Sometimes I have come across people who have taken lessons from supposed teachers of high caliber, but was surprised that they played along with very few tunes, even at "slow sessions". One can ask them if they know this or that common tune and they don't. If one asks them to start a tune, they play solo because no one knows the tune.
I really can't imagine what a teacher's motive would be to teach obscure tunes or worse, "original" tunes especially if the student doesn't even know the basic ones. I suspect either pride or being swallowed up in the spirit of competitiveness. But that would be self promotion at the expense of the student. There must be other reasons.
Do these obscure or "original" tunes (which actually sound like the common tunes but not as good) teach technique that can't be taught with the basic tunes?
Are there extra points given to a teacher when their little ones play tunes no one else knows?
Not quite the same thing, but I have come across sessions that consist mainly of people from one local class or another , who have a common repertoire of uncommon tunes, but don't know many universally common tunes. It can feel a bit weird.
I suspect it comes about because teachers get bored of the same old tunes.
Secondly, musicians making CDs have to find something a bit different to record (even if they play a pretty standard set of tunes normally) so people who learn off CDs (as I'm sure all of us do to some extent) can end up with a rather exclusive repertoire.
Yes, that happens a lot. Teachers get bored with the same stuff, students want to learn the latest "fashionable" tunes etc.
I've noticed that many of the really good young players (ref to Scottish sessions here) just don't know most of the standard and older(not always so common) tunes and "sit these out".
No doubt, they could learn them if they wanted but they either don't choose or are not encouraged to do so. They will then "tear into" their own tunes without any bother and, of course, will often have their own sessions.
I think this is a problem with courses whether they be just basic "adult learning" or folk degree etc is that obscure repertoires tend to arise. If you are going along to a session or are handed down tunes from older musicians, you'll get to know the standard repertoire much quicker.
Of course, there's no reason why the better new/obscure tunes can't be absorbed into the tradition through time but it's a slow process.
Unfortunately, I too also have quite a hotch potch of tunes in my repertoire..probably because I stated late.. but I can usually play a substantial amount of those in an average session. *Usually* being the key word here. )
I think blaming the teacher is entirely the wrong approach here. I'd be worried about anyone who couldn't learn the Kesh jig on their own---actually more to the point, I'd be worried about someone who wasn't motivated to learn the Kesh jig on their own. With all the music we have access to these days, especially the internet (the Comhaltas site is a perfect example), there is NO excuse for not making an effort to learn common tunes (let us not forget Dow's list on this site!). It is not the teacher's fault, they shouldn't have to spoon-feed these basic tunes to people. I'd much rather bring in a tune to my lesson that I've learned on my own and then have my teacher help me refine it---or even better, have him teach me a tune I've never heard before. He has some really wonderful tunes in his repertoire that I never hear anyone else in town playing, and I feel lucky to be able to learn them and maybe introduce them to my session mates some day.
"there is NO excuse for not making an effort to learn common tunes "
Kennedy, I agree that it's not necessarily the teacher to blame although it's a problem that's more likely to occur on courses, workshops and the like.
There's also the scenario when a tutor won't want to teach a tune which even one or two of the students might already know. Therefore, he/she might choose something more unusual.
One tutor absolutely refused to teach us well known tunes such as Miss Mcleod's reel although he did give us some fairly well known ones.
"Learn them yourselves" he would say and so many of us would. However, there are some players who, for whatever, reason, choose not to venture into the "big bad world" of sessions etc and once they build up a small repertoire are content to just play with fellow students(and ex students) possibly in "house sessions" and the like.
Adult beginners might feel particularly reluctant to venture out but younger musicians too often have a tendency to stick together even although they might be really good players.
A know a good fiddler who plays few of the common session tunes. He says he only wants to play tunes that appeal to him. In other words, he uses his own tastes to establish his repertoire, rather than the tastes of the session.
A friend of his was dismayed that a player of his quality would just sit at a session, rarely playing. "Just go out and learn those session tunes!" But he wouldn't.
When I've taught workshops, I like to give tunes in pairs: a common session tune, and a lovely obscure tune. It's nice for people to have both in their repertoire.
Playing in ceilidh bands is a good antidote to this kind of trendy ghettoism. In order to have a big enough repertoire to play sets all night with a group of pick-up musicians, you have to have a bread and butter basis of common tunes.
Plus, some dances are linked to certain tunes and you just can't avoid them no matter how much you roll your educated young eyes
Well said bren, But a friend of mine after 13 yrs of ceili band wont play reels. He just wont! Jigs Hornpipes Polka's marches, set dances,Airs etc great, but reels ! no way. so, too much of a good thing!
The purpose with learning an instrument is for the joy of the music and the lesson is really just a start. I am increasingly of the mind that one has to set aside time separate from practice (ise) to just explore other things independently.
Could be the reed settings on your box. Changing ornament on something. Or learning tried and true but boring the the professionals common tune.
Hey if I don't know them and start working on them, it's a bit hard to claim to be bored by them!
''there is NO excuse for not making an effort to learn common tunes''
How do you define a common tune though? ~I mean If you are just exposed to a particular regional repertoire and learn these tunes then that's what you are doing surely? learning common tunes. So it depends on the 'area' you are talking about.
''They will then "tear into" their own tunes without any bother and, of course, will often have their own sessions.''
To me this sounds like typical teenage' us and them,' old vs young' stuff.
They want to play young tunes with their young friends.... up yours to the old fogies playing them old tunes. They are creating their own boundaries. If you went and learnt their tunes they would have to get even more far out, ABI sessions? or Balkans 7/8 sessions?
They probably actually know all those old tunes but disdain to play them....
I've always used my own tastes to establish my repertoire. But if you go to decent sessions with decent players, then the "tastes of the session" amount to more or less the same thing. It's no accident that the majority of the so called common tunes are common tunes. It's because they are good tunes.
Yes, you have to give them a rest, but I would like to emphasise that "common" in no way corrolates to "boring". In fact, it's usually the reverse
I do get torn between what I want to learn next and what I feel I should learn next. I try to strike a balance between common session tunes and other tunes I want to learn. I want to be able to join in as much as possible at sessions but get distracted by other tunes!!
Like Richard said, it may only be because they play the tunes that attract them. One shouldn't feel obligated to learn all of the "common" session tunes just because they're common and everyone plays them. Granted that you'd be playing more, but why even bother playing tunes that you don't even enjoy?
"I really can't imagine what a teacher's motive would be to teach obscure tunes or worse, "original" tunes especially if the student doesn't even know the basic ones."
Despite the possibility that students may not be learning more basic tunes, knowing more obscure tunes shouldn't be considered a bad thing. Personally, I find it a bit of a drag if the only thing played in a session is "common session tunes". It becomes awfully predictable and there's nothing new to look forward to every week. If anything, I'd take advantage of the opportunity and record these obscure tunes that said student/s play/s!
I also agree with Kennedy, you shouldn't have to rely on your teacher for learning tunes. You have an ear, you have CDs, you have the internet... so use it! When it comes to work shops and the like (especially at those week long festivals), I find it a waste of time if all you're going to learn is a "common session tune" every morning. Find the tutors that focus more on the technique than the tunes, you'll learn a Hell of a lot more and you'll be able to apply it to everything you have learned and will learn. Do the homework and get your money's worth!
If there's no room to appreciate the more obscure tunes then how will it survive? The teacher's could be teaching these tunes because they may be tunes that used to be popular when they were younger or perhaps if they're relatively new to the area, then tunes that are from a different area's repertoire. Back in the day in Ireland, you'd be lucky if someone from Kerry could play a couple of tunes with a Donegal musician!
For some teachers, I think, sessions and the attendant repertoire are not the be-all and end-all of Irish traditional music. I have to agree with kennedy and others in that, after a certain point, it's up to the individual to learn the tunes they want to play.
Gee DJF, I think Michael was actually being nice on that one. Just wait until he really rears up, you'll know it.
I agree that playing with a ceili band will cure anyone of their lack of common tunes. It will also make you queasy at the thought of Sally Gardens or Silver Spear...or, heaven forbid, a set of both twice during the Clare Lancers because there's a few newbies in the band and we're trying to include and please everyone.
Whew. But that's why I come here to get it off my chest. There, I feel much better. I'm all ready to play it one more time now. I take it one set at a time. (HA!)
My humble opinion is folks should play what they enjoy playing. If that means obscure tunes, fair play to them. Moreover, folks playing obscure tunes are contributing to the repertoire of tomorrow's ITM musicians in ways those of us playing only the standards are not.
However, the obvious consequence of acquiring only an obscure repertoir is you will spend a lot ot time playing with yourself (no pun intended), and not much time sharing the music with friends (i.e., a session) - one of the the main attractions of ITM for me.
