People keep bringing up 4/4 is reel timing,and I keep saying that its bull because different reels have different feel and different rhythms .There are so many different reel rhythms and different reels need different emphasis in different parts of each bar. Reels can have a flowing feel or a chopping feel to them(just two of many) and using the term 4/4 is blinding people of this.This is before we even start talking about different interpretation of how it should be played .Can we leave 4/4 for young kids who are being introduced to music in school or am I wrong?
The notation system we use for traditional music is a system that was conceived for (and by) the world of Classical (= non-trad, I won't go into classification detail now...) music and therefore it might not really fit in detail to trad music. It is a useful system to borrow for the needs of this website for example, but not sufficient to learn or understand everthing.
All the information you can take out of "a reel is in 4/4" is "there's four notes per foot tap". That's all. It doesn't tell if they are equal, if there's some swing or anything else.
For the music of the time of Mozart for example, 4/4 would imply a strong first beat, weak second, etc... (more or less ;) )
I usually post one a decade on this board, I hope it was interesting. ;)
I've always figured that reels were more in cut time (2/2) than 4/4. On paper it might not matter, but I don't think we really hear 4 beats when we listen to reels (hornpipes are probably a different matter).
As George says, on paper it really doesn't matter. Most of us probably do hear two strong beats per measure for reels, so 2/2 makes sense. I don't mind 4/4 though because it's a reminder that the weak beats in reels are also very important--some tunes ask for a phrase to be played with a bit of back beat, or at least accenting the weak beats too.
Of course, time signature says nothing about degree of lift, swing, pulse, etc.
None of this should matter to a drummer or any other player accustomed to playing this music aurally, as it's meant to be.
I do find it difficult to play a tune that says it in C if i havent heard it before because the timing doesnt do it justice so then i have to find a version of the tune to hear how it should sound compared to how i've read it.
First of all I completely agree with DanaH and Saint´s praise. Beyond that I would like to say that in the end phrasing matters a lot. You can play quite some reels with straight quavers/eights while others benefit from ternary playing. What I find most amazing is that many good players are able to apply a phrasing that is in between and therefore basically French inegalite. And some even do something else.....
Since when do reels have "mechanical" timing .....the very nature that they are a "reel" suggests quite the opposite as they reel their way through the notes..................
There seems to be a lot of attempts to put "science" in to all of this, I wonder what my grandad would have thought of it all, he couldn't even read nor write let alone think of entertaining all this "science" along with 400 $ whistles and all the other menyaaa that seems to be associated with it all.
PS I promise I only used the $ sign cause I can't find the Euro, I'm not suggesting this is at all influenced by the yanks.........LOL
Reels are 2/2, cut time, or alle breve (all the same thing), pure and simple. Anything that distinguishes the sound is simply a matter of style, ornamentation, and the way the tune is written. For example, if you use syncopation, the timing may sound different, but when you count it, it still comes out the same as it would without the syncopation. Most popular music is written in 4/4, but tunes sound worlds apart depending on how they are written. If you know how to count in music, you can always find the beat, regardless.
The problem with writing reels in 4/4 is that they will come out sounding very choppy because it is the wrong rhythm.
Music is music. It's aural, it's fluid, it's "unconventional".
If you wish to use a notation system to communicate with musicians via a medium other than the aural, then the single most most important feature of that system must be "convention".
Somebody a long time ago decided to write reels in 4. You're stuck with it.
If you look a the book 'Bowing Styles in Irish Fiddle Playing' by David Lyth you will see how much syncopation goes on due to players bowing and phrasing over beats and barlines.
If you really want to notate fully how different players interpret Reels and any other forms you will see that it is simply wrong to use 4/4, 2/2, 8/8 or any other straight rhythm throughout the tune. If you write a tune out exactly according to how someone like Bobby Casey or Paddy Canny phrase it then you will get regular time signature changes and odd beat patterns. Within reels some phrases come out as 3+3+2 (8/8) others as 3+3+3 (9/8) and so on, it's different fo each player.
