In an earlier thread I said something about pointed vs. rounded rhythms.
It was a followup to Dickens statement about listening to more Scottish traditional music.
Rounded refers to the tendency in staid musical rhythms to give notes as equal a value as possible.
As in contemporary well-heeled classical. Pointed rhythms do not. Such as the tendency of Irish jigs to have a 'lilting rhythm, or Scottish reels to have more swing, or Shetland tunes being clearly syncopated. Point is trad music is not even-tempered. Also each style of trad varies from other styles.
Now if any of you lurking out there is a critic please do tell me, "What do I have wrong?"
Absolutely mhuppert & it is the contemporary clasical musicians who do a disservice to that music by trying to limit it's range to suit their own tastes. I think the major criticism on this site about classical music is mainly aimed a baroque &/or the 20th/21st c. interpretation of 'classical' music. Some of the old timers had alot of spirit!
I just said there are no rules. I wasn't trying to contradict anything you said, which would have been difficult, as your posts so far have been somewhat incomprehensible anyway.
Most of your first post, old chap. Perhaps it's just me getting old, but I tire very easily of posts that require me to do the mental processing for which, with just a little more care, the poster could have eliminated the need.
"I think the major criticism on this site about classical music is mainly aimed a baroque &/or the 20th/21st c. interpretation of 'classical' music. Some of the old timers had alot of spirit!"
Major criticism aimed at baroque...Go dissing on baroque what? Baroque music - with its piece-sensitive tunings, multiple temperaments, particular ornamentation and a focus on improvisation and personal creativity - can definitely not be mistaken for "stodgy classical" or whatever, and the Baroque old timers had a heck of a lot of spirit in themselves, thank you. For that matter, it's not dissimilar from the trad music we play.
getting back to the topic ......................
Have you thought that it might be in part due to the influence of the different dance styles the music has been used for ?
I think you're absolutely right about dance influences, bd and rtf, for instance, a hornpipe could be played slowly and heavily dotted for a solo hard shoe dance, the same tune might be played fast and less dotted for set dancing.
There
are
rules.
Whether you follow them is a different matter.
This hippy ethos in music just makes little sense. Without rules and structure you certainly don't have ITM. Even the most radical punk and metal abide by the rules of their genre. Though they will stretch the boundaries.
If you are *really* interested, you should look at the study of languages as done by real linguists (not the idiots who claim that there are "rules" or that there are "no rules"). The same thing applies to music
There are "right" ways of playing and "wrong" ways of playing music and there is all the stuff in the middle. With classical music is is sometimes possible to look at the sheetmusic and say "that was definitely played right/wrong". With trad, there is no objective yardstick. In other words, there are "rules", but they cannot be formulated in a prescriptive way and, only rarely can they be formulated in a descriptive way.
As an idiot/hippy who claims there are no rules, I challenge you to tell me what they are. Your post says they can't be formulated in a prescriptive way and only rarely in a descriptive way (Note to self: more mental processing to do there, Shaw...). You admit that there's no objective yardstick. So you're really telling me that there are rules but you can't tell me what they are.
The trouble with ITM is that you sometimes get people who tell you that you have to do such-and-such this way, that way or the other way. You know, your hornpipe wasn't authentic because you didn't play a triplet at the end of the first time throough thge A part, sort of thing. More often, they'll just talk behind their hand. Well, trust the people, say I. I think nearly all the fun in ITM comes from doing your own thing in your own way. You fit in with the crowd with your own voice but you can blend as well. Someone who heard my CD clips emailed me to say I should have played all the reels straight. Oh yeah? The last thing I'm going to do is to join the lads in the pub then pontificate about ways of playing that I read in a book I shouldn't agree with. If you don't like the fact that Four Men and a Dog play very fast, you don't say they've broken the rule about speed. You say you don't like it at that speed because...(add own reason).
So do tell us, rule-makers. What's the right and the wrong ways to play hornpipes? Am I forbidden to play slow airs when I don't know the Gaelic words? Should I play everything at dance-speed?
When I say there are no rules, I mean that nothing is out of bounds. I do not mean that there are no practices that will get you frowned upon or squeezed out of your session if you keep doing it. As far as I'm concerned, rules are anti-fun. You can respect and celebrate the tradition without a po-faced anti-fun rule-book drawn up by some Guru or other who probably couldn't knock a decent tune out of comb and paper.
No. It is a necessary statement poo-pooing rules. If there really were agreement that no rules exist then the statement "There are no rules" would indeed appear to constitute a rule, of sorts, but then you wouldn't need to say it except to those poor souls who asked you for the ITM rule book. But, in my case, I am making a statement to the effect that the rules (which can't actually be stated - some rules!) perceived to exist by some are in fact illusory. That is not a rule. It is a statement of the status quo. Were it to be a rule it would sit in contravention of all the other rules (if you believe in them) and you can't have that. It would be like saying that there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Ghost, but there is no God. It is merely affirmation that the rules are not there. Were I to have said "there can be no rules," then I accept that you could justifiably have accused me of formulating a rule. I have to go and lift a parsnip now before it goes dark.
Yes, Steve. Perhaps jig, who regularly condradicts himself, would like to tell us what the 'rules' of ITM and Punk actually are ( and what a 'hippy ethos' is, and what rules distinguish a hippy ethos from his own.)
IMHO, regarding music and the various techniques used to produce it, there is only one rule: it must sound good to my ears.
My main interest is rhythmic differences within trad.