I love finding a session with an identity, a focus, with its own distinct local identity, tradition ~ rather than the standardized common tunes and common settings, the sameness that too may sessions have, in content and in approach to the music. That also applies to individual musicians, as some favour one flavour over another, which is OK. I have respect for those brave souls with centres... Mostly, those who do tend to focus on a region, haven't a problem sitting out the occasional tune or set just to listen in, or knowing a few 'standards' in standard settings.
For me it isn't about boredom. If I've learned one way with 'The Rakes of Kildare' I won't force it on you. If your way is different I'll sit back and enjoy the listen. I might not want to learn that way with it, but I'll respect the difference... If I'm in a teaching situation I make an effort to find out how a given tune is played locally, and while I might give them some idea of how it varies from one place or player to another, I'll tend to do my damnedest to teach it as it happens locally, even if it means I have to relearn the tune myself.
I have to admit that sometimes that feels uncomfortable, remembering the folks I may have learned the tune from originally, and that pull, to want to carry on that tradition that has been passed to me. I feel slightly like I've sold out one care for another... I care and respect those sources, and I care and respect the place I find myself in at the time... I hate the 'standardization' of it all, the leveling and potential sameness in general content, form and treatment, as promoted by recordings, organizations and sessions... That is also why my greatest love is for playing with one to a few people rather than en masse, listening and learning their way with a thing rather than that collective mishmash and grind of the usual session, or the digitally diddled recording...the 'standards'... In my own standards is an appreciation for the unique and the individual... That doesn't mean I don't also appreciate and participate in 'mass culture'...
“I really can't imagine what a teacher's motive would be to teach obscure tunes…
…especially if the student doesn't even know the basic ones”
I take it that the “basic tunes” here are the ones that have become popular in nearly every pub session in Dublin, Galway, London, New York, etc. If the function of a teacher were to prepare people for bog-standard Irish pub sessions, you would have a point. But for students who are genuinely interested in traditional Irish music, learning to play like everyone else might not be their ultimate goal.
The reason I teach tunes that are not universally known, or uncommon versions of well-known tunes is that I teach ‘Traditional’ music, i.e., music from a particular region. I could teach the standard versions but that would mean killing off a regional style that is already under siege from the kind of standardizing mentality that has dominated this discussion thus far. If a student really wants to learn some tune or other I will of course teach them it, but if there’s a local version of the tune that’s the one I will teach by default. If a student just wants to learn the standardized form of generic so called ‘Irish trad.’ they can go to any standard generic teacher to learn rather than a musician schooled in the tradition.
Pub sessions and the requirement that everyone play the same versions of the same tunes in any pub in the world is killing off actual traditional music. The international session craze is quite destructive to real Irish music. If the crowded pub is to be the main forum for traditional music, slow tunes will disappear (as has been happening for the past half century), fast, loud playing will be encouraged (which is sadly becoming very common; flute playing in particular suffers greatly from this malady.)
I must agree broadly with what Seamus Tansey said on the TG4 programme “Canúintí Ceoil” (literally, “Musical Dialects”, about regional styles of Irish traditional music).
“If the different regional traditions die out, as they are at the moment, well, Irish music is dead. You’ll have some other thing representing Irish music. You’ll have a stereotyped revivalism, which Comhaltas are doing, were everyone is playing the same, from Cork to Donegal. Every treble will be the same. You’ll have about five or six hundred Joe Burkes, you’ll have about a thousand Tommy Peoples, and you’ll have maybe two thousand Matt Molloys. And all playing very nice, great, technically beautiful music, but it’ll be all the bloody same!”
I suspect Mr. Tansey is overstating the case. No matter how hard I try, I still don't sound like Tommy Peoples....
Seriously, many of us are acutely aware of the old regional distinctions, and we play, at least in part, to keep those distinctions and so-called obscure tunes alive. Not all sessions are slugfests of nothing but standardized settings of "common" reels.
Regional styles developed due to isolation. But despite that isolation, players would absorb influences from traveling musicians, other musical genres (e.g., John Doherty had a wealth of Continental show tunes in his repertoire), and--by the early 1900s--recordings.
Now that travel is relatively easy, and recordings are everywhere, regional distinctions are being blurred. But I'd argue that personal styles are as varied and vibrant as they ever were--and personal style has always been important. I'm guessing this is the direction that traditional Irish music will evolve in. As a living art form, this music can't go back to the isolation and deprivation of 200 years ago. But it can continue to grow in rich new ways that still honor all that came before. In fact, an emphasis on personal style is now reviving an interest in solo playing, which gets much closer to the roots of this music than any concern about "regional" style.
The regional/personal style issue is certainly at the heart of why I learn and play obscure tunes. When Armand there and meself have our flat session set up, it's to be lots of tunes that nobody really plays anymore, tunes that are in danger of being forgotten if we don't: lots of old tunes from Kerry, lots of unnamed tunes from Paddy Cronin, lots of transcribed bits from Tunes of the Munster Pipers. If a repertoire is unusual or uncommon, but good and interesting and fun, it shouldn't be a divisive point - it's an opportunity to learn something interesting and fun!
This opinion has been stated over and over on this site, and it is simply false. I will restate what I have written before about this:
If you take Donegal fiddle playing as an example, many of the greatest Donegal players of the 20th century spent a good deal of time working in Scotland or in the America. (e.g., Francie Byrne, Con Cassidy, Danny O’Donnell, and most of the previous generation of fiddle players in my family.) The reason Donegal Gaelic is distinct from the Gaelic of Kerry or South Uist is not because the people were poorly travelled, but because the Gaelic comes from a living community of speakers, and the same goes for music.
This is "purist" theory taken to the extreme. Someone plays "The Kesh Jig" and people sneer, or sings "Green Fields Of France" and people sneer, because it is well known. I am sick to death of "Willie McBride" BUT it is still a great song.
Real purists take a great delight in producing the obscure, as they think it makes them stand out from the common herd, which contains the likes of Molloy, Gavin, Hayes, Burke, and their ilk.
In short, these teachers are idiots, trying to preserve the tradition for the chosen few rather than the many. A lot of Irish language enthusiasts used to suffer from the same problem.
Couldn't agree more with you "BB" - it's these so called purists who'd kill the music in the same way that they nearly seen off the language but I think common sense is starting to prevail in both areas and we may not be too late to turn things around. The music is an art form to be cherished and preserved in all its aspects (and this includes obscure tunes and the various old collections) but just as important (if not more so) is the social aspect where musicians can interact as in the session situation. It would be a sad day if musicians could no longer play the classics such as the Bucks, Foxhunters, Lark in the Morning .. etc, etc.
Well said Bliss - It seems to me a good teacher would send their pupils out into the session world with some useful tunes under their belt as well as an appreciation to go out and discover the obscure. However, I would wager most rank beginners wouldn't know a common tune from an obscure one anyway until they went to play it at their local. Cheers to somebody like Richard Cook in the posts above who tries to teach a good mix of both. It seems to me teachers who flat out refuse to teach the common tunes do their students a disservice and have simply become too board with their occupation.
Neddiescotus, um, this tradition predates 1900. The regional styles were already well developed by the 20th century. But 200 years before that, people no doubt played the music of their community, influenced perhaps by outsiders passing through or people returning home after travels, but to a much, much smaller degree than in the 1900s.
That's really the point, eh? By the early 1900s, travel and recordings were both having a dramatic influence on once isolated regional musical tastes and repertoires.
Bannerman, how do you go from a few teachers giving their students obscure tunes to the old chestnuts being banished from our repertoire? I don't see anyone suggesting that.
As Jeremy says on the home page here, it's a mixture of the well known and the obscure that make for a great session.
Also bear in mind that the typical pub session is not the apex of this musical tradition. Sessions are a relative newcomer, and the music survived as a primarily solo form for many generations. Part of what Tansey is complaining about is the trend--due to the pressures of ensembles playing common tunes in sessions--of standardizing the music in a way that would not happen if we all played solo. I'd mostly agree with him on that point--lots of people focus more now on playing in unison at sessions, rather than learning and developing their own, idiosyncratic approaches to the tunes. But I doubt that even this trend is strong enough to derail the tradition.
We're skirting around that other debate that usually rises out of such discussions ~ is it regional or is it personal... If you extract a handful of musicians from that idealized past, from say one region, or county ~ Limerick, or wherever, and you then compare styles or repertoire, you usually find that even where they do share repertoire, they have their own unique way with it. That may be based on a number of variables ~ such as sources and influences ~ did they work for a time in London, or Scotland ~ did they own a Victrola and have access to a selection of recordings, and then ~ of who, had they lessons from Johnny Doherty or Tom Billy Murphy? I can say I love the music of a region, but looking closer I see individuals in style and choice of music, with some things shared, but no mirror images, not even in those trying to mimic Coleman, Doran or Molloy... Denis Murphy and Padraig O'Keeffe are hardly the same, nor are those related, such as Johnny or Simie or Mickey Doherty... Viva la difference!