I guess the reason that reels tend to be notated in 4/4 is because they easily fit into it in notational terms and each player interprets a tune differently so 4/4 shows the basic collection of notes within an easily readable format. Overall the way tunes are notated is hopelessly inadequate but once you understand certain principals you can interpret the music properly.
Just remember what Mickey Doherty said
'If the collectors were to notate everything we do, the page would be black!'
All knowing gill said there's no point in discussing so lets all stop. Gill the person who thinks he knows everything knows nothing .The same as the person who thinks they can't learn anymore its a sad way to be . By discussing anything one can learn If he/she is willing to be open minded ,a discussion alone can make someone think in different ways no matter what the topic just by learning to respect what others have to say.Not that anyone is interested but samurai warriors spent as much time discussing basic techniques as they did practising them. Take for e.g. one of your discussions "A 'slide' s a single jig. A 'jig' is a double jig" at the time I agreed with you but after discussing it with many musicians and dancers ,I now think there is a difference and I can hear the difference when they are played .So thats thanks to your discussion but I have looked at your last few disscussions and there not exactly mind blowing and it makes me wonder is this a pointless discussion or is it pointless because its my discussion.
Dear Saint; on a personal level I am willing to argue anyone into the ground if need be.
However, there is little need to bring the rest of the world into certain matters. I hope I am capable of defending my opinions toe to toe with anyone. If you are issuing a vendetta may I suggest ~ email is more to the point?
I had so hoped to respond to this thread. Your last comment is an attempt to alter the rules. I will cautiously observe where you propose to take all of us.
Yours Truly,
Ms. Tonya
Virtually all usable music notation is only a very coarse approximation. Look at scores by some modern (20th c) composer and you'll see what appears to be impossible gibberish as a result of the composer's (generally futile) attempt to put his musical ideas on paper exactly as they sounded in his mind.
The composers of the 18th century and earlier were much more realistic. As with our tunes they gave virtually no indication how to play the music apart from the occasional "p" or "f" dynamic and perhaps a general indication of the pace of the music. The players were expected to work out things (including ornaments) for themselves, using their common sense and experience. Don't believe most of the modern editions (19th c and later) of that music - an experienced ITM player today will probably get a lot closer to the music of the baroque as it was played in those days than those over-imaginative modern renderings.
BTW, possibly the most efficient music notation for its purpose was that devised for Gregorian chant in the early centuries of the Christian era.
"A 'slide' s a single jig. A 'jig' is a double jig".
Saint, you daft fecker. The title of that thread was a quote from that eedjit tradpiper who was wrong. The reason I posted the discussion was because he was wrong. I thought the best way to get people to realise he was wrong was to have a discussion about it. It got you to change your mind.
"4/4 is bad" IS a pointless discussion. But I'm still discussing it. I'm trying to turn it into a useful discussion.
4/4 is a part of the spoken and written language of music.
It is not music, but a way to describe a musical concept to other people who speak and read this language, If you don't read, speak and understand this language, you wont understand.
A layman might pick up a term and have a vague understanding of it. In this case it has come into common usage.
But none the less it is as if an Arabic word has entered the English language, like; 'sheriff, it has a meaning in English, that is similar to the original Arabic word. But that doesn't mean that an English speaker will understand the arabic concept, the structure behind the word/s or understand anything more than their concept of 'an American law enforcement officer'.
It might seem a simple concept, but thats because you don't read/speak/understand the language it comes from.
This 4/4 can not be taken in isolation by some one with a vague understanding of the language of rhythm, and the concepts behind this language. It is but one pointer, that assumes a much greater understanding of the language by the person it is a pointer for.
>>The question arises: Do suggestions on improvements to notations systems help in the playing of the music?
Would writing reels in 2/4 really help?
Would writing reels in 3+3+2 (8/8)?
Be honest now<,
But this isn't an improvement on the language at all, it is a part of the language.........
To continue my earlier point; someone may even speak/understand/read some of the language, perhaps even enough to converse fluently but yet still have only a vague understanding of parts of the language that aren't in common usage, or that they haven't encountered.
Would 21/8 mean anything to anyone here? How would some one play a 21/8 rhythm? How could it be notated in a way that conveys enough information for a player who understands the language, and has the ability to play it? Anyone?