I would like to hear more about how dance styles effect rhythm. Irish vs. Scottish, stepdance vs. ceilidh, dancing in a kitchen session at midnight vs. dancing in a large community hall.
;)
Different instruments play a big part. Highland bagpipes & Uilleann pipes each have their own effect on rhythm. Do the pipes effect dance music more or does dance music effect piping rhythm (& ornamentation)?
Another thing about dance. Is there more variety of rhythmic styles in Scottish dance than Irish?
There are rhythmic styles in Scottish music that do not appear in Irish, I'm thinking particularly of Strathspeys, where the rhythm is heavily dotted, even more so than a slow hornpipe, and sometimes the dotting is reversed, i.e. short note before long, in hornpipes it is always long before short. I imagine this fits particular steps in the dance, although I don't know much about Scottish dancing.
I went to a pipe workshop in Armagh a while back - it was pointed out that the dance rhythms of strathspeys etc would vary depending on where the dance was danced and whether it was solo or a group dance - a solo dancer bouncing on the spot will set a certain rhythm, a couple dancing in a tiny cottage making tiny steps will move quickly, whereas people in posh frocks in a big hall will take longer steps, which will prbably take longer and require a more pointed rhythm.
Most music is written unpointed, even when it is not played that way - in some circumstances it would have been played that way though. If no-one is dancing, play it any way that you (or the audience) like - but it is a shame when people forget the roots (imho anyway)
I'm puzzled by your comment, Cathy. If the highlands played in Donegal are derived from strathspeys, how can you state that this particular Scottish rhythmic style does not appear in Irish music?
The 'highlands' that I've heard sound more like a scottish 2 4 quickstep or shottische - not like a strathspey (at least not how you hear them on the pipes) - the pointing is less emphasised.
It's possible that the highland is closer to how the tunes were played in the C19 and Strathspeys may have become increasingly pointed - who can tell - but it's certainly a rhythm that is inthe scottish tradition now that is not in the Irish.
On the other hand Irish music has slides which don't exist in the scottish tradition, but do (usually as single jigs) in the english.
Regarding rules... I think I agree with you, Steve. Our position depends not on our attitude to the relationship between ITM and rules, but to a nitpicking over the semantics of the word "rules". In the sense you are using, there are no "rules".
I'm afraid I will draw again the parallel with languages. Pragmatically, there are "rules" because otherwise we could not convey meaning and thus communicate with each other. Everybody has their own correctness conditions regarding whether a sequence of sounds is correct, whether it conveys meaning and whether that meaning is "meaningful". ("purple ideas sleep furiously" and "I school gone young when" being examples of the latter two.) Because of the necessity of communication and the way language evolves and is learnt, correctness conditions across a community are reasonably similar.
In the same way, ITM will have correctness conditions. They are what allows people who don't know each other to sit down and have a few tunes. They will also prevent people who don't "speak ITM" or who speak a different dialect of ITM from joining (of course, they can join in, just as I can speak English with someone who has different correctness conditions, but it will not be the same. I won't be able to be as subtle, I won't be able to make the same jokes etc.).
Then comes the problem of labels... Sometimes you call what you do ITM because that's what you think it is. Sometimes you call it that because you have to call it something. Sometimes it gets called ITM in spite of all your attempts to say "no it isn't". So out of all the people who play the stuff, some kind of global correctness conditions emerge, existing on a continuum that is no longer geographical or social, but just based on taste.
I think it is important to realise that we do exist in a world where some things, like music and language, have "rules" - not rules that have to be followed or that can be broken, but rules of a fleeting nature that will govern where something belongs, whether it feels right, etc.
Absolutely, I can tell when people are speaking English from a distance, I cant hear the words at all, but the rhythm is unmistakeable. When compared with German, Italian and Spanish.
Re: The rhythms are different. How Strathspey-like are Highlands?
John Doherty’s, and especially Mickey Doherty’s & Neillie Boyle’s way of playing highlands had the heavy Scottish swing, much like the Strathspey playing of the West Highlands of Scotland (not quite as strong as the broken chord-like playing of Scott Skinner & the North-East style. But Altan, for example, play highlands in a much less snappy way. In particular the “Scottish-Snap” rhythm (the semi-quaver followed by dotted-quaver, played with considerable kick) is almost never to be heard from Altan. I really don’t know why this is, when I was a kid all the players I heard in the Rosses area certainly played highlands in a much more Scottish style than Altan do. And in South Donegal the older players like Con Cassidy and Francie Byrne played with a highly Scottish sounding rhythm. (Though Donegal never had the strict dotted rhythm of the military or competition pipers, and as Danny O'Donnell pointed out, they tended to play with much less aggressive rhythm than Scott Skinner.) Just listen to Mickey Doherty’s amazingly rhythmic playing of the highland ‘Hopping Biddy’ on the CD “The Donegal Fiddle”, and compare it to the pathetic rhythmless attempt at Strathspey playing you find in Tommy Peoples’ version of The Laird of Drumblair. No wonder you get people who can’t tell highlands and hornpipes apart! Seriously, where’s the rhythm?
Does the “semi-quaver followed by dotted-quaver” rhythm exist in Irish music? Just look at O’Neill’s collection for the answer! Loads of the tunes have this rhythm. (Why’s it all but died out? As usual, the rot can mainly be attributed to the dreaded Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. And in Donegal perhaps Tommy Peoples and Paddy Glackin must take some of the responsibility) The years have not been kind to rhythmic variety in Irish music, almost everything’s now being played with a fairly straight rhythm, even highlands.