I have some salvation, in that while I'll support what is local around me, I generally slip in something of variance in the process of passing on as best I can what has been shared with me. For one thing, I don't put all the focus on the tune or the technique, I colour it with context and usually a lot of laughter, the 'craic', and I maybe one out of every 3 or 4 will be something in the area of the 'lesser' known. I have even been known to pass on the way of one of my sources which is different from the norm, but not necessarily disagreeable with it if in the same company, being played alongside one another... I try to give them raisins and other treats with the porridge...
One proof of 'life' is the ability of a thing to adapt...to renew itself in a changing situation, and that sometimes includes changing with that situation ~ such as through the mutation of tradition to include 'ceili band', 'session', 'group performance'...the banjo...etc...
Regional style is just a generalization based on personal approaches to the music. I'd rather focus on the personal nuances than some 30,000-feet stereotype any day.
I think Seamus Tansey is right.
It becomes more clear if you extend the language analogy.
He's saying that in reality there's no such thing as an "Irish style".
Think about accents: there's no such thing as an "English accent'".
An educated Londoner sounds nothing like a Cockney, and neither sounds anything like somebody from Newcastle, or the West Country, or Birmingham, or Liverpool.
I often hear Americans trying to do an "English accent" and it is a jumble of all the above.
I once heard a Scottish woman trying to do an "American accent" and likewise it was a jumble of Southern, New York, General Midwestern, etc.
This is why it's so difficult for a non-Irish person to play Irish music convincingly. They almost invariably sound like a jumble of various regional styles.
On the topic of "what sorts of tunes should ITM teachers teach" , I suppose it depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to produce session players, of course you would teach the repertoire of the session the student will be attending.
If the goal is to pass on the personal style and repertoire of the teacher, so be it.
As long as the teacher and student communicate as to their goals, and they are in agreement, all should be well.
I was working my way through a guitar tutor, and after the first couple of pages the tunes became very obscure. The author was quite clear that he did this on purpose so that the student was forced to work the tune out for themselves since they wouldn't already have an idea of how the tune went. It's a very effective technique.
Could this be what the teachers of obscure tunes are trying to achieve?
Slap, slap, slap ~ come on Kennedy, it's in the afternoon now...
"30,000-feet stereotype" ~ Will CPT
Huh? You mean oxygen starved? ~ frozen?
"This is why it's so difficult for a non-Irish person to play Irish music convincingly. They almost invariably sound like a jumble of various regional styles." ~ Captain Cook
So, is that why no one sounds like Seamus Tansey, not by voice or flute or any other way ~ and not even in his own backyard, though the man has done his share of travelling and borrowing and adopting too... I wouldn't have think of putting him up as representative of a specific 'regional style'...
It also depends on the teaching setting. Is it one on one, or a group setting? I've noticed in festival and workshop settings that a teacher will often teach something more obscure, because they're looking to teach something that nobody in the group already knows. But of all the individual lessons I've taken from "well known" players, they'll happily teach me a standard tune - especially if I ask for it directly! So the onus is on the student as much as the teacher.
But I also appreciate the more obscure tunes that I've gotten from people. They are usually *great* tunes, ones that I end up sharing with everybody else and making a regular part of our sessions. So I consider it an infusion of life into the session. It's nice to learn different stuff that you wouldn't necessarily find on a recording or in other local sessions.
"So, the onus is on the student as much as the teacher." ~ the Rev
Yes, it is about communication. You both, or all, come together with ideas, through a quick interchange of preconceptions and wishes you find compromise. When I have been on the recieving end, looking back over notes and information, mostly it has not been obscure tunes and these isn't a choice, the tunes to be taught are already decided, and with few exceptions are usually something also AABB, not multi-part monsters. I have once, no names given, been in repeat situations where the person doing the teaching taught only their tunes, some of which are on site here...
The judgement 'obscure' doesn't come in one size, but in a scale of various weights... And, not everyone agrees on what is 'obscure'... That is also something that can be influenced by the geography, or who or what is or was the main musical influence in the area...
If I were to use the word, 'obscure', which isn't likely, it wouldn't be with regards to a melody but a setting, a way of treating a given melody... That is, of course, influenced by my history with the music...
C, by "30,000 feet" I meant a distant bird's eye view.
In other words, the regional styles have never been as clear and coherent as some people would believe. We've all heard the poppycock about northern fiddlers who single bow everything, at high speeds, never use rolls, and toss in bowed triplets like feed to the chickens. But then you go and listen to John or Simon Doherty, Con Cassidy, the Byrne brothers, Ciaran Tourish, Mairead, Mr. Peoples...suddenly none of the stereotypes apply.
The same holds true of any "regional style." All I'm saying is that I'd rather listen to the individual than worry about whether his or her playing lands squarely in one regional sense of the music. And this tradition has always been more about a personal--rather than some imaginary collective regional--approach to the music.
[crawling far out on an unsupported limb of personal opinion and conjecture]
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire; The Importance of "Obscure" Traditions
Focusing on individual style is fine provided you think that all individuals’ styles are equally distinct, and if you have abandoned the idea that systematic study of traditional music is possible. If they are not equally distinct the question arises, in virtue of what are some more closely related than others? In general, regional traditions seem to form a natural grouping which we can use as a basis for discussion. It certainly is easier always to talk about ‘individual styles’, there’s less work involved and you can avoid talking about commonalities. But if you want to do serious study of Irish traditional music you need to think about the regional traditions.
It is true that the regional distinctions have been around for a long time. I never claimed that they formed in the 20th century. (The poor in Ireland travelled a lot for work, to other parts of Ireland and to Britain, this has been the norm for hundreds of years.) But importantly the claim made frequently on this site that regional distinctions are purely due to lack of exposure to outside influences, lack of travel, and to isolation, amounts to a claim that regional distinctions are musically unimportant (as does the focus on individual styles to the exclusion of regional distinctions). And furthermore, the claim is wrong.
Recent exposure to outside influences has not removed the distinctions amongst regional accents (in Gaelic or in English). And to the degree that some form of generic London accent is spreading and becoming the norm around England (for example), it diminishes the richness of the spoken language. The lurch towards standardization in session-Irish-music is also diminishing the richness of this important musical tradition. Here I am in full agreement with Seamus Tansey! My point is that regional styles and distinctions within regional styles arise from the development of music with living communities, just as distinctions in spoken language do.
In Swedish and Norwegian fiddle music there are similar distinctive regional styles, but they don’t have a serious problem with people rubbishing their importance to the tradition, because their music has not become associated with a one-size-fits-all social pub-scene.
Neddie, I hope we can disagree without getting rancorous over this. It's an interesting topic, and I used to hold a very similar picture of the regional dialects of music as you seem to be suggesting here. In fact, I agree that there are some mildly useful generalizations that can be made about differences between a Donegal style, Sligo style, East Galway style, Clare style, etc. But these generalizations are ridden with exceptions, and are too often presented as absolutes, e.g., "Donegal fiddlers rarely use rolls." That sort of thing is rubbish, eh? To me, it makes far more sense to talk about individual styles, and perhaps local or community styles, as opposed to "regional" styles. The musical tastes across a region or county simply varied too much.
So neddie, on one hand you say that regional accents are still distinctive, despite exposure to outside influences. But in the next breath you say that the London accent is spreading and diminishing those distinctions. Which is it? Either isolation from outside influences has an insular effect, or it doesn't.
I'm more and more convinced that isolation played a key part in shaping a player's sound within a certain region. They heard other local players, but rarely were immersed in a wholly different style. Certainly they'd pick up tunes and stylistic ideas from travelling players or their own travels--that's why we have a stock of common ways to articulate notes across the island. But without isolation, why else was it such a shock when Coleman's records came to Ireland and many if not most of the fiddlers suddenly adopted the so-called "Sligo" style? Because many of them had never heard anything like it before.
Funny--all of the people who've done systematic research on this subject (Hammy Hamilton, Tomas O'Cainann, Brendan Breathnach, Ciaran Carson, Fintan Vallely, Eamonn O'Doherty, Paul de Grae) cite isolation as a key factor. A few examples:
"While great changes were taking place elsewhere in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, in Ireland a society persisted where the great majority of people, denied advancdement or participation in the 'official' life of the country and isolated from change, continued to entertain themselves as they had done in the past...." (From The Northern Fiddler)
"Vernacular landscapes reflected the pre-eminence of locality in the lives of the people, personal mobility was low and restricted. Ways of living and doing things were influenced by local custom, conditions, materials, and resources. Thus, local styles of housebuilding were handed on, ways of farming, cures for ailments, accents and dialects--all are related to landscape diversity. Local styles of singing and playing music are essentially part of the same vernacular tradition. Fiddle-playing, piping, ways of singing, styles of dance, tempo of tunes all reflected the supremacy of the local in the lives of the people. Fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters, handed on music and song from generation to generation, with occasional varied input from outsiders who passed through the community, or from returning migrants. Development of these music landscapes probably mirrored broad topographical features in the sense that the landscape's phyical features and settlement patterns conditioned the flow of people and traditions in it and through it. Tunes and songs and styles of playing flowed through the countryside, through the market hinterlands of towns, along the well-worn tracks of travellers, hucksters, and broadsheet balladeers, beggars, and tramps, journeymen, tinkers, seasonal migrants, leave-taking and returning emigrants. Remoteness, peripherality, and isolation also ensured the survival of the oldest traditions." (From Paul de Grae, in The Companion to Irish Traditional Music, ed. Fintan Vallely).
So it's not just on this board that this opinion is espoused, and it's not just wrong-headed members here who hold isolation up as a factor in preserving local stylistic differences.
Who you calling 'wrong-headed' or 'bird-brained'? ~ Camera-obscura that our heads tend to be.
Often, in my experience, the closer you are to a tradition the blinder you can be to what it shares or what distinguishes it from others, near or far. I remember well a recent series of TV programmes in Ireland where 'experts' were espousing some pretty preposterous statements-of-unquestionable-fact. Our passions sometimes gets the better of us and we talk balderdash. I admit it, I've been there myself. I personally distrust sweeping statements and inflexible attitudes where this tradition is concerned. Music is just too fluid for it to be cast in concrete or steel. Rain is closer to it, as it spreads wildly, like a storm, and saturates every crevice it can leak into. Picking up tunes and tricks off the wireless was common practice across Ireland. Carrying them from one place to the other was as well ~ mazurkas were played across the island, as were highland flings, barndances/schottisches, etc... Reels rolled in like a tsunami. It is unlikely that they came just as the dots in a book of transcriptions. More than melody came with them, and dance was part of that greater influence and motivation... Many of those 'source' musicians in Donegal, as elsewhere, also took part in other music, sometimes other instruments, like the sax, and the influence of the foxtrot is to be found in the set dances. Other influences must be infinite...
Elsewhere, in Cape Breton, influences also came from outside, folks working abroad and returning home ~ influences like the Canadian Old Time Fiddling tradition, which hit radio and TV, and from America too, including in the dance, and from the likes of Jerry Lee Lewis in the piano accompaniment. But it had its 'isolated pockets' too, like 'Down North'... I remember well tales of the one wireless in the community, and everyone gathering to listen to it as a major social activity, including the music... There was also quite a bit of traffic between New England and the island as well, including between Cape Breton and the big cities of Montreal, Ontario, Boston and New York...
I have yet to meet a musician whose ears weren't perked by a good tune, wherever it came from ~ except, for a few modern purists who like to think they are closed off from that outside teasing... Try as you may, a tune that is catchy, however hard you actively ignore it, has a tendency to eventually surface, even if just in an unconscious hum...
Wow, C, you actually worked Jerry Lee Lewis into this discussion!
“Often, in my experience, the closer you are to a tradition the blinder you can be to what it shares or what distinguishes it from others, near or far.”
This is *very* true and the source of much bigotry in many fields. Back in the early days of online forums, I responded to a neophyte question about how similar lute playing is to guitar playing. I had played around on a lute a few times and described how my guitar experience allowed me to pick up a lute and play some tunes – not very well, but at least listenable. Then a fellow popped in and announced that he was a lute player and could assure us that playing the lute was *completely* different from playing the guitar; they had virtually *nothing* in common!
From his point of view, he was right, but to any disinterested observer, the similarities were obvious.
C, I like that analogy to rain--from where I sit, that's exactly how the music comes to me, in a wash of droplets that soak me to the bone. Which is why it's not unheard of (though not entirely common, either) for me to launch into Take Me Out to the Ballgame at a session.
All the more reason to consider the tradition less from a regional view and more from a local and individual view. I think it's more interesting (and realistic) to learn about where Simon Doherty got his tunes and his approach to the fiddle than to ponder all of Donegal as a whole.
I love the playing of Junior Crehan and Bobby Casey. But they are both so much more than exemplars of the "west Clare style," and part of what makes Bobby's music so engaging is how eclectic he was. Few Clare musicians in 1750 had the opportunities to travel and be exposed to other music that Bobby did.
And despite Tansey's worries to the contrary, I don't think Bobby Casey's eclecticism was any threat to the integrity of Clare music or Irish trad music.
For me this music isn't like concrete or like rain, it's more like a really good chicken tikka masala. You gobble it up and really really enjoy the taste of it, but then you find that you've dropped some on your shirt in your haste to get it into your mouth, and the turmeric in the sauce has stained your shirt forever. You wash it again and again to try and get the yellow stains out but you just can't get rid of them.
I agree that there is no single correct description of any regional style, and agree that most generalizations about regional styles tend to be incorrect, e.g., ‘Donegal fiddlers rarely use rolls’, or ‘in Donegal fiddle music there is no discernable swing’, or ‘Donegal fiddlers never slur distinct notes together’; the Donegal fiddlers I know (myself included) play with a considerable swing (quite unlike John Doherty’s reel playing, or Mairéad Ní Mhaonaigh’s playing for instance); they use slurred bowings and use rolls, though they often favour other ornaments where rolls would be the norm in other regions.
“On one hand you say that regional accents are still distinctive, despite exposure to outside influences. But in the next breath you say that the London accent is spreading and diminishing those distinctions. Which is it? Either isolation from outside influences has an insular effect, or it doesn't.”
But this is too simple isn’t it? Regional accents are still distinctive, certainly in spoken English and Gaelic in Ireland, and the ‘Estuary’ accent is creeping further all the time from the greater London region (similarly, Dublin accents have sadly made similar inroads into the surrounding counties). Both are the case, there are still distinctive regional accents, as well as a horrid move towards standardization. Many people keep up a local style of playing even though they are quite familiar with other music. Even if you hold that isolation was the genesis of a certain distinctive style of playing (along with whatever musical factors and influences) it seems simply wrong to say that one’s playing in a regional style is due to one’s isolation. The fact that many great traditional players travelled a great deal without radically changing their local way of playing shows that playing in a certain regional style is not necessarily due to their living in isolation and their lack of exposure to other music. (The reason that dialects of Irish Gaelic are so diverse is that there was no centralised bureaucracy to give rise to Gaelic equivalent of “the king’s English”. So the dialects have been forming in some isolation for over 500 years. This does not mean that the dialects of Irish Gaelic are unimportant to Irish language, indeed the only real Irish Gaelic belongs to one or other of the dialects. The Dublin government standard is Gaelic-lite, an artificial language!)
There seems to be some suggestion in what has been said that we are in a post-regional-style phase of Irish music, and that this is not to the detriment of traditional music. The implication of my opponents’ view is that, because of easier access to travel and mass communication, regional styles are now largely irrelevant to traditional music (or that regional distinctions were not of any great importance to begin with, given that they only arose in the first place due to the isolation of peasant life).
Seamus Tansey and I agree on this at least, that without regional styles there is no traditional music.
I’ll summarize my views on regional styles:
Regional styles exist, they are of musical importance, and there are degrees of similarity of local and individual styles within them.
Replacing talk about genuine regional distinctions and sub-styles with talk of purely individual styles leaves out important content.
Regional styles developed within communities (hence ‘regional’).
Regional styles still exist despite access to different forms of music and exposure to different musical dialects, and despite that fact that many of us musicians have travelled a fair bit.
The view that holds that the ongoing existence of regional styles are purely a product of ‘isolation’, to be transcended or ignored now that we’ve got better communication links, diminishes their importance to the musical culture and is pernicious.
Teaching an Obscure repertoire
Teaching an Obscure repertoire
Sometimes I have come across people who have taken lessons from supposed teachers of high caliber, but was surprised that they played along with very few tunes, even at "slow sessions". One can ask them if they know this or that common tune and they don't. If one asks them to start a tune, they play solo because no one knows the tune.
I really can't imagine what a teacher's motive would be to teach obscure tunes or worse, "original" tunes especially if the student doesn't even know the basic ones. I suspect either pride or being swallowed up in the spirit of competitiveness. But that would be self promotion at the expense of the student. There must be other reasons.
Do these obscure or "original" tunes (which actually sound like the common tunes but not as good) teach technique that can't be taught with the basic tunes?
Are there extra points given to a teacher when their little ones play tunes no one else knows?
Help me to understand.
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by feardearg
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
Not quite the same thing, but I have come across sessions that consist mainly of people from one local class or another , who have a common repertoire of uncommon tunes, but don't know many universally common tunes. It can feel a bit weird.
I suspect it comes about because teachers get bored of the same old tunes.
Secondly, musicians making CDs have to find something a bit different to record (even if they play a pretty standard set of tunes normally) so people who learn off CDs (as I'm sure all of us do to some extent) can end up with a rather exclusive repertoire.
C'est la vie and all that
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by Bren
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
Yes, that happens a lot. Teachers get bored with the same stuff, students want to learn the latest "fashionable" tunes etc.
I've noticed that many of the really good young players (ref to Scottish sessions here) just don't know most of the standard and older(not always so common) tunes and "sit these out".
No doubt, they could learn them if they wanted but they either don't choose or are not encouraged to do so. They will then "tear into" their own tunes without any bother and, of course, will often have their own sessions.
I think this is a problem with courses whether they be just basic "adult learning" or folk degree etc is that obscure repertoires tend to arise. If you are going along to a session or are handed down tunes from older musicians, you'll get to know the standard repertoire much quicker.
Of course, there's no reason why the better new/obscure tunes can't be absorbed into the tradition through time but it's a slow process.
Unfortunately, I too also have quite a hotch potch of tunes in my repertoire..probably because I stated late.. but I can usually play a substantial amount of those in an average session. *Usually* being the key word here.
)
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by Johannes J
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
I think blaming the teacher is entirely the wrong approach here. I'd be worried about anyone who couldn't learn the Kesh jig on their own---actually more to the point, I'd be worried about someone who wasn't motivated to learn the Kesh jig on their own. With all the music we have access to these days, especially the internet (the Comhaltas site is a perfect example), there is NO excuse for not making an effort to learn common tunes (let us not forget Dow's list on this site!). It is not the teacher's fault, they shouldn't have to spoon-feed these basic tunes to people. I'd much rather bring in a tune to my lesson that I've learned on my own and then have my teacher help me refine it---or even better, have him teach me a tune I've never heard before. He has some really wonderful tunes in his repertoire that I never hear anyone else in town playing, and I feel lucky to be able to learn them and maybe introduce them to my session mates some day.
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by kennedy
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
"there is NO excuse for not making an effort to learn common tunes "
Kennedy, I agree that it's not necessarily the teacher to blame although it's a problem that's more likely to occur on courses, workshops and the like.
There's also the scenario when a tutor won't want to teach a tune which even one or two of the students might already know. Therefore, he/she might choose something more unusual.
One tutor absolutely refused to teach us well known tunes such as Miss Mcleod's reel although he did give us some fairly well known ones.
"Learn them yourselves" he would say and so many of us would. However, there are some players who, for whatever, reason, choose not to venture into the "big bad world" of sessions etc and once they build up a small repertoire are content to just play with fellow students(and ex students) possibly in "house sessions" and the like.
Adult beginners might feel particularly reluctant to venture out but younger musicians too often have a tendency to stick together even although they might be really good players.
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by Johannes J
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
I prefer to be taught obscure tunes by a professional because I know I will teach myself the more common ones
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by D.J.F.
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
A know a good fiddler who plays few of the common session tunes. He says he only wants to play tunes that appeal to him. In other words, he uses his own tastes to establish his repertoire, rather than the tastes of the session.
A friend of his was dismayed that a player of his quality would just sit at a session, rarely playing. "Just go out and learn those session tunes!" But he wouldn't.
When I've taught workshops, I like to give tunes in pairs: a common session tune, and a lovely obscure tune. It's nice for people to have both in their repertoire.
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by Richard D Cook
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
Playing in ceilidh bands is a good antidote to this kind of trendy ghettoism. In order to have a big enough repertoire to play sets all night with a group of pick-up musicians, you have to have a bread and butter basis of common tunes.
Plus, some dances are linked to certain tunes and you just can't avoid them no matter how much you roll your educated young eyes
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by Bren
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
Well said bren, But a friend of mine after 13 yrs of ceili band wont play reels. He just wont! Jigs Hornpipes Polka's marches, set dances,Airs etc great, but reels ! no way. so, too much of a good thing!
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by jig
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
I am with DJF
The purpose with learning an instrument is for the joy of the music and the lesson is really just a start. I am increasingly of the mind that one has to set aside time separate from practice (ise) to just explore other things independently.
Could be the reed settings on your box. Changing ornament on something. Or learning tried and true but boring the the professionals common tune.
Hey if I don't know them and start working on them, it's a bit hard to claim to be bored by them!
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by zippydw
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
''there is NO excuse for not making an effort to learn common tunes''
How do you define a common tune though? ~I mean If you are just exposed to a particular regional repertoire and learn these tunes then that's what you are doing surely? learning common tunes. So it depends on the 'area' you are talking about.
''They will then "tear into" their own tunes without any bother and, of course, will often have their own sessions.''
To me this sounds like typical teenage' us and them,' old vs young' stuff.
They want to play young tunes with their young friends.... up yours to the old fogies playing them old tunes. They are creating their own boundaries. If you went and learnt their tunes they would have to get even more far out, ABI sessions? or Balkans 7/8 sessions?
They probably actually know all those old tunes but disdain to play them....
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by jig
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
I've always used my own tastes to establish my repertoire. But if you go to decent sessions with decent players, then the "tastes of the session" amount to more or less the same thing. It's no accident that the majority of the so called common tunes are common tunes. It's because they are good tunes.
Yes, you have to give them a rest, but I would like to emphasise that "common" in no way corrolates to "boring". In fact, it's usually the reverse
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
I do get torn between what I want to learn next and what I feel I should learn next. I try to strike a balance between common session tunes and other tunes I want to learn. I want to be able to join in as much as possible at sessions but get distracted by other tunes!!
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by Tarrantella
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
There are many reasons as to why this is:
Like Richard said, it may only be because they play the tunes that attract them. One shouldn't feel obligated to learn all of the "common" session tunes just because they're common and everyone plays them. Granted that you'd be playing more, but why even bother playing tunes that you don't even enjoy?
"I really can't imagine what a teacher's motive would be to teach obscure tunes or worse, "original" tunes especially if the student doesn't even know the basic ones."
Despite the possibility that students may not be learning more basic tunes, knowing more obscure tunes shouldn't be considered a bad thing. Personally, I find it a bit of a drag if the only thing played in a session is "common session tunes". It becomes awfully predictable and there's nothing new to look forward to every week. If anything, I'd take advantage of the opportunity and record these obscure tunes that said student/s play/s!
I also agree with Kennedy, you shouldn't have to rely on your teacher for learning tunes. You have an ear, you have CDs, you have the internet... so use it! When it comes to work shops and the like (especially at those week long festivals), I find it a waste of time if all you're going to learn is a "common session tune" every morning. Find the tutors that focus more on the technique than the tunes, you'll learn a Hell of a lot more and you'll be able to apply it to everything you have learned and will learn. Do the homework and get your money's worth!
If there's no room to appreciate the more obscure tunes then how will it survive? The teacher's could be teaching these tunes because they may be tunes that used to be popular when they were younger or perhaps if they're relatively new to the area, then tunes that are from a different area's repertoire. Back in the day in Ireland, you'd be lucky if someone from Kerry could play a couple of tunes with a Donegal musician!
Cheers,
Armand
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by fiddlinviolinin
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
llig why don't you just give it a rest!
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by D.J.F.
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
For some teachers, I think, sessions and the attendant repertoire are not the be-all and end-all of Irish traditional music. I have to agree with kennedy and others in that, after a certain point, it's up to the individual to learn the tunes they want to play.
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by fidkid
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
Gee DJF, I think Michael was actually being nice on that one. Just wait until he really rears up, you'll know it.
I agree that playing with a ceili band will cure anyone of their lack of common tunes. It will also make you queasy at the thought of Sally Gardens or Silver Spear...or, heaven forbid, a set of both twice during the Clare Lancers because there's a few newbies in the band and we're trying to include and please everyone.
Whew. But that's why I come here to get it off my chest. There, I feel much better. I'm all ready to play it one more time now. I take it one set at a time. (HA!)
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
My humble opinion is folks should play what they enjoy playing. If that means obscure tunes, fair play to them. Moreover, folks playing obscure tunes are contributing to the repertoire of tomorrow's ITM musicians in ways those of us playing only the standards are not.
However, the obvious consequence of acquiring only an obscure repertoir is you will spend a lot ot time playing with yourself (no pun intended), and not much time sharing the music with friends (i.e., a session) - one of the the main attractions of ITM for me.
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by daddae
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
I just don't like him
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by D.J.F.
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
I love finding a session with an identity, a focus, with its own distinct local identity, tradition ~ rather than the standardized common tunes and common settings, the sameness that too may sessions have, in content and in approach to the music. That also applies to individual musicians, as some favour one flavour over another, which is OK. I have respect for those brave souls with centres... Mostly, those who do tend to focus on a region, haven't a problem sitting out the occasional tune or set just to listen in, or knowing a few 'standards' in standard settings.