They may all be 4/4 but all have different GROOVES.
It's very difficult to notate groove.
It's very difficult to describe groove.
You just have to hear it and learn it for each piece (or have an excellent conductor/ producer/ musical director).
And I expect loads of musicians could play a bar or two or a piece in 21/8, should one turn up. But getting a groove going for it? See above.
My point is that we can maka a catagorical statement like reels are,2/2 or cut time.for eg. but what was the historical context this terminology grew up in? what information is taken for granted in this concept? what does it mean....
This system is the product of centuries of cumulative knowledge. Things need to be understood in context.
For example,; how long does a crotchet last for?
What is the difference between 2/4 and 4/4 and 2/2?
Why did people decide to notate reels in 4/4 and not 2/2.Allthough there is a concerted effort to change this.
How can you be so sure that they were incorrect?
It is part of a language,to try and describe a thing and/or concept.
There are many aspects of music, rhythm being one of them.If i wanted help understanding the bass cleff i would ask lazyhound.I would'nt lecture him on it!!
If i want help in understanding Irish music, I would ask a renound Irish musician and scholar.
If i want help in understanding rhythm, i would go to an expert drummer.
Then you can be pretty sure you will be pointed in the right direction.
The 'classical' world 'invented' this system.
So if you want to understand it.......
>>Ok but my point is counting gives bad habits and the is more to reels than 4/4<<
saint,
Counting time is a method to allow someone to enter the world of a particular family of rhythms, like 4/4, or 16/8 etc.
As someone familiar with Reels, you would not need it, however to enter the world of say 7/8 counting can be of great help.
Difference between 2/2, and 2/4 anyone?
Oh, don't mean to frighten anyone off, just asking questions.
The discussion is moderately interesting but I'm with Llig. Spend more time listening, playing and developing an understanding of the conventions of representing Irish music and you'll be much better off. You'll play better and be more able to use the written sources.
Not making any claims for the value of my opinion, but I'm an experienced player and the current notation is 99.99999% effective in communicating the dance music to me.
4/4 is correct,and is the nearest way to describe reels using music notation.
listening is important, as is playing for dancing,when playing for dancing watch the dancers feet.
whatever the notated bowing in David Lyths book ,does not alter the fact ,that reels are best notated in 4/4,which is why Lyth,Crannitch,Cheif ONeill,and everyone else does so.
Many years ago I sat in the classical guitar school I used to frequent, and played my intermediate piece of music for my teacher, who was 16 years of age at the time, a child prodigy really ( I wouldn't expect him to frequent a site like this) . When I finished my stiff nervous version of what was written, he said, "That was O.K. , but why don't you make something of it?.
He then proceeded to show me how classical players twist and emphasise what is written.
Why can't a similar approach be acceptable to playing Irish music? It is the 21st century after all. Time for most people is at a premium.
My point is, I believe it would be possible, with a hell of lot of thought, to sight read Irish Music so it sounded like the real deal (so to speak). I'm not saying I can do it, but I wouldn't mind.
Dickens, I believe O'Neill's is notated in cut time (a C with a line through it).
By the way, this subject is much more a moot point now than when I got started 25 years ago. The availability of recordings and the internet, plus the increased popularity and notoriety of ITM has made it much easier to hear the music played properly. When I started, I had some recordings to listen to to learn the style, but the sheet music with reels written in 4/4 confused me, so I tended to play them completely wrong if I hadn't learned them aurally. Couldn't figure it out for the longest time. Now, it absolutely doesn't matter how it's written, but I can't figure out why so many do it wrong, when it would be just as easy to do it right.
Some reels would be better notated in 2/2, some in 4/4, for the fiddlers and tune players, to get the feel of the tune. O 'Neill did both.
However there is more to the music than the notes, there is the underlying rhythm.
The tunes were described as in cut time to indicate , in the days without metronomes, the speed of performance, tunes written in cut time are played twice as fast as they would be in common time.
Remember the 'classical' system has been around for a very long time. Any musical terms such as 2/2, or 4/4 need to be taken in their historical context.