Also, now that I’m here, apparently much Baroque music seems to have been played slightly swung, unlike more modern classical music. But despite the great scholarship done recently on authentic Baroque, many people still play Baroque music just if it were 19th century classical music.
neddiescotus, thanks for the note on Baroque music.
The specific criticism I have heard regarding classical music (on this site) is ornamental music is characteristic of Baroque style & it differs from the articulations played in trad music. The term ornamentation is universally used because of it's long history. Yet in Irish Traditional music (ITM) the articulations are used to emphasize the rhythm ~ not add more notes (ornaments)
I find it interesting that some of the classic muiscians composed & played music with swing only to get lost along the way. In that sense there is a parallell with Scottish & Irish music to have a nice swing ~ only to be misplaced over time.
I love a good swinging rhythm. The old aires have a nice swing.
Absolutely, I can tell when people are speaking English from a distance, I cant hear the words at all, but the rhythm is unmistakeable. When compared with German, Italian and Spanish.
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by jig
Is it quite hard to tell when people are using written English though, as opposed to ungrammatical gibberish?
Steve, while I disagree with 90% of what you write I certainly can't disagree with your musicianship as demonstrated by your tune samples.
Perhaps the critic who suggested you should 'play all the reels straight' meant you should sober up and lay off the Mary Jane before you do your next recording?
After any time in the Mediterranean and I dare say in other places too, it's crashingly obvious who the English are, as you look around.
They're the ones who don't move. Or rather, they make intermittent spasmodic movements, seemingly curtailed by some inbuilt, permanent stalling mechanism. An arm stretches out across a table and stays there, or a head turns round a bit and stays there, for no particular reason. It is like watching dying crustacea.
And then, they're surprisingly quiet. All the more contrast with the deafening crescendos and bangs on the table of a bunch of Greeks, and their continuous astonishing gestures.
Mind, in this respect being English is less like hard work...
Nah, come on, a side issue of rhythm in language should have plenty of relevance to rhythm in ITM...
I was talking about English speakers though, that includes American , Irish etc etc
''There were no rules'' yeah and the queen Idolises johnny Rotten!
The rules of punk were defined by the punks, so some things were, and some weren't. Abba weren't....Crass were. The rules were unwritten , as are those of ITM , but to therefore think they don't [did'nt] exist is a fallacy.
Why some things were and some weren't punk relates to the subculture, often taken in opposition to things 'not punk' .
Back to ITM, there are rules of behaviour, musical rules such as play in tune, play in the same key, in the same rhythm, etc etc. to say there are no rules allows some ejit to pile in, play out of tune in the wrong key and WTF its punk right? This is obviously nonsense.
jig proclaims, in typical dogmatic fashion, that 'there are rules' but is unable to tell us what those rules are, beyond the fantastic statement "play in tune, play in the same key, in the same rhythm, etc etc."
So THAT's what distinguishes ITM from all the other music that the human race has produced over the last thousand years. Gosh.
Jig, I was there when punk happened! You weren't (unless you somehow bunked off third-year maths for the afternoon). Maybe you managed to attend one of the gigs I MC'd.
The only rule of punk (and, therefore, meaningless because it was the only one) was 'do what you want to do'.
And most people who were around the scene at the time simply regarded Crass as a bunch of middle-class wasters.
What jig does not realise, among very, very many other things, is that to say "there are no rules" is not to say that musical anarchy should reign. It merely means that we do not need some elder or better to pontificate about the right or wrong way to learn, play or enjoy the thing we call ITM. I remember, as a good Catholic lad, thinking that I couldn't possibly do anything that didn't have at least a hint of sin about it, because Original Sin had been visited upon me for starters and, moreover, I was basically nothing other than a miserable wretch in the eyes of the Lord. So that was my life ruined. I refuse to be the same with ITM. It's a wonderful world of pure-droppists, fusionistas and middle-of-the-roaders that provide all of us with at least something to relish. No-one should be expected to enjoy all of it, and someone whose taste is not satisfied by a particular band/artist should desist from complaining that "it ain't ITM." Whatever your particular bent, you have to admit that ITM has heart and soul a-plenty and will never capitulate in the face of some trend or other that threatens to rip it away from its roots. Let's celebrate the diversity, sack the gurus and eschew the very thought of rules! And, while we're at it, sod scales and arpeggios!
Oh, do control yourself, Muse, you're out of your depth.
And many people here might have a higher opinion of you if you bothered to include some biographical information in your membership details. The absence of such leads me, for one, to question your credentials.
Do you really think that anyone has to impress you with their credentials? LOL your not a music critic here mac, just another member of thesession.org. Perhaps if you got of your high horse and learnt a bit of humility you might be a better human being.
No, Muse, but you regularly slag off people on this site without anybody knowing a single thing about you. Most of us reveal something about ourselves in our membership details, why don't you?
Jig, your posts and humility? Ever heard of pot and the kettle?
And I was a musician long before you were born, mate, and long before I started writing about music, so leave it out.
My point, which you chose to ignore, is yet again that you don't know what you're talking about. Hasn't that one sunk into your incredibly dense cerebral cortex yet?
Trust me Mac, you would be underwhelmed by my bio.
