
# Posted on September 5th 2007 by MacCruiskeen
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
In the title, the term 'Progressive' suggests movement as opposed to 'Pure' suggesting static.
The great geniuses of Trad music have effected change from within the form, rhythms within rhythms, rephrasings, nuances, inversions, hues of emotion, playing with cadences, subtly pushing the boundaries - sea changes...
The more subtle the more powerful the effect.
This is the sort of 'Progression' that has always been taking place in trad music as well as the obvious effects of external influences such as the advent of the recording era, the commercial boom in IM in USA (1900s) and at later periods whilst today the legacy of the seventies and eighties bands and the response by current bands and soloists to the commercial dictats of folk festivals.
increasingly tastes in Irish music are dictated my an audience who are 1 not Irish, 2 who may have little or no knowledge of IM past or present, 3 whose tastes may be in turn manipulated by what they are 'educated' with at festivals where the selectors may know nothing about IM, where bands try to please the tastes of BBC 'Young Musician of the Year', the panel of whom may know very little about IM, (so what are the criteria here?)
In any case there are those who have followed in the slip stream of the is newly developing (sub?)culture. This is what some call progressive. Many are fine musicians and this music can be fun, but the ultimate end would sem to be commercialism. In my opinion it would only take one Patrick J.Touhy or S. Ennis, J. Doran etc to blow them all into the Past.
Ultimately the balance of the debate proposed lies in ones personal taste and we will all vote with our feet. We might be AC/DC about this (pardonnez moi!), listening to Patsy at home and going to hear Lunasa in Whelans.
Ultimately it will be in that order for myself.
The term Progressive in this sense is as truthful or meaningful as the tag Progressive Democrat, or Soldier of Destiny.
Having said all of this i have to hand it to John Mc Sherry who many would lump in with the Progressives - he didn't win the Oireachtas on his leaky bag for nothing!
To further the paradox, some iconoclasts have freaked us all out and got off with it.
Here's a quotation on improvisation from a source that will surprise many:
"As long as you don't think that you're bigger than the music."
(Sean Maguire.)
Though it may not always be someones cup of tea, I don't think the Mc Goldricks and Mc Sherries of trad have overlooked this golden rule. Real music will survive because real musicians will always be playing it, be it Desy Wilkinson, Lunasa etc
Crap music will always be around too and always has been.
# Posted on September 9th 2007 by doggone
Re: Progressive Trad vs. Pure Trad
PS one element I forgot to mention is that people also like to have fun at these festivals which I look down my snout at, so Trad bands play fun music now too - groove factor etc
I'd like to go to one sometime and see if my parlour room affectations will be helped any by it.
Maybe I'd get my flute out and space out to it man!
# Posted on September 9th 2007 by doggone