Every instrument has it's limitations. Some more than others. Of course, overcoming the limitations of an instrument, substituting what you can't do with something you can, or even realising your approximation is so way off you leave space instead, are great skills to be admired. Some of the best music I've heard has come from such skilful innovation.
However. one of the greatest strengths of this music is the many and varied ways in which you can articulate. So it makes sense to play it on an instrument that is capable of the articulations you want.
I think I see where you're coming from Michael - is this is following on from the guitar thread and your comments about the suitability of different instruments for playing the tunes themselves?
Thanks, llig, just wanted to be certain we're talking about the same thing to avoid any confusion; so, the manner in which notes are started, sustained, and released, yes ?
Re the guitar - unless you're Tony McManus, or approaching his calibre, I think it's very difficult to articulate style on a guitar if picking the tunes; it's generally a style-neutral instrument IMHO. This is why to date I've never bothered even attempting to play tunes on it - I scrape on my fiddle for that - though only for Scottish tunes, as I would need another lifetime to develop an authentic approximation of an Irish fiddle style! For Irish music, I restrict the guitar to (as subtle as I can, as required) accompaniment.
As so often, in many areas of life, not just music or guitar, the consensus is that something is very difficult or impossible, then someone pops up who shows how it can be done. Look at Charlie Christian or Eddie Lang, then Django Reinhardt, right up to Alan Holdsworth. They kinda learn everything their mentors had achieved and then build on it.
Tony McManus built on what Dick Gaughan did. When I was first learning, Davy Graham was the heroic guitarist to attempt to emