I just listened to the interview with Tony McMahon at www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_documentaryonone_archive.xml and in it he laments the breakneck speed at which the tunes are being played now as the loss of the music. How does this fit with the earlier discussions of tempo. Are tempos in the 110 bpm and up range pandering to dancers at the cost of the tunes? Are we too influenced by *bluegrass*, etc. below the level of consciousness? Should we just slow down?
Interesting. I haven't listened to the interview, and I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but I seem to remember from a handful of discussions on this site that tunes (hornpipes in particular) are meant to be played more slowly when they're played for dancers than when they're played for their own sake, and that the more experienced dancers tend to prefer tunes played even more slowly, so that they can fit in more steps. To the extent that playing quickly is pandering, it seems to me that it's more pandering to the audience (when such a thing exists) than to dancers - though I've heard plenty of musicians (not me) play brilliantly at 120 bpm, with no loss to the music.
Justjim, how quickly were tunes typically played back in the day? I'm fairly new to the tradition, and most of my ITM-ish CDs were recorded in the last decade and feature reels played at 110-120 bpm or so; tempos are fairly similar at the sessions I've attended.
this is typical propaganda from a Clare musician! I love the steadier tempos used in Clare but I also love the faster tempos traditionally used in Sligo, Donegal and other areas.
I've old recordings of players from all over the country playing very fast, mostly from Sligo and Donegal. Maybe there is too much really fast playing these days but for McMahon to blame it all on today's musicians is false.
Just listen to some recordings of Michael Coleman, Sean Maguire and John Doherty, they sometimes played very fast. This speed is more part of their traditions than McMahon's and that's probably why McMahon doesn't really get it.
I sometimes wonder do the people who give out about fast tempos simply don't like it cos they can't play that fast.....
All the same, there's nothing I like better than a good steady East Clare session. variety is the spice of life so it's good to mix up tempos, perhaps that's something that speed merchants could do more.
This is a lot faster than the clip you posted slainte. I go to Donegal and Clare a lot and there really is a huge difference between the music in these areas. I will point out though that some Donegal musicians like James Byrne play at quite a steady tempo.
Truly I cannot play the really fast tempos, not because I don't try, but at my advanced age the joinery is giving out in my hands; but also, the melodies seem more visible or audible at a more moderate pace, with more room for consideration of ornament, too. The beauty of the piece comes out more.
To my mind we are talking about pure and applied, for dancing a certain pace and swing is required, for listening it doesnt matter really if its fast or slow, swung or flat....
Ear of the beholder, somewhat. When I first heard a recording of Michael Coleman playing The Flax in Bloom, I thought it was really fast (another listener said that it sounded like "cartoon music") but now it sounds, well, just "lively."
Didn't I read some comment here about some of Coleman's recordings being influenced by Tin Pan Alley producers in America? I have a mental picture of some fat cigar chewer telling Coleman to play faster and wilder in order to sell more records. (And not to worry about the piano player.)
From a personal point of view I like a moderate speed when playing myself. An odd quick blast of reels I find acceptable in a session where players can hold onto the tune at that speed. Otherwise, it sounds like a lot of clutter and people falling over each other (reminds me of those Where's Wally illustrations.) Watching Geantraí last night, fiddle player Seamie O'Dowd played an extremely quick set of reels. I was watching it with my brother and we were commenting on it saying "He's quick and he's well in control" but both of us concluded that neither of us enjoyed his playing. It was too fast to actually enjoy the tune and style he was bringing across, for me and my brother anyway.
It is essentially a dance tradition and the dancers of today are faster than those of previous years (according to numerous local wise sources.) If the dancers dance fast, then the music can only but be played quick. Maybe Riverdance and the like had given the music a new approach in both dancing and musical terms, for better or for worse.
On the subject of the Coleman records, I heard they were digitally speeded up but that may not be true. We must remember that the musicians in New York were living at a tough time. Their music had to compare against Italians and other cultures. I suppose the piano brought life to these recordings, even in its irritation. These fiddlers had to make their living and probably wouldn't play that quick usually.