I do appreciate the vast majority of responses to my posts. My whole purpose in this one was sheer joy in swinging the rhythm. It is not something anyone has to do. I could care less about whether there are rules or not. Still a bit confused how it became so important. Steve, I like you O.K. but what is all the obsession with religion? Swing it, play it straight, whatever blows your reeds.
Cheers!
Out of his depth ~ muser
;) hope somebody recognized my cheapshot for what it really is.
Look up "obsession" in a dictionary, Muse old chap. Last time I looked it up it didn't mean "to mention something lightheartedly and very, very occasionally." Still, I accept that language can drift. *Sigh*
*we,* were discussing rhythmic variation, a pet hobby of mine. From the scitch snap to the kerry slide.
Back to language, perhaps the regional accents and language has a distinct effect on the regional rhythmic style....
After all Seanos singing is closely linked with the language, the phraseing and rhythmic drive ......
I didn't think sean nós had very much to do with "rhythmic drive" actually, though I predict you're going to tell me I have that 'arris about face. I regard the Scotch snap (note spilling please) as an ornamental device rather than a rhythmic issue, though I predict, again, that you'll tell me I just don't get it. We could certainly talk about the rhythms of the tunes that happen to contain Scotch snaps if you like. We could probably reach an accommodation about "Kerry slides" I suppose. But only maybe.
spilling? was that intintional?
seriously though, The 'scotch snap' is a rhythmical device. used as an ornament, then yes, it would be ornamental, but it is a basic character of a lot of tunes. Not, in those cases, an ornament but a basic part of the tune, an integral rhythmic motif. The essence of the tune can be lost with a flattening out of the rhythme.
Now I use these dotted rhythmes a lot as an ornament. but if you listen to a lot of Piobrioch and highland pipe music as I do you would realise that it is not ornament . As a drummer without a deep knowledge of the tune and idiom then it is baffleing. I speak as a baffled drummer
Sorry, no spell check
It is utterly nugatory to make a comment such as 'After all Seanos singing is closely linked with the language, the phraseing and rhythmic drive.'
Sean-nós *is* the Irish language - the full personification via song of said language's utterly lyrical qualities. Many of the 'big songs' of sean-nós derive from the Irish-language poets of some three hundred years ago and more.
Some of the melodies of said songs are undoubtedly shared with the tunes of the Irish harp tradition, but who know which came first?
One thing is clear, however, and that is that the sean-nós tradition has nothing to do with 'rhythmic drive'. It's the singer's version of the song, his or her own interpretation of the intrinsic link between the lyrics and the melody, which drives this tradition.
Sure, there are Irish language songs which use the melody of a traditional dance tune, but, for the most part, the airs are very much different indeed.
The rhythms are different
The rhythms are different
In an earlier thread I said something about pointed vs. rounded rhythms.
It was a followup to Dickens statement about listening to more Scottish traditional music.
Rounded refers to the tendency in staid musical rhythms to give notes as equal a value as possible.
As in contemporary well-heeled classical. Pointed rhythms do not. Such as the tendency of Irish jigs to have a 'lilting rhythm, or Scottish reels to have more swing, or Shetland tunes being clearly syncopated. Point is trad music is not even-tempered. Also each style of trad varies from other styles.
Now if any of you lurking out there is a critic please do tell me, "What do I have wrong?"
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by Ben Steen
Re: The rhythms are different
The range of styles and practices in "classical" music is enormous,
so every generalization about it will fail. Aside from that I can't complain.
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by Hup
Re: The rhythms are different
There
are
no
rules
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by Steve Shaw
Re: The rhythms are different
Absolutely mhuppert & it is the contemporary clasical musicians who do a disservice to that music by trying to limit it's range to suit their own tastes. I think the major criticism on this site about classical music is mainly aimed a baroque &/or the 20th/21st c. interpretation of 'classical' music. Some of the old timers had alot of spirit!
Steve ~ exactly what rules have I presented?
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by Ben Steen
Re: The rhythms are different
I just said there are no rules. I wasn't trying to contradict anything you said, which would have been difficult, as your posts so far have been somewhat incomprehensible anyway.
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by Steve Shaw
Re: The rhythms are different
What part of the post needs explanation?
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by Ben Steen
Re: The rhythms are different
Most of your first post, old chap. Perhaps it's just me getting old, but I tire very easily of posts that require me to do the mental processing for which, with just a little more care, the poster could have eliminated the need.
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by Steve Shaw
The rhythms are different
Noted.
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by Ben Steen
Re: The rhythms are different
"I think the major criticism on this site about classical music is mainly aimed a baroque &/or the 20th/21st c. interpretation of 'classical' music. Some of the old timers had alot of spirit!"
Major criticism aimed at baroque...Go dissing on baroque what? Baroque music - with its piece-sensitive tunings, multiple temperaments, particular ornamentation and a focus on improvisation and personal creativity - can definitely not be mistaken for "stodgy classical" or whatever, and the Baroque old timers had a heck of a lot of spirit in themselves, thank you. For that matter, it's not dissimilar from the trad music we play.
--DtM
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by Dan the Man
Re: The rhythms are different
getting back to the topic ......................
Have you thought that it might be in part due to the influence of the different dance styles the music has been used for ?
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by bazouki dave
Re: The rhythms are different
I think you're absolutely right about dance influences, bd and rtf, for instance, a hornpipe could be played slowly and heavily dotted for a solo hard shoe dance, the same tune might be played fast and less dotted for set dancing.
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by cathycook
Re: The rhythms are different
There
are
rules.
Whether you follow them is a different matter.