For me it isn't about boredom. If I've learned one way with 'The Rakes of Kildare' I won't force it on you. If your way is different I'll sit back and enjoy the listen. I might not want to learn that way with it, but I'll respect the difference... If I'm in a teaching situation I make an effort to find out how a given tune is played locally, and while I might give them some idea of how it varies from one place or player to another, I'll tend to do my damnedest to teach it as it happens locally, even if it means I have to relearn the tune myself.
I have to admit that sometimes that feels uncomfortable, remembering the folks I may have learned the tune from originally, and that pull, to want to carry on that tradition that has been passed to me. I feel slightly like I've sold out one care for another... I care and respect those sources, and I care and respect the place I find myself in at the time... I hate the 'standardization' of it all, the leveling and potential sameness in general content, form and treatment, as promoted by recordings, organizations and sessions... That is also why my greatest love is for playing with one to a few people rather than en masse, listening and learning their way with a thing rather than that collective mishmash and grind of the usual session, or the digitally diddled recording...the 'standards'... In my own standards is an appreciation for the unique and the individual... That doesn't mean I don't also appreciate and participate in 'mass culture'...
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by ceolachan
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
Thanks, all. I have been enlightened once again.
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by feardearg
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
Mate, you're gettin so enlightened lately, you'll catch fire.
Howz it going, feardearg. Climate change got you yet...
(Ok I'm outta here!)
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by Duijera Dubh
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
“I really can't imagine what a teacher's motive would be to teach obscure tunes…
…especially if the student doesn't even know the basic ones”
I take it that the “basic tunes” here are the ones that have become popular in nearly every pub session in Dublin, Galway, London, New York, etc. If the function of a teacher were to prepare people for bog-standard Irish pub sessions, you would have a point. But for students who are genuinely interested in traditional Irish music, learning to play like everyone else might not be their ultimate goal.
The reason I teach tunes that are not universally known, or uncommon versions of well-known tunes is that I teach ‘Traditional’ music, i.e., music from a particular region. I could teach the standard versions but that would mean killing off a regional style that is already under siege from the kind of standardizing mentality that has dominated this discussion thus far. If a student really wants to learn some tune or other I will of course teach them it, but if there’s a local version of the tune that’s the one I will teach by default. If a student just wants to learn the standardized form of generic so called ‘Irish trad.’ they can go to any standard generic teacher to learn rather than a musician schooled in the tradition.
Pub sessions and the requirement that everyone play the same versions of the same tunes in any pub in the world is killing off actual traditional music. The international session craze is quite destructive to real Irish music. If the crowded pub is to be the main forum for traditional music, slow tunes will disappear (as has been happening for the past half century), fast, loud playing will be encouraged (which is sadly becoming very common; flute playing in particular suffers greatly from this malady.)
I must agree broadly with what Seamus Tansey said on the TG4 programme “Canúintí Ceoil” (literally, “Musical Dialects”, about regional styles of Irish traditional music).
“If the different regional traditions die out, as they are at the moment, well, Irish music is dead. You’ll have some other thing representing Irish music. You’ll have a stereotyped revivalism, which Comhaltas are doing, were everyone is playing the same, from Cork to Donegal. Every treble will be the same. You’ll have about five or six hundred Joe Burkes, you’ll have about a thousand Tommy Peoples, and you’ll have maybe two thousand Matt Molloys. And all playing very nice, great, technically beautiful music, but it’ll be all the bloody same!”
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by neddiescotus
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
I suspect Mr. Tansey is overstating the case. No matter how hard I try, I still don't sound like Tommy Peoples....
Seriously, many of us are acutely aware of the old regional distinctions, and we play, at least in part, to keep those distinctions and so-called obscure tunes alive. Not all sessions are slugfests of nothing but standardized settings of "common" reels.
Regional styles developed due to isolation. But despite that isolation, players would absorb influences from traveling musicians, other musical genres (e.g., John Doherty had a wealth of Continental show tunes in his repertoire), and--by the early 1900s--recordings.
Now that travel is relatively easy, and recordings are everywhere, regional distinctions are being blurred. But I'd argue that personal styles are as varied and vibrant as they ever were--and personal style has always been important. I'm guessing this is the direction that traditional Irish music will evolve in. As a living art form, this music can't go back to the isolation and deprivation of 200 years ago. But it can continue to grow in rich new ways that still honor all that came before. In fact, an emphasis on personal style is now reviving an interest in solo playing, which gets much closer to the roots of this music than any concern about "regional" style.
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by Will CPT
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
The regional/personal style issue is certainly at the heart of why I learn and play obscure tunes. When Armand there and meself have our flat session set up, it's to be lots of tunes that nobody really plays anymore, tunes that are in danger of being forgotten if we don't: lots of old tunes from Kerry, lots of unnamed tunes from Paddy Cronin, lots of transcribed bits from Tunes of the Munster Pipers. If a repertoire is unusual or uncommon, but good and interesting and fun, it shouldn't be a divisive point - it's an opportunity to learn something interesting and fun!
--DtM
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by Dan the Man
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
"Regional styles developed due to isolation."
This opinion has been stated over and over on this site, and it is simply false. I will restate what I have written before about this:
If you take Donegal fiddle playing as an example, many of the greatest Donegal players of the 20th century spent a good deal of time working in Scotland or in the America. (e.g., Francie Byrne, Con Cassidy, Danny O’Donnell, and most of the previous generation of fiddle players in my family.) The reason Donegal Gaelic is distinct from the Gaelic of Kerry or South Uist is not because the people were poorly travelled, but because the Gaelic comes from a living community of speakers, and the same goes for music.
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by neddiescotus
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
But are we not looking back hundreds of years for this kind of regional development?
# Posted on February 21st 2008 by jig
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
This is "purist" theory taken to the extreme. Someone plays "The Kesh Jig" and people sneer, or sings "Green Fields Of France" and people sneer, because it is well known. I am sick to death of "Willie McBride" BUT it is still a great song.
Real purists take a great delight in producing the obscure, as they think it makes them stand out from the common herd, which contains the likes of Molloy, Gavin, Hayes, Burke, and their ilk.
In short, these teachers are idiots, trying to preserve the tradition for the chosen few rather than the many. A lot of Irish language enthusiasts used to suffer from the same problem.
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by bodhran bliss
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
Couldn't agree more with you "BB" - it's these so called purists who'd kill the music in the same way that they nearly seen off the language but I think common sense is starting to prevail in both areas and we may not be too late to turn things around. The music is an art form to be cherished and preserved in all its aspects (and this includes obscure tunes and the various old collections) but just as important (if not more so) is the social aspect where musicians can interact as in the session situation. It would be a sad day if musicians could no longer play the classics such as the Bucks, Foxhunters, Lark in the Morning .. etc, etc.
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by Bannerman
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
Well said Bliss - It seems to me a good teacher would send their pupils out into the session world with some useful tunes under their belt as well as an appreciation to go out and discover the obscure. However, I would wager most rank beginners wouldn't know a common tune from an obscure one anyway until they went to play it at their local. Cheers to somebody like Richard Cook in the posts above who tries to teach a good mix of both. It seems to me teachers who flat out refuse to teach the common tunes do their students a disservice and have simply become too board with their occupation.
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
Neddiescotus, um, this tradition predates 1900. The regional styles were already well developed by the 20th century. But 200 years before that, people no doubt played the music of their community, influenced perhaps by outsiders passing through or people returning home after travels, but to a much, much smaller degree than in the 1900s.
That's really the point, eh? By the early 1900s, travel and recordings were both having a dramatic influence on once isolated regional musical tastes and repertoires.
Bannerman, how do you go from a few teachers giving their students obscure tunes to the old chestnuts being banished from our repertoire? I don't see anyone suggesting that.
As Jeremy says on the home page here, it's a mixture of the well known and the obscure that make for a great session.
Also bear in mind that the typical pub session is not the apex of this musical tradition. Sessions are a relative newcomer, and the music survived as a primarily solo form for many generations. Part of what Tansey is complaining about is the trend--due to the pressures of ensembles playing common tunes in sessions--of standardizing the music in a way that would not happen if we all played solo. I'd mostly agree with him on that point--lots of people focus more now on playing in unison at sessions, rather than learning and developing their own, idiosyncratic approaches to the tunes. But I doubt that even this trend is strong enough to derail the tradition.
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by Will CPT
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
We're skirting around that other debate that usually rises out of such discussions ~ is it regional or is it personal... If you extract a handful of musicians from that idealized past, from say one region, or county ~ Limerick, or wherever, and you then compare styles or repertoire, you usually find that even where they do share repertoire, they have their own unique way with it. That may be based on a number of variables ~ such as sources and influences ~ did they work for a time in London, or Scotland ~ did they own a Victrola and have access to a selection of recordings, and then ~ of who, had they lessons from Johnny Doherty or Tom Billy Murphy? I can say I love the music of a region, but looking closer I see individuals in style and choice of music, with some things shared, but no mirror images, not even in those trying to mimic Coleman, Doran or Molloy... Denis Murphy and Padraig O'Keeffe are hardly the same, nor are those related, such as Johnny or Simie or Mickey Doherty... Viva la difference!