It is assumed in the writing of music that the player is familiar with the aural tradition, the notes etc are merely indicators. To perform a piece straight from the dots can lead to misunderstanding.
This point needs to be made i feel; What is rhythm? you may consider you know, so perhaps you might explain your understanding of this within music, for us interested parties. How are rhythms formed?
Ailin, you play the Bodhran, as a drummer how do you back a reel?
What gives reels their cascading flow is the fact that there are only two downbeats per measure. If you include the same notes in a measure, but play it with four downbeats, you get a much choppier version of the tune because it was not written to be played that way.
Meter and rhythm are not the same thing. The meter is the time the tune is written in, the rhythm is how the tune flows. The example I gave earlier of syncopation is applicable to this point. A tune can be in 4/4, for example, with or without syncopation, which completely alters the rhythm, but not the time, of the tune.
To make it even more confusing, I can very effectively play a syncopated rhythm in a tune that does not have it in the melody. I can skip beats, go into double time, add triplets, whatever I want, so long as it doesn't muck up the tune. My job on bodhran is to play in time, but not necessarily mirror the rhythm of the melody instrument. That may sound chaotic, but it happens all the time in all types of music. Part of what makes rhythm interesting. Without various rhythms, all tunes in a given meter would sound much too much alike.
In that case what distinguishes a polka from a reel? 2/2, or 2/4 or 2/8 being effectively the same?
Yet they have completely different rhythms. A polka clearly has a 2 pulse agreed? The metre is there to indicate a rhythm, it is a technical term to help a player understand how the music should be played.
. I simply feel a reel sounds wrong when the drum is playing with 2 downbeats per bar. They come alive with 4.
As a rhythm player the drive and lift come from this . The first beat is the main beat the third is th secondary, the 2nd and 4 th ,if they are absent ......they sound , to me dead.
I am not talking about the tune, take the tune away and play a reel, then play a polka.
The tunes werent 'written' to be played, this is an aural tradition of course.
Yeah something i found a few of years ago, A staggering rhythm, wrote a tune in it too. But its not 4/4, its 8/8. With 3 beats/downbeats. try 123, 12 123. and 12, 123,123, as well. Throws an interesting jump in
4/4 is bad
4/4 is bad
People keep bringing up 4/4 is reel timing,and I keep saying that its bull because different reels have different feel and different rhythms .There are so many different reel rhythms and different reels need different emphasis in different parts of each bar. Reels can have a flowing feel or a chopping feel to them(just two of many) and using the term 4/4 is blinding people of this.This is before we even start talking about different interpretation of how it should be played .Can we leave 4/4 for young kids who are being introduced to music in school or am I wrong?
# Posted on October 31st 2007 by Saint
Re: 4/4 is bad
The notation system we use for traditional music is a system that was conceived for (and by) the world of Classical (= non-trad, I won't go into classification detail now...) music and therefore it might not really fit in detail to trad music. It is a useful system to borrow for the needs of this website for example, but not sufficient to learn or understand everthing.
All the information you can take out of "a reel is in 4/4" is "there's four notes per foot tap". That's all. It doesn't tell if they are equal, if there's some swing or anything else.
For the music of the time of Mozart for example, 4/4 would imply a strong first beat, weak second, etc... (more or less ;) )
I usually post one a decade on this board, I hope it was interesting. ;)
# Posted on October 31st 2007 by DanaH
Re: 4/4 is bad
DanaH I wish I could have said it like that..................
# Posted on October 31st 2007 by Saint
Re: 4/4 is bad
I've always figured that reels were more in cut time (2/2) than 4/4. On paper it might not matter, but I don't think we really hear 4 beats when we listen to reels (hornpipes are probably a different matter).
# Posted on October 31st 2007 by Georgi
Re: 4/4 is bad
As George says, on paper it really doesn't matter. Most of us probably do hear two strong beats per measure for reels, so 2/2 makes sense. I don't mind 4/4 though because it's a reminder that the weak beats in reels are also very important--some tunes ask for a phrase to be played with a bit of back beat, or at least accenting the weak beats too.
Of course, time signature says nothing about degree of lift, swing, pulse, etc.