This hippy ethos in music just makes little sense. Without rules and structure you certainly don't have ITM. Even the most radical punk and metal abide by the rules of their genre. Though they will stretch the boundaries.
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by piobagusfidil
Re: The rhythms are different
If you are *really* interested, you should look at the study of languages as done by real linguists (not the idiots who claim that there are "rules" or that there are "no rules"). The same thing applies to music
There are "right" ways of playing and "wrong" ways of playing music and there is all the stuff in the middle. With classical music is is sometimes possible to look at the sheetmusic and say "that was definitely played right/wrong". With trad, there is no objective yardstick. In other words, there are "rules", but they cannot be formulated in a prescriptive way and, only rarely can they be formulated in a descriptive way.
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by Tirno
Re: The rhythms are different
Suggested reading: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001843.html
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by Tirno
Re: The rhythms are different
As an idiot/hippy who claims there are no rules, I challenge you to tell me what they are. Your post says they can't be formulated in a prescriptive way and only rarely in a descriptive way (Note to self: more mental processing to do there, Shaw...). You admit that there's no objective yardstick. So you're really telling me that there are rules but you can't tell me what they are.
The trouble with ITM is that you sometimes get people who tell you that you have to do such-and-such this way, that way or the other way. You know, your hornpipe wasn't authentic because you didn't play a triplet at the end of the first time throough thge A part, sort of thing. More often, they'll just talk behind their hand. Well, trust the people, say I. I think nearly all the fun in ITM comes from doing your own thing in your own way. You fit in with the crowd with your own voice but you can blend as well. Someone who heard my CD clips emailed me to say I should have played all the reels straight. Oh yeah? The last thing I'm going to do is to join the lads in the pub then pontificate about ways of playing that I read in a book I shouldn't agree with. If you don't like the fact that Four Men and a Dog play very fast, you don't say they've broken the rule about speed. You say you don't like it at that speed because...(add own reason).
So do tell us, rule-makers. What's the right and the wrong ways to play hornpipes? Am I forbidden to play slow airs when I don't know the Gaelic words? Should I play everything at dance-speed?
When I say there are no rules, I mean that nothing is out of bounds. I do not mean that there are no practices that will get you frowned upon or squeezed out of your session if you keep doing it. As far as I'm concerned, rules are anti-fun. You can respect and celebrate the tradition without a po-faced anti-fun rule-book drawn up by some Guru or other who probably couldn't knock a decent tune out of comb and paper.
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by Steve Shaw
Re: The rhythms are different
'There are no rules' is a rule.
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by wolfbird
Re: The rhythms are different
No. It is a necessary statement poo-pooing rules. If there really were agreement that no rules exist then the statement "There are no rules" would indeed appear to constitute a rule, of sorts, but then you wouldn't need to say it except to those poor souls who asked you for the ITM rule book. But, in my case, I am making a statement to the effect that the rules (which can't actually be stated - some rules!) perceived to exist by some are in fact illusory. That is not a rule. It is a statement of the status quo. Were it to be a rule it would sit in contravention of all the other rules (if you believe in them) and you can't have that. It would be like saying that there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Ghost, but there is no God. It is merely affirmation that the rules are not there. Were I to have said "there can be no rules," then I accept that you could justifiably have accused me of formulating a rule. I have to go and lift a parsnip now before it goes dark.
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by Steve Shaw
Re: The rhythms are different
Yes, Steve. Perhaps jig, who regularly condradicts himself, would like to tell us what the 'rules' of ITM and Punk actually are ( and what a 'hippy ethos' is, and what rules distinguish a hippy ethos from his own.)
IMHO, regarding music and the various techniques used to produce it, there is only one rule: it must sound good to my ears.
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by wolfbird
Re: The rhythms are different
My main interest is rhythmic differences within trad.
I would like to hear more about how dance styles effect rhythm. Irish vs. Scottish, stepdance vs. ceilidh, dancing in a kitchen session at midnight vs. dancing in a large community hall.
;)
Different instruments play a big part. Highland bagpipes & Uilleann pipes each have their own effect on rhythm. Do the pipes effect dance music more or does dance music effect piping rhythm (& ornamentation)?
Another thing about dance. Is there more variety of rhythmic styles in Scottish dance than Irish?
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by Ben Steen
Re: The rhythms are different
There are rhythmic styles in Scottish music that do not appear in Irish, I'm thinking particularly of Strathspeys, where the rhythm is heavily dotted, even more so than a slow hornpipe, and sometimes the dotting is reversed, i.e. short note before long, in hornpipes it is always long before short. I imagine this fits particular steps in the dance, although I don't know much about Scottish dancing.
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by cathycook
Re: The rhythms are different
I went to a pipe workshop in Armagh a while back - it was pointed out that the dance rhythms of strathspeys etc would vary depending on where the dance was danced and whether it was solo or a group dance - a solo dancer bouncing on the spot will set a certain rhythm, a couple dancing in a tiny cottage making tiny steps will move quickly, whereas people in posh frocks in a big hall will take longer steps, which will prbably take longer and require a more pointed rhythm.
Most music is written unpointed, even when it is not played that way - in some circumstances it would have been played that way though. If no-one is dancing, play it any way that you (or the audience) like - but it is a shame when people forget the roots (imho anyway)
BTW, what does ITM stand for ?
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by greg_in_london
Re: The rhythms are different
I'm puzzled by your comment, Cathy. If the highlands played in Donegal are derived from strathspeys, how can you state that this particular Scottish rhythmic style does not appear in Irish music?