I have some salvation, in that while I'll support what is local around me, I generally slip in something of variance in the process of passing on as best I can what has been shared with me. For one thing, I don't put all the focus on the tune or the technique, I colour it with context and usually a lot of laughter, the 'craic', and I maybe one out of every 3 or 4 will be something in the area of the 'lesser' known. I have even been known to pass on the way of one of my sources which is different from the norm, but not necessarily disagreeable with it if in the same company, being played alongside one another... I try to give them raisins and other treats with the porridge...
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by ceolachan
One proof of 'life' is the ability of a thing to adapt...to renew itself in a changing situation, and that sometimes includes changing with that situation ~ such as through the mutation of tradition to include 'ceili band', 'session', 'group performance'...the banjo...etc...
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by ceolachan
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
Regional style is just a generalization based on personal approaches to the music. I'd rather focus on the personal nuances than some 30,000-feet stereotype any day.
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by Will CPT
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
I think Seamus Tansey is right.
It becomes more clear if you extend the language analogy.
He's saying that in reality there's no such thing as an "Irish style".
Think about accents: there's no such thing as an "English accent'".
An educated Londoner sounds nothing like a Cockney, and neither sounds anything like somebody from Newcastle, or the West Country, or Birmingham, or Liverpool.
I often hear Americans trying to do an "English accent" and it is a jumble of all the above.
I once heard a Scottish woman trying to do an "American accent" and likewise it was a jumble of Southern, New York, General Midwestern, etc.
This is why it's so difficult for a non-Irish person to play Irish music convincingly. They almost invariably sound like a jumble of various regional styles.
On the topic of "what sorts of tunes should ITM teachers teach" , I suppose it depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to produce session players, of course you would teach the repertoire of the session the student will be attending.
If the goal is to pass on the personal style and repertoire of the teacher, so be it.
As long as the teacher and student communicate as to their goals, and they are in agreement, all should be well.
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by Richard D Cook
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
If there is no such thing as an Irish style, how come it's possible to play Irish music convincingly?
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
I was working my way through a guitar tutor, and after the first couple of pages the tunes became very obscure. The author was quite clear that he did this on purpose so that the student was forced to work the tune out for themselves since they wouldn't already have an idea of how the tune went. It's a very effective technique.
Could this be what the teachers of obscure tunes are trying to achieve?
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by bc_box_player
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
There's a much simpler explanation, it's the national key of Scotland, didn't you know?
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by kennedy
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
How did that happen, I was posting that on another thread!
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by kennedy
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
Slap, slap, slap ~ come on Kennedy, it's in the afternoon now...
"30,000-feet stereotype" ~ Will CPT
Huh? You mean oxygen starved? ~ frozen?
"This is why it's so difficult for a non-Irish person to play Irish music convincingly. They almost invariably sound like a jumble of various regional styles." ~ Captain Cook
So, is that why no one sounds like Seamus Tansey, not by voice or flute or any other way ~ and not even in his own backyard, though the man has done his share of travelling and borrowing and adopting too... I wouldn't have think of putting him up as representative of a specific 'regional style'...
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by ceolachan
Yes, there are those struggling to imitate Tansey, who have even studied under him and alongside, but I've yet to hear a successful clone...
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by ceolachan
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
BC surely that is a reading issue? learning to make musical sense from dots on a page?
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by jig
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
It also depends on the teaching setting. Is it one on one, or a group setting? I've noticed in festival and workshop settings that a teacher will often teach something more obscure, because they're looking to teach something that nobody in the group already knows. But of all the individual lessons I've taken from "well known" players, they'll happily teach me a standard tune - especially if I ask for it directly! So the onus is on the student as much as the teacher.
But I also appreciate the more obscure tunes that I've gotten from people. They are usually *great* tunes, ones that I end up sharing with everybody else and making a regular part of our sessions. So I consider it an infusion of life into the session. It's nice to learn different stuff that you wouldn't necessarily find on a recording or in other local sessions.
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by Reverend
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
"So, the onus is on the student as much as the teacher." ~ the Rev
Yes, it is about communication. You both, or all, come together with ideas, through a quick interchange of preconceptions and wishes you find compromise. When I have been on the recieving end, looking back over notes and information, mostly it has not been obscure tunes and these isn't a choice, the tunes to be taught are already decided, and with few exceptions are usually something also AABB, not multi-part monsters. I have once, no names given, been in repeat situations where the person doing the teaching taught only their tunes, some of which are on site here...
The judgement 'obscure' doesn't come in one size, but in a scale of various weights... And, not everyone agrees on what is 'obscure'... That is also something that can be influenced by the geography, or who or what is or was the main musical influence in the area...
If I were to use the word, 'obscure', which isn't likely, it wouldn't be with regards to a melody but a setting, a way of treating a given melody... That is, of course, influenced by my history with the music...
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by ceolachan
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
C, by "30,000 feet" I meant a distant bird's eye view.
In other words, the regional styles have never been as clear and coherent as some people would believe. We've all heard the poppycock about northern fiddlers who single bow everything, at high speeds, never use rolls, and toss in bowed triplets like feed to the chickens. But then you go and listen to John or Simon Doherty, Con Cassidy, the Byrne brothers, Ciaran Tourish, Mairead, Mr. Peoples...suddenly none of the stereotypes apply.
The same holds true of any "regional style." All I'm saying is that I'd rather listen to the individual than worry about whether his or her playing lands squarely in one regional sense of the music. And this tradition has always been more about a personal--rather than some imaginary collective regional--approach to the music.
[crawling far out on an unsupported limb of personal opinion and conjecture]
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by Will CPT
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire; The Importance of "Obscure" Traditions
Focusing on individual style is fine provided you think that all individuals’ styles are equally distinct, and if you have abandoned the idea that systematic study of traditional music is possible. If they are not equally distinct the question arises, in virtue of what are some more closely related than others? In general, regional traditions seem to form a natural grouping which we can use as a basis for discussion. It certainly is easier always to talk about ‘individual styles’, there’s less work involved and you can avoid talking about commonalities. But if you want to do serious study of Irish traditional music you need to think about the regional traditions.
It is true that the regional distinctions have been around for a long time. I never claimed that they formed in the 20th century. (The poor in Ireland travelled a lot for work, to other parts of Ireland and to Britain, this has been the norm for hundreds of years.) But importantly the claim made frequently on this site that regional distinctions are purely due to lack of exposure to outside influences, lack of travel, and to isolation, amounts to a claim that regional distinctions are musically unimportant (as does the focus on individual styles to the exclusion of regional distinctions). And furthermore, the claim is wrong.
Recent exposure to outside influences has not removed the distinctions amongst regional accents (in Gaelic or in English). And to the degree that some form of generic London accent is spreading and becoming the norm around England (for example), it diminishes the richness of the spoken language. The lurch towards standardization in session-Irish-music is also diminishing the richness of this important musical tradition. Here I am in full agreement with Seamus Tansey! My point is that regional styles and distinctions within regional styles arise from the development of music with living communities, just as distinctions in spoken language do.
In Swedish and Norwegian fiddle music there are similar distinctive regional styles, but they don’t have a serious problem with people rubbishing their importance to the tradition, because their music has not become associated with a one-size-fits-all social pub-scene.
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by neddiescotus
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
Neddie, I hope we can disagree without getting rancorous over this. It's an interesting topic, and I used to hold a very similar picture of the regional dialects of music as you seem to be suggesting here. In fact, I agree that there are some mildly useful generalizations that can be made about differences between a Donegal style, Sligo style, East Galway style, Clare style, etc. But these generalizations are ridden with exceptions, and are too often presented as absolutes, e.g., "Donegal fiddlers rarely use rolls." That sort of thing is rubbish, eh? To me, it makes far more sense to talk about individual styles, and perhaps local or community styles, as opposed to "regional" styles. The musical tastes across a region or county simply varied too much.
So neddie, on one hand you say that regional accents are still distinctive, despite exposure to outside influences. But in the next breath you say that the London accent is spreading and diminishing those distinctions. Which is it? Either isolation from outside influences has an insular effect, or it doesn't.
I'm more and more convinced that isolation played a key part in shaping a player's sound within a certain region. They heard other local players, but rarely were immersed in a wholly different style. Certainly they'd pick up tunes and stylistic ideas from travelling players or their own travels--that's why we have a stock of common ways to articulate notes across the island. But without isolation, why else was it such a shock when Coleman's records came to Ireland and many if not most of the fiddlers suddenly adopted the so-called "Sligo" style? Because many of them had never heard anything like it before.