None of this should matter to a drummer or any other player accustomed to playing this music aurally, as it's meant to be.
# Posted on October 31st 2007 by Will CPT
Re: 4/4 is bad
I do find it difficult to play a tune that says it in C if i havent heard it before because the timing doesnt do it justice so then i have to find a version of the tune to hear how it should sound compared to how i've read it.
# Posted on October 31st 2007 by Lollypoll
Re: 4/4 is bad
First of all I completely agree with DanaH and Saint´s praise. Beyond that I would like to say that in the end phrasing matters a lot. You can play quite some reels with straight quavers/eights while others benefit from ternary playing. What I find most amazing is that many good players are able to apply a phrasing that is in between and therefore basically French inegalite. And some even do something else.....
# Posted on October 31st 2007 by Reelin´ man
Re: 4/4 is bad
In Canada, a two-four is a box containing two dozen bottles of beer (which really doesn't have much to do with music, but it can lead to reeling).
# Posted on October 31st 2007 by drone
Re: 4/4 is bad
Since when do reels have "mechanical" timing .....the very nature that they are a "reel" suggests quite the opposite as they reel their way through the notes..................
There seems to be a lot of attempts to put "science" in to all of this, I wonder what my grandad would have thought of it all, he couldn't even read nor write let alone think of entertaining all this "science" along with 400 $ whistles and all the other menyaaa that seems to be associated with it all.
PS I promise I only used the $ sign cause I can't find the Euro, I'm not suggesting this is at all influenced by the yanks.........LOL
Slán
# Posted on October 31st 2007 by Enigma
Re: 4/4 is bad
Reels are 2/2, cut time, or alle breve (all the same thing), pure and simple. Anything that distinguishes the sound is simply a matter of style, ornamentation, and the way the tune is written. For example, if you use syncopation, the timing may sound different, but when you count it, it still comes out the same as it would without the syncopation. Most popular music is written in 4/4, but tunes sound worlds apart depending on how they are written. If you know how to count in music, you can always find the beat, regardless.
The problem with writing reels in 4/4 is that they will come out sounding very choppy because it is the wrong rhythm.
# Posted on November 1st 2007 by Ailin
Re: 4/4 is bad
Ailin
Ok but my point is counting gives bad habits and the is more to reels than 4/4
# Posted on November 1st 2007 by Saint
Re: 4/4 is bad
What a pointless discussion.
Music is music. It's aural, it's fluid, it's "unconventional".
If you wish to use a notation system to communicate with musicians via a medium other than the aural, then the single most most important feature of that system must be "convention".
Somebody a long time ago decided to write reels in 4. You're stuck with it.
# Posted on November 1st 2007 by llig leahcim
Re: 4/4 is bad
If you look a the book 'Bowing Styles in Irish Fiddle Playing' by David Lyth you will see how much syncopation goes on due to players bowing and phrasing over beats and barlines.
If you really want to notate fully how different players interpret Reels and any other forms you will see that it is simply wrong to use 4/4, 2/2, 8/8 or any other straight rhythm throughout the tune. If you write a tune out exactly according to how someone like Bobby Casey or Paddy Canny phrase it then you will get regular time signature changes and odd beat patterns. Within reels some phrases come out as 3+3+2 (8/8) others as 3+3+3 (9/8) and so on, it's different fo each player.
I guess the reason that reels tend to be notated in 4/4 is because they easily fit into it in notational terms and each player interprets a tune differently so 4/4 shows the basic collection of notes within an easily readable format. Overall the way tunes are notated is hopelessly inadequate but once you understand certain principals you can interpret the music properly.
Just remember what Mickey Doherty said
'If the collectors were to notate everything we do, the page would be black!'
# Posted on November 1st 2007 by In mourning
Re: 4/4 is bad
The question arises: Do suggestions on improvements to notations systems help in the playing of the music?
Would writing reels in 2/4 really help?
Would writing reels in 3+3+2 (8/8)?
Be honest now
# Posted on November 1st 2007 by llig leahcim
Re: 4/4 is bad
This is why you should learn by listening as well as by reading.