PaddyCmusic--nothing was "digitally sped up" in the 1950s, unless you mean putting your finger on the vinyl record and pushing it around faster. And sorry, but some of the piano comping in Coleman's recordings is truly, famously awful, must have been played by some studio hack with no feel for The Music at all.
mickray - I found it hard to believe that technology existed back then to do such a thing to be honest but that's what I was told. Maybe the chap who told me thought that because some of Coleman's recordings are pitched sharper than concert pitch.
As for the piano accompaniment, I was by no means excusing the awful playing. On Coleman's "Wind that Shakes.../Lady on the Island" set, the piano accompaniment goes down as some of the worst vamping I have ever heard. However, the record labels probably didn't think a solo fiddle track would make much business and, because other records from other traditions had some form of accompaniment (and probably much better too!), the Irish 'had to' follow suit. I think Coleman knew fairly well that the backer was off, and probably would have preferred to have just played solo but, if it's money your looking for, you do what the record labels tell you. I'm kind of guessing to be honest, I'm not exactly sure how these musicians would have fared out over there. Maybe they themselves wanted a piano, and I've read a few cases (I think Paddy Cronin anyway) were indeed the musicians played better or more confident with backing. Anyway, I'm getting off topic now. I'm really thinking out loud at this stage...
Huh--maybe you are right. The speeding-up wouldn't have to be "digital," could just be rolling the tape faster during mastering. I know that some fiddlers like to tune sharp, but it seems unlikely that they would retune the piano to suit the fiddler.
And I had a feeling that we did not really disagree about some of that piano playing. Poor Coleman.
tempos old and new
tempos old and new
I just listened to the interview with Tony McMahon at www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_documentaryonone_archive.xml and in it he laments the breakneck speed at which the tunes are being played now as the loss of the music. How does this fit with the earlier discussions of tempo. Are tempos in the 110 bpm and up range pandering to dancers at the cost of the tunes? Are we too influenced by *bluegrass*, etc. below the level of consciousness? Should we just slow down?
# Posted on January 18th 2008 by justjim
Re: tempos old and new
Interesting. I haven't listened to the interview, and I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but I seem to remember from a handful of discussions on this site that tunes (hornpipes in particular) are meant to be played more slowly when they're played for dancers than when they're played for their own sake, and that the more experienced dancers tend to prefer tunes played even more slowly, so that they can fit in more steps. To the extent that playing quickly is pandering, it seems to me that it's more pandering to the audience (when such a thing exists) than to dancers - though I've heard plenty of musicians (not me) play brilliantly at 120 bpm, with no loss to the music.
Justjim, how quickly were tunes typically played back in the day? I'm fairly new to the tradition, and most of my ITM-ish CDs were recorded in the last decade and feature reels played at 110-120 bpm or so; tempos are fairly similar at the sessions I've attended.
# Posted on January 19th 2008 by Tall, Dark, and Mysterious
Re: tempos old and new
this is typical propaganda from a Clare musician! I love the steadier tempos used in Clare but I also love the faster tempos traditionally used in Sligo, Donegal and other areas.
I've old recordings of players from all over the country playing very fast, mostly from Sligo and Donegal. Maybe there is too much really fast playing these days but for McMahon to blame it all on today's musicians is false.
Just listen to some recordings of Michael Coleman, Sean Maguire and John Doherty, they sometimes played very fast. This speed is more part of their traditions than McMahon's and that's probably why McMahon doesn't really get it.
I sometimes wonder do the people who give out about fast tempos simply don't like it cos they can't play that fast.....
All the same, there's nothing I like better than a good steady East Clare session. variety is the spice of life so it's good to mix up tempos, perhaps that's something that speed merchants could do more.
# Posted on January 19th 2008 by Worldwide Pants
Re: tempos old and new
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_documentaryonone_archive.xml
# Posted on January 19th 2008 by ceolachan
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/
http://www.rte.ie/radio/podcast/
# Posted on January 19th 2008 by ceolachan
Re: tempos old and new
Music is slower in Clare than in Sligo or Donegal? That's a cliché. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI1SbzaKxqg
If you can keep the steady beat, it's not very important whether you play fast or slow.
# Posted on January 19th 2008 by slainte
Re: tempos old and new
cliche it may be. but it's generally true
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJDTQW87w-s
This is a lot faster than the clip you posted slainte. I go to Donegal and Clare a lot and there really is a huge difference between the music in these areas. I will point out though that some Donegal musicians like James Byrne play at quite a steady tempo.