Funny--all of the people who've done systematic research on this subject (Hammy Hamilton, Tomas O'Cainann, Brendan Breathnach, Ciaran Carson, Fintan Vallely, Eamonn O'Doherty, Paul de Grae) cite isolation as a key factor. A few examples:
"While great changes were taking place elsewhere in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, in Ireland a society persisted where the great majority of people, denied advancdement or participation in the 'official' life of the country and isolated from change, continued to entertain themselves as they had done in the past...." (From The Northern Fiddler)
"Vernacular landscapes reflected the pre-eminence of locality in the lives of the people, personal mobility was low and restricted. Ways of living and doing things were influenced by local custom, conditions, materials, and resources. Thus, local styles of housebuilding were handed on, ways of farming, cures for ailments, accents and dialects--all are related to landscape diversity. Local styles of singing and playing music are essentially part of the same vernacular tradition. Fiddle-playing, piping, ways of singing, styles of dance, tempo of tunes all reflected the supremacy of the local in the lives of the people. Fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters, handed on music and song from generation to generation, with occasional varied input from outsiders who passed through the community, or from returning migrants. Development of these music landscapes probably mirrored broad topographical features in the sense that the landscape's phyical features and settlement patterns conditioned the flow of people and traditions in it and through it. Tunes and songs and styles of playing flowed through the countryside, through the market hinterlands of towns, along the well-worn tracks of travellers, hucksters, and broadsheet balladeers, beggars, and tramps, journeymen, tinkers, seasonal migrants, leave-taking and returning emigrants. Remoteness, peripherality, and isolation also ensured the survival of the oldest traditions." (From Paul de Grae, in The Companion to Irish Traditional Music, ed. Fintan Vallely).
So it's not just on this board that this opinion is espoused, and it's not just wrong-headed members here who hold isolation up as a factor in preserving local stylistic differences.
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by Will CPT
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
Who you calling 'wrong-headed' or 'bird-brained'? ~ Camera-obscura that our heads tend to be.
Often, in my experience, the closer you are to a tradition the blinder you can be to what it shares or what distinguishes it from others, near or far. I remember well a recent series of TV programmes in Ireland where 'experts' were espousing some pretty preposterous statements-of-unquestionable-fact. Our passions sometimes gets the better of us and we talk balderdash. I admit it, I've been there myself. I personally distrust sweeping statements and inflexible attitudes where this tradition is concerned. Music is just too fluid for it to be cast in concrete or steel. Rain is closer to it, as it spreads wildly, like a storm, and saturates every crevice it can leak into. Picking up tunes and tricks off the wireless was common practice across Ireland. Carrying them from one place to the other was as well ~ mazurkas were played across the island, as were highland flings, barndances/schottisches, etc... Reels rolled in like a tsunami. It is unlikely that they came just as the dots in a book of transcriptions. More than melody came with them, and dance was part of that greater influence and motivation... Many of those 'source' musicians in Donegal, as elsewhere, also took part in other music, sometimes other instruments, like the sax, and the influence of the foxtrot is to be found in the set dances. Other influences must be infinite...
Elsewhere, in Cape Breton, influences also came from outside, folks working abroad and returning home ~ influences like the Canadian Old Time Fiddling tradition, which hit radio and TV, and from America too, including in the dance, and from the likes of Jerry Lee Lewis in the piano accompaniment. But it had its 'isolated pockets' too, like 'Down North'... I remember well tales of the one wireless in the community, and everyone gathering to listen to it as a major social activity, including the music... There was also quite a bit of traffic between New England and the island as well, including between Cape Breton and the big cities of Montreal, Ontario, Boston and New York...
I have yet to meet a musician whose ears weren't perked by a good tune, wherever it came from ~ except, for a few modern purists who like to think they are closed off from that outside teasing... Try as you may, a tune that is catchy, however hard you actively ignore it, has a tendency to eventually surface, even if just in an unconscious hum...
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by ceolachan
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
Wow, C, you actually worked Jerry Lee Lewis into this discussion!
“Often, in my experience, the closer you are to a tradition the blinder you can be to what it shares or what distinguishes it from others, near or far.”
This is *very* true and the source of much bigotry in many fields. Back in the early days of online forums, I responded to a neophyte question about how similar lute playing is to guitar playing. I had played around on a lute a few times and described how my guitar experience allowed me to pick up a lute and play some tunes – not very well, but at least listenable. Then a fellow popped in and announced that he was a lute player and could assure us that playing the lute was *completely* different from playing the guitar; they had virtually *nothing* in common!
From his point of view, he was right, but to any disinterested observer, the similarities were obvious.
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by Bob himself
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
C, I like that analogy to rain--from where I sit, that's exactly how the music comes to me, in a wash of droplets that soak me to the bone. Which is why it's not unheard of (though not entirely common, either) for me to launch into Take Me Out to the Ballgame at a session.
All the more reason to consider the tradition less from a regional view and more from a local and individual view. I think it's more interesting (and realistic) to learn about where Simon Doherty got his tunes and his approach to the fiddle than to ponder all of Donegal as a whole.
I love the playing of Junior Crehan and Bobby Casey. But they are both so much more than exemplars of the "west Clare style," and part of what makes Bobby's music so engaging is how eclectic he was. Few Clare musicians in 1750 had the opportunities to travel and be exposed to other music that Bobby did.
And despite Tansey's worries to the contrary, I don't think Bobby Casey's eclecticism was any threat to the integrity of Clare music or Irish trad music.
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by Will CPT
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
For me this music isn't like concrete or like rain, it's more like a really good chicken tikka masala. You gobble it up and really really enjoy the taste of it, but then you find that you've dropped some on your shirt in your haste to get it into your mouth, and the turmeric in the sauce has stained your shirt forever. You wash it again and again to try and get the yellow stains out but you just can't get rid of them.
# Posted on February 22nd 2008 by Dow
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
That's why I always wear dark-colored shirts.
# Posted on February 25th 2008 by Georgi
Re: Teaching an Obscure repertoire
I agree that there is no single correct description of any regional style, and agree that most generalizations about regional styles tend to be incorrect, e.g., ‘Donegal fiddlers rarely use rolls’, or ‘in Donegal fiddle music there is no discernable swing’, or ‘Donegal fiddlers never slur distinct notes together’; the Donegal fiddlers I know (myself included) play with a considerable swing (quite unlike John Doherty’s reel playing, or Mairéad Ní Mhaonaigh’s playing for instance); they use slurred bowings and use rolls, though they often favour other ornaments where rolls would be the norm in other regions.
“On one hand you say that regional accents are still distinctive, despite exposure to outside influences. But in the next breath you say that the London accent is spreading and diminishing those distinctions. Which is it? Either isolation from outside influences has an insular effect, or it doesn't.”
But this is too simple isn’t it? Regional accents are still distinctive, certainly in spoken English and Gaelic in Ireland, and the ‘Estuary’ accent is creeping further all the time from the greater London region (similarly, Dublin accents have sadly made similar inroads into the surrounding counties). Both are the case, there are still distinctive regional accents, as well as a horrid move towards standardization. Many people keep up a local style of playing even though they are quite familiar with other music. Even if you hold that isolation was the genesis of a certain distinctive style of playing (along with whatever musical factors and influences) it seems simply wrong to say that one’s playing in a regional style is due to one’s isolation. The fact that many great traditional players travelled a great deal without radically changing their local way of playing shows that playing in a certain regional style is not necessarily due to their living in isolation and their lack of exposure to other music. (The reason that dialects of Irish Gaelic are so diverse is that there was no centralised bureaucracy to give rise to Gaelic equivalent of “the king’s English”. So the dialects have been forming in some isolation for over 500 years. This does not mean that the dialects of Irish Gaelic are unimportant to Irish language, indeed the only real Irish Gaelic belongs to one or other of the dialects. The Dublin government standard is Gaelic-lite, an artificial language!)
There seems to be some suggestion in what has been said that we are in a post-regional-style phase of Irish music, and that this is not to the detriment of traditional music. The implication of my opponents’ view is that, because of easier access to travel and mass communication, regional styles are now largely irrelevant to traditional music (or that regional distinctions were not of any great importance to begin with, given that they only arose in the first place due to the isolation of peasant life).
Seamus Tansey and I agree on this at least, that without regional styles there is no traditional music.
I’ll summarize my views on regional styles:
Regional styles exist, they are of musical importance, and there are degrees of similarity of local and individual styles within them.
Replacing talk about genuine regional distinctions and sub-styles with talk of purely individual styles leaves out important content.
Regional styles developed within communities (hence ‘regional’).
Regional styles still exist despite access to different forms of music and exposure to different musical dialects, and despite that fact that many of us musicians have travelled a fair bit.
The view that holds that the ongoing existence of regional styles are purely a product of ‘isolation’, to be transcended or ignored now that we’ve got better communication links, diminishes their importance to the musical culture and is pernicious.
# Posted on February 25th 2008 by neddiescotus