# Posted on November 1st 2007 by Guernsey Pete
Re: 4/4 is bad
All knowing gill said there's no point in discussing so lets all stop. Gill the person who thinks he knows everything knows nothing .The same as the person who thinks they can't learn anymore its a sad way to be . By discussing anything one can learn If he/she is willing to be open minded ,a discussion alone can make someone think in different ways no matter what the topic just by learning to respect what others have to say.Not that anyone is interested but samurai warriors spent as much time discussing basic techniques as they did practising them. Take for e.g. one of your discussions "A 'slide' s a single jig. A 'jig' is a double jig" at the time I agreed with you but after discussing it with many musicians and dancers ,I now think there is a difference and I can hear the difference when they are played .So thats thanks to your discussion but I have looked at your last few disscussions and there not exactly mind blowing and it makes me wonder is this a pointless discussion or is it pointless because its my discussion.
# Posted on November 1st 2007 by Saint
Re: 4/4 is bad
Dear Saint; on a personal level I am willing to argue anyone into the ground if need be.
However, there is little need to bring the rest of the world into certain matters. I hope I am capable of defending my opinions toe to toe with anyone. If you are issuing a vendetta may I suggest ~ email is more to the point?
I had so hoped to respond to this thread. Your last comment is an attempt to alter the rules. I will cautiously observe where you propose to take all of us.
Yours Truly,
Ms. Tonya
# Posted on November 1st 2007 by Tonya
Re: 4/4 is bad
Virtually all usable music notation is only a very coarse approximation. Look at scores by some modern (20th c) composer and you'll see what appears to be impossible gibberish as a result of the composer's (generally futile) attempt to put his musical ideas on paper exactly as they sounded in his mind.
The composers of the 18th century and earlier were much more realistic. As with our tunes they gave virtually no indication how to play the music apart from the occasional "p" or "f" dynamic and perhaps a general indication of the pace of the music. The players were expected to work out things (including ornaments) for themselves, using their common sense and experience. Don't believe most of the modern editions (19th c and later) of that music - an experienced ITM player today will probably get a lot closer to the music of the baroque as it was played in those days than those over-imaginative modern renderings.
BTW, possibly the most efficient music notation for its purpose was that devised for Gregorian chant in the early centuries of the Christian era.
# Posted on November 1st 2007 by lazyhound
Re: 4/4 is bad
"A 'slide' s a single jig. A 'jig' is a double jig".
Saint, you daft fecker. The title of that thread was a quote from that eedjit tradpiper who was wrong. The reason I posted the discussion was because he was wrong. I thought the best way to get people to realise he was wrong was to have a discussion about it. It got you to change your mind.
"4/4 is bad" IS a pointless discussion. But I'm still discussing it. I'm trying to turn it into a useful discussion.
(by the way, my favourite past time is learning)
# Posted on November 1st 2007 by llig leahcim
Re: 4/4 is bad
My favorite past time is the middle ages, to study.
My favorite pastime is playing tunes, followed by learning about the middle ages.
My real name is P. Dant Loozer.
# Posted on November 1st 2007 by wormdiet
Re: 4/4 is bad
"Saint, you daft fecker" fair enough
# Posted on November 1st 2007 by Saint
Re: 4/4 is bad
4/4 is a part of the spoken and written language of music.
It is not music, but a way to describe a musical concept to other people who speak and read this language, If you don't read, speak and understand this language, you wont understand.
A layman might pick up a term and have a vague understanding of it. In this case it has come into common usage.
But none the less it is as if an Arabic word has entered the English language, like; 'sheriff, it has a meaning in English, that is similar to the original Arabic word. But that doesn't mean that an English speaker will understand the arabic concept, the structure behind the word/s or understand anything more than their concept of 'an American law enforcement officer'.
It might seem a simple concept, but thats because you don't read/speak/understand the language it comes from.
This 4/4 can not be taken in isolation by some one with a vague understanding of the language of rhythm, and the concepts behind this language. It is but one pointer, that assumes a much greater understanding of the language by the person it is a pointer for.
# Posted on November 1st 2007 by jig
Re: 4/4 is bad
>>The question arises: Do suggestions on improvements to notations systems help in the playing of the music?