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by MacCruiskeen
The rhythm
Any examples of the Donegal style?
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by Ben Steen
Re: The rhythms are different
The 'highlands' that I've heard sound more like a scottish 2 4 quickstep or shottische - not like a strathspey (at least not how you hear them on the pipes) - the pointing is less emphasised.
It's possible that the highland is closer to how the tunes were played in the C19 and Strathspeys may have become increasingly pointed - who can tell - but it's certainly a rhythm that is inthe scottish tradition now that is not in the Irish.
On the other hand Irish music has slides which don't exist in the scottish tradition, but do (usually as single jigs) in the english.
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by greg_in_london
Re: The rhythms are different
Regarding rules... I think I agree with you, Steve. Our position depends not on our attitude to the relationship between ITM and rules, but to a nitpicking over the semantics of the word "rules". In the sense you are using, there are no "rules".
I'm afraid I will draw again the parallel with languages. Pragmatically, there are "rules" because otherwise we could not convey meaning and thus communicate with each other. Everybody has their own correctness conditions regarding whether a sequence of sounds is correct, whether it conveys meaning and whether that meaning is "meaningful". ("purple ideas sleep furiously" and "I school gone young when" being examples of the latter two.) Because of the necessity of communication and the way language evolves and is learnt, correctness conditions across a community are reasonably similar.
In the same way, ITM will have correctness conditions. They are what allows people who don't know each other to sit down and have a few tunes. They will also prevent people who don't "speak ITM" or who speak a different dialect of ITM from joining (of course, they can join in, just as I can speak English with someone who has different correctness conditions, but it will not be the same. I won't be able to be as subtle, I won't be able to make the same jokes etc.).
Then comes the problem of labels... Sometimes you call what you do ITM because that's what you think it is. Sometimes you call it that because you have to call it something. Sometimes it gets called ITM in spite of all your attempts to say "no it isn't". So out of all the people who play the stuff, some kind of global correctness conditions emerge, existing on a continuum that is no longer geographical or social, but just based on taste.
I think it is important to realise that we do exist in a world where some things, like music and language, have "rules" - not rules that have to be followed or that can be broken, but rules of a fleeting nature that will govern where something belongs, whether it feels right, etc.
Sorry for the hijack
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by Tirno
Re: The rhythms are different
There is a rhythmic quality to language which changes depending on which words you choose & whether you say them or read them.
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by Ben Steen
Re: The rhythms are different
Absolutely, I can tell when people are speaking English from a distance, I cant hear the words at all, but the rhythm is unmistakeable. When compared with German, Italian and Spanish.
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by piobagusfidil
Re: The rhythms are different. How Strathspey-like are Highlands?
John Doherty’s, and especially Mickey Doherty’s & Neillie Boyle’s way of playing highlands had the heavy Scottish swing, much like the Strathspey playing of the West Highlands of Scotland (not quite as strong as the broken chord-like playing of Scott Skinner & the North-East style. But Altan, for example, play highlands in a much less snappy way. In particular the “Scottish-Snap” rhythm (the semi-quaver followed by dotted-quaver, played with considerable kick) is almost never to be heard from Altan. I really don’t know why this is, when I was a kid all the players I heard in the Rosses area certainly played highlands in a much more Scottish style than Altan do. And in South Donegal the older players like Con Cassidy and Francie Byrne played with a highly Scottish sounding rhythm. (Though Donegal never had the strict dotted rhythm of the military or competition pipers, and as Danny O'Donnell pointed out, they tended to play with much less aggressive rhythm than Scott Skinner.) Just listen to Mickey Doherty’s amazingly rhythmic playing of the highland ‘Hopping Biddy’ on the CD “The Donegal Fiddle”, and compare it to the pathetic rhythmless attempt at Strathspey playing you find in Tommy Peoples’ version of The Laird of Drumblair. No wonder you get people who can’t tell highlands and hornpipes apart! Seriously, where’s the rhythm?
Does the “semi-quaver followed by dotted-quaver” rhythm exist in Irish music? Just look at O’Neill’s collection for the answer! Loads of the tunes have this rhythm. (Why’s it all but died out? As usual, the rot can mainly be attributed to the dreaded Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. And in Donegal perhaps Tommy Peoples and Paddy Glackin must take some of the responsibility) The years have not been kind to rhythmic variety in Irish music, almost everything’s now being played with a fairly straight rhythm, even highlands.
Also, now that I’m here, apparently much Baroque music seems to have been played slightly swung, unlike more modern classical music. But despite the great scholarship done recently on authentic Baroque, many people still play Baroque music just if it were 19th century classical music.
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by dsndfkjasf
Rhythm
How much swing do the dancers want?
Pointed or rounded?
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by Ben Steen
Re: The rhythms are different
neddiescotus, thanks for the note on Baroque music.
The specific criticism I have heard regarding classical music (on this site) is ornamental music is characteristic of Baroque style & it differs from the articulations played in trad music. The term ornamentation is universally used because of it's long history. Yet in Irish Traditional music (ITM) the articulations are used to emphasize the rhythm ~ not add more notes (ornaments)
I find it interesting that some of the classic muiscians composed & played music with swing only to get lost along the way. In that sense there is a parallell with Scottish & Irish music to have a nice swing ~ only to be misplaced over time.
I love a good swinging rhythm. The old aires have a nice swing.