# Posted on January 19th 2008 by Worldwide Pants
Re: tempos old and new
Truly I cannot play the really fast tempos, not because I don't try, but at my advanced age the joinery is giving out in my hands; but also, the melodies seem more visible or audible at a more moderate pace, with more room for consideration of ornament, too. The beauty of the piece comes out more.
# Posted on January 19th 2008 by justjim
Re: tempos old and new
Ever listen to old Michael Coleman recordings? Breakneck shpeed, boy!
# Posted on January 19th 2008 by Farr
Re: tempos old and new
To my mind we are talking about pure and applied, for dancing a certain pace and swing is required, for listening it doesnt matter really if its fast or slow, swung or flat....
# Posted on January 19th 2008 by jig
Re: tempos old and new
Ear of the beholder, somewhat. When I first heard a recording of Michael Coleman playing The Flax in Bloom, I thought it was really fast (another listener said that it sounded like "cartoon music") but now it sounds, well, just "lively."
Didn't I read some comment here about some of Coleman's recordings being influenced by Tin Pan Alley producers in America? I have a mental picture of some fat cigar chewer telling Coleman to play faster and wilder in order to sell more records. (And not to worry about the piano player.)
# Posted on January 19th 2008 by mickray
Re: tempos old and new
From a personal point of view I like a moderate speed when playing myself. An odd quick blast of reels I find acceptable in a session where players can hold onto the tune at that speed. Otherwise, it sounds like a lot of clutter and people falling over each other (reminds me of those Where's Wally illustrations.) Watching Geantraí last night, fiddle player Seamie O'Dowd played an extremely quick set of reels. I was watching it with my brother and we were commenting on it saying "He's quick and he's well in control" but both of us concluded that neither of us enjoyed his playing. It was too fast to actually enjoy the tune and style he was bringing across, for me and my brother anyway.
It is essentially a dance tradition and the dancers of today are faster than those of previous years (according to numerous local wise sources.) If the dancers dance fast, then the music can only but be played quick. Maybe Riverdance and the like had given the music a new approach in both dancing and musical terms, for better or for worse.
On the subject of the Coleman records, I heard they were digitally speeded up but that may not be true. We must remember that the musicians in New York were living at a tough time. Their music had to compare against Italians and other cultures. I suppose the piano brought life to these recordings, even in its irritation. These fiddlers had to make their living and probably wouldn't play that quick usually.
# Posted on January 21st 2008 by PaddyCmusic
Re: tempos old and new
PaddyCmusic--nothing was "digitally sped up" in the 1950s, unless you mean putting your finger on the vinyl record and pushing it around faster. And sorry, but some of the piano comping in Coleman's recordings is truly, famously awful, must have been played by some studio hack with no feel for The Music at all.
# Posted on January 21st 2008 by mickray
Re: tempos old and new
mickray - I found it hard to believe that technology existed back then to do such a thing to be honest but that's what I was told. Maybe the chap who told me thought that because some of Coleman's recordings are pitched sharper than concert pitch.
As for the piano accompaniment, I was by no means excusing the awful playing. On Coleman's "Wind that Shakes.../Lady on the Island" set, the piano accompaniment goes down as some of the worst vamping I have ever heard. However, the record labels probably didn't think a solo fiddle track would make much business and, because other records from other traditions had some form of accompaniment (and probably much better too!), the Irish 'had to' follow suit. I think Coleman knew fairly well that the backer was off, and probably would have preferred to have just played solo but, if it's money your looking for, you do what the record labels tell you. I'm kind of guessing to be honest, I'm not exactly sure how these musicians would have fared out over there. Maybe they themselves wanted a piano, and I've read a few cases (I think Paddy Cronin anyway) were indeed the musicians played better or more confident with backing. Anyway, I'm getting off topic now. I'm really thinking out loud at this stage...
# Posted on January 21st 2008 by PaddyCmusic
Re: tempos old and new
Huh--maybe you are right. The speeding-up wouldn't have to be "digital," could just be rolling the tape faster during mastering. I know that some fiddlers like to tune sharp, but it seems unlikely that they would retune the piano to suit the fiddler.
And I had a feeling that we did not really disagree about some of that piano playing. Poor Coleman.
# Posted on January 21st 2008 by mickray