Would writing reels in 2/4 really help?
Would writing reels in 3+3+2 (8/8)?
Be honest now<,
But this isn't an improvement on the language at all, it is a part of the language.........
To continue my earlier point; someone may even speak/understand/read some of the language, perhaps even enough to converse fluently but yet still have only a vague understanding of parts of the language that aren't in common usage, or that they haven't encountered.
Would 21/8 mean anything to anyone here? How would some one play a 21/8 rhythm? How could it be notated in a way that conveys enough information for a player who understands the language, and has the ability to play it? Anyone?
# Posted on November 1st 2007 by jig
Re: 4/4 is bad
Ah, it's always the way. The dispute is so fierce because the stakes are so low...
# Posted on November 1st 2007 by Jon Kiparsky
Back to GROOVE...
They may all be 4/4 but all have different GROOVES.
It's very difficult to notate groove.
It's very difficult to describe groove.
You just have to hear it and learn it for each piece (or have an excellent conductor/ producer/ musical director).
And I expect loads of musicians could play a bar or two or a piece in 21/8, should one turn up. But getting a groove going for it? See above.
# Posted on November 1st 2007 by yhaalhouse
Re: 4/4 is bad
My point is that we can maka a catagorical statement like reels are,2/2 or cut time.for eg. but what was the historical context this terminology grew up in? what information is taken for granted in this concept? what does it mean....
This system is the product of centuries of cumulative knowledge. Things need to be understood in context.
For example,; how long does a crotchet last for?
What is the difference between 2/4 and 4/4 and 2/2?
Why did people decide to notate reels in 4/4 and not 2/2.Allthough there is a concerted effort to change this.
How can you be so sure that they were incorrect?
It is part of a language,to try and describe a thing and/or concept.
There are many aspects of music, rhythm being one of them.If i wanted help understanding the bass cleff i would ask lazyhound.I would'nt lecture him on it!!
If i want help in understanding Irish music, I would ask a renound Irish musician and scholar.
If i want help in understanding rhythm, i would go to an expert drummer.
Then you can be pretty sure you will be pointed in the right direction.
The 'classical' world 'invented' this system.
So if you want to understand it.......
# Posted on November 1st 2007 by jig
Re: 4/4 is bad
>>Ok but my point is counting gives bad habits and the is more to reels than 4/4<<
saint,
Counting time is a method to allow someone to enter the world of a particular family of rhythms, like 4/4, or 16/8 etc.
As someone familiar with Reels, you would not need it, however to enter the world of say 7/8 counting can be of great help.
Difference between 2/2, and 2/4 anyone?
Oh, don't mean to frighten anyone off, just asking questions.
# Posted on November 1st 2007 by jig
Re: 4/4 is bad
Yay, Jon Kiparsky!
The discussion is moderately interesting but I'm with Llig. Spend more time listening, playing and developing an understanding of the conventions of representing Irish music and you'll be much better off. You'll play better and be more able to use the written sources.
Not making any claims for the value of my opinion, but I'm an experienced player and the current notation is 99.99999% effective in communicating the dance music to me.
Jim
# Posted on November 1st 2007 by skerries
Re: 4/4 is bad
4/4 is correct,and is the nearest way to describe reels using music notation.
listening is important, as is playing for dancing,when playing for dancing watch the dancers feet.
whatever the notated bowing in David Lyths book ,does not alter the fact ,that reels are best notated in 4/4,which is why Lyth,Crannitch,Cheif ONeill,and everyone else does so.
# Posted on November 1st 2007 by Rufus Jameson
Re: 4/4 is bad
Many years ago I sat in the classical guitar school I used to frequent, and played my intermediate piece of music for my teacher, who was 16 years of age at the time, a child prodigy really ( I wouldn't expect him to frequent a site like this) . When I finished my stiff nervous version of what was written, he said, "That was O.K. , but why don't you make something of it?.
He then proceeded to show me how classical players twist and emphasise what is written.
Why can't a similar approach be acceptable to playing Irish music? It is the 21st century after all. Time for most people is at a premium.