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by Ben Steen
Re: The rhythms are different
Absolutely, I can tell when people are speaking English from a distance, I cant hear the words at all, but the rhythm is unmistakeable. When compared with German, Italian and Spanish.
# Posted on February 13th 2008 by jig
Is it quite hard to tell when people are using written English though, as opposed to ungrammatical gibberish?
# Posted on February 14th 2008 by Steve Shaw
Re: The rhythms are different
Steve, while I disagree with 90% of what you write I certainly can't disagree with your musicianship as demonstrated by your tune samples.
Perhaps the critic who suggested you should 'play all the reels straight' meant you should sober up and lay off the Mary Jane before you do your next recording?
Eno
# Posted on February 14th 2008 by bc_box_player
Re: The rhythms are different
Just say what you disagree with. It's what discussion forums are all about. You sound like a decent geezer though!
# Posted on February 14th 2008 by Steve Shaw
Re: The rhythms are different
Absolutely (about me being a decent geezer, that is...
).
A much smarter bloke than me once defined his idea of hell as 'Eternity stuck in a room with my friends', so it should be with this music.
I can't imagine anything worse than everyone agreeing and playing the tunes exactly the same way as each other ev'ry time they played them. Aaargh!
# Posted on February 14th 2008 by bc_box_player
Re: The rhythms are different
After any time in the Mediterranean and I dare say in other places too, it's crashingly obvious who the English are, as you look around.
They're the ones who don't move. Or rather, they make intermittent spasmodic movements, seemingly curtailed by some inbuilt, permanent stalling mechanism. An arm stretches out across a table and stays there, or a head turns round a bit and stays there, for no particular reason. It is like watching dying crustacea.
And then, they're surprisingly quiet. All the more contrast with the deafening crescendos and bangs on the table of a bunch of Greeks, and their continuous astonishing gestures.
Mind, in this respect being English is less like hard work...
# Posted on February 14th 2008 by nicholas
.
This is a train wreck.
# Posted on February 14th 2008 by Ben Steen
Re: The rhythms are different
Nah, come on, a side issue of rhythm in language should have plenty of relevance to rhythm in ITM...
I was talking about English speakers though, that includes American , Irish etc etc
# Posted on February 14th 2008 by piobagusfidil
Different
I was referring to asides which avoid discussing rhythm.
Most of the responses were excellent.
# Posted on February 14th 2008 by Ben Steen
Swing rhythm
It don't mean a thing . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VulxJnJ0AZE
Think about it!
# Posted on February 14th 2008 by Ben Steen
Re: The rhythms are different
I'm still waiting for jig to tell us all what the rules of punk were/are.
Of course, he'll be unable to do so. There were no rules.
Neddie, I've heard Tommy play 'The Laird of Drumblair' on many occasions and must heartily disagree that his version is 'rhythmless'.
# Posted on February 14th 2008 by MacCruiskeen
Re: The rhythms are different
''There were no rules'' yeah and the queen Idolises johnny Rotten!
The rules of punk were defined by the punks, so some things were, and some weren't. Abba weren't....Crass were. The rules were unwritten , as are those of ITM , but to therefore think they don't [did'nt] exist is a fallacy.
Why some things were and some weren't punk relates to the subculture, often taken in opposition to things 'not punk' .
Back to ITM, there are rules of behaviour, musical rules such as play in tune, play in the same key, in the same rhythm, etc etc. to say there are no rules allows some ejit to pile in, play out of tune in the wrong key and WTF its punk right? This is obviously nonsense.
# Posted on February 14th 2008 by piobagusfidil
Re: The rhythms are different
jig proclaims, in typical dogmatic fashion, that 'there are rules' but is unable to tell us what those rules are, beyond the fantastic statement "play in tune, play in the same key, in the same rhythm, etc etc."
So THAT's what distinguishes ITM from all the other music that the human race has produced over the last thousand years. Gosh.
# Posted on February 14th 2008 by wolfbird
Re: The rhythms are different
Jig, I was there when punk happened! You weren't (unless you somehow bunked off third-year maths for the afternoon). Maybe you managed to attend one of the gigs I MC'd.
The only rule of punk (and, therefore, meaningless because it was the only one) was 'do what you want to do'.
And most people who were around the scene at the time simply regarded Crass as a bunch of middle-class wasters.
Do, please, get a grip.
# Posted on February 14th 2008 by MacCruiskeen
Re: The rhythms are different
What jig does not realise, among very, very many other things, is that to say "there are no rules" is not to say that musical anarchy should reign. It merely means that we do not need some elder or better to pontificate about the right or wrong way to learn, play or enjoy the thing we call ITM. I remember, as a good Catholic lad, thinking that I couldn't possibly do anything that didn't have at least a hint of sin about it, because Original Sin had been visited upon me for starters and, moreover, I was basically nothing other than a miserable wretch in the eyes of the Lord. So that was my life ruined.
I refuse to be the same with ITM. It's a wonderful world of pure-droppists, fusionistas and middle-of-the-roaders that provide all of us with at least something to relish. No-one should be expected to enjoy all of it, and someone whose taste is not satisfied by a particular band/artist should desist from complaining that "it ain't ITM." Whatever your particular bent, you have to admit that ITM has heart and soul a-plenty and will never capitulate in the face of some trend or other that threatens to rip it away from its roots. Let's celebrate the diversity, sack the gurus and eschew the very thought of rules! And, while we're at it, sod scales and arpeggios! 
# Posted on February 14th 2008 by Steve Shaw
Re: The rhythms are different
Well said steve, but dont throw the baby out with the bath water...
# Posted on February 15th 2008 by piobagusfidil
Aside ~
Bitter old men?
# Posted on February 15th 2008 by Ben Steen
Re: The rhythms are different
Oh, do control yourself, Muse, you're out of your depth.
And many people here might have a higher opinion of you if you bothered to include some biographical information in your membership details. The absence of such leads me, for one, to question your credentials.
# Posted on February 15th 2008 by MacCruiskeen
Credentials
I did not know I needed credentials to play traditinal music.
# Posted on February 15th 2008 by Ben Steen
Re: The rhythms are different
Do you really think that anyone has to impress you with their credentials? LOL your not a music critic here mac, just another member of thesession.org. Perhaps if you got of your high horse and learnt a bit of humility you might be a better human being.
# Posted on February 15th 2008 by piobagusfidil
Re: The rhythms are different
No, Muse, but you regularly slag off people on this site without anybody knowing a single thing about you. Most of us reveal something about ourselves in our membership details, why don't you?
Jig, your posts and humility? Ever heard of pot and the kettle?
And I was a musician long before you were born, mate, and long before I started writing about music, so leave it out.
My point, which you chose to ignore, is yet again that you don't know what you're talking about. Hasn't that one sunk into your incredibly dense cerebral cortex yet?
# Posted on February 15th 2008 by MacCruiskeen
Sidetracked rhythm
Trust me Mac, you would be underwhelmed by my bio.
I do appreciate the vast majority of responses to my posts. My whole purpose in this one was sheer joy in swinging the rhythm. It is not something anyone has to do. I could care less about whether there are rules or not. Still a bit confused how it became so important. Steve, I like you O.K. but what is all the obsession with religion? Swing it, play it straight, whatever blows your reeds.
Cheers!
Out of his depth ~ muser
;) hope somebody recognized my cheapshot for what it really is.
# Posted on February 15th 2008 by Ben Steen
Re: The rhythms are different
Look up "obsession" in a dictionary, Muse old chap. Last time I looked it up it didn't mean "to mention something lightheartedly and very, very occasionally." Still, I accept that language can drift. *Sigh*
# Posted on February 16th 2008 by Steve Shaw
Re: The rhythms are different
It's an unreasonable preoccupation.
I was discussing rhythmic variation.
# Posted on February 16th 2008 by Ben Steen
Re: The rhythms are different
*we,* were discussing rhythmic variation, a pet hobby of mine. From the scitch snap to the kerry slide.
Back to language, perhaps the regional accents and language has a distinct effect on the regional rhythmic style....
After all Seanos singing is closely linked with the language, the phraseing and rhythmic drive ......
# Posted on February 16th 2008 by piobagusfidil
Re: The rhythms are different
I didn't think sean nós had very much to do with "rhythmic drive" actually, though I predict you're going to tell me I have that 'arris about face. I regard the Scotch snap (note spilling please) as an ornamental device rather than a rhythmic issue, though I predict, again, that you'll tell me I just don't get it. We could certainly talk about the rhythms of the tunes that happen to contain Scotch snaps if you like. We could probably reach an accommodation about "Kerry slides" I suppose. But only maybe.
# Posted on February 17th 2008 by Steve Shaw
Re: The rhythms are different
spilling? was that intintional?
seriously though, The 'scotch snap' is a rhythmical device. used as an ornament, then yes, it would be ornamental, but it is a basic character of a lot of tunes. Not, in those cases, an ornament but a basic part of the tune, an integral rhythmic motif. The essence of the tune can be lost with a flattening out of the rhythme.
Now I use these dotted rhythmes a lot as an ornament. but if you listen to a lot of Piobrioch and highland pipe music as I do you would realise that it is not ornament . As a drummer without a deep knowledge of the tune and idiom then it is baffleing. I speak as a baffled drummer
Sorry, no spell check
# Posted on February 17th 2008 by piobagusfidil
Re: The rhythms are different
It is utterly nugatory to make a comment such as 'After all Seanos singing is closely linked with the language, the phraseing and rhythmic drive.'
Sean-nós *is* the Irish language - the full personification via song of said language's utterly lyrical qualities. Many of the 'big songs' of sean-nós derive from the Irish-language poets of some three hundred years ago and more.
Some of the melodies of said songs are undoubtedly shared with the tunes of the Irish harp tradition, but who know which came first?
One thing is clear, however, and that is that the sean-nós tradition has nothing to do with 'rhythmic drive'. It's the singer's version of the song, his or her own interpretation of the intrinsic link between the lyrics and the melody, which drives this tradition.
Sure, there are Irish language songs which use the melody of a traditional dance tune, but, for the most part, the airs are very much different indeed.
# Posted on February 17th 2008 by MacCruiskeen
Re: The rhythms are different
Comes to summat when the English need to educate an Irish chap of 80+ years' playing experience about sean-nós...
# Posted on February 17th 2008 by Steve Shaw
Re: The rhythms are different
He's Welsh, Steve, I'm sad to say ...
# Posted on February 18th 2008 by ethical blend
Re: The rhythms are different
I got into severe trouble for saying something very similar to that on Chiff once, Ben....
He isn't really Welsh, is he?
# Posted on February 18th 2008 by Steve Shaw
Different
Does it even matter?
# Posted on February 29th 2008 by Ben Steen