My point is, I believe it would be possible, with a hell of lot of thought, to sight read Irish Music so it sounded like the real deal (so to speak). I'm not saying I can do it, but I wouldn't mind.
# Posted on November 2nd 2007 by chuneboi slim
Re: 4/4 is bad
Dickens, I believe O'Neill's is notated in cut time (a C with a line through it).
By the way, this subject is much more a moot point now than when I got started 25 years ago. The availability of recordings and the internet, plus the increased popularity and notoriety of ITM has made it much easier to hear the music played properly. When I started, I had some recordings to listen to to learn the style, but the sheet music with reels written in 4/4 confused me, so I tended to play them completely wrong if I hadn't learned them aurally. Couldn't figure it out for the longest time. Now, it absolutely doesn't matter how it's written, but I can't figure out why so many do it wrong, when it would be just as easy to do it right.
# Posted on November 2nd 2007 by Ailin
Re: 4/4 is bad
Some reels would be better notated in 2/2, some in 4/4, for the fiddlers and tune players, to get the feel of the tune. O 'Neill did both.
However there is more to the music than the notes, there is the underlying rhythm.
The tunes were described as in cut time to indicate , in the days without metronomes, the speed of performance, tunes written in cut time are played twice as fast as they would be in common time.
Remember the 'classical' system has been around for a very long time. Any musical terms such as 2/2, or 4/4 need to be taken in their historical context.
It is assumed in the writing of music that the player is familiar with the aural tradition, the notes etc are merely indicators. To perform a piece straight from the dots can lead to misunderstanding.
This point needs to be made i feel; What is rhythm? you may consider you know, so perhaps you might explain your understanding of this within music, for us interested parties. How are rhythms formed?
Ailin, you play the Bodhran, as a drummer how do you back a reel?
# Posted on November 3rd 2007 by jig
Re: 4/4 is bad
What gives reels their cascading flow is the fact that there are only two downbeats per measure. If you include the same notes in a measure, but play it with four downbeats, you get a much choppier version of the tune because it was not written to be played that way.
Meter and rhythm are not the same thing. The meter is the time the tune is written in, the rhythm is how the tune flows. The example I gave earlier of syncopation is applicable to this point. A tune can be in 4/4, for example, with or without syncopation, which completely alters the rhythm, but not the time, of the tune.
To make it even more confusing, I can very effectively play a syncopated rhythm in a tune that does not have it in the melody. I can skip beats, go into double time, add triplets, whatever I want, so long as it doesn't muck up the tune. My job on bodhran is to play in time, but not necessarily mirror the rhythm of the melody instrument. That may sound chaotic, but it happens all the time in all types of music. Part of what makes rhythm interesting. Without various rhythms, all tunes in a given meter would sound much too much alike.
# Posted on November 3rd 2007 by Ailin
Re: 4/4 is bad
In that case what distinguishes a polka from a reel? 2/2, or 2/4 or 2/8 being effectively the same?
Yet they have completely different rhythms. A polka clearly has a 2 pulse agreed? The metre is there to indicate a rhythm, it is a technical term to help a player understand how the music should be played.
. I simply feel a reel sounds wrong when the drum is playing with 2 downbeats per bar. They come alive with 4.
As a rhythm player the drive and lift come from this . The first beat is the main beat the third is th secondary, the 2nd and 4 th ,if they are absent ......they sound , to me dead.
I am not talking about the tune, take the tune away and play a reel, then play a polka.
The tunes werent 'written' to be played, this is an aural tradition of course.
# Posted on November 3rd 2007 by jig
Re: 4/4 is bad
Llig. I've just tried 3 + 3 + 2 and it works . Brilliant. Might be old news to some but it was new way of livening it up for me. cheers.
# Posted on November 3rd 2007 by chuneboi slim
Re: 4/4 is bad
Yeah something i found a few of years ago, A staggering rhythm, wrote a tune in it too. But its not 4/4, its 8/8. With 3 beats/downbeats. try 123, 12 123. and 12, 123,123, as well. Throws an interesting jump in
# Posted on November 3rd 2007 by jig
Re: 4/4 is bad
Just listen, and then play along.
# Posted on November 4th 2007 by bodhran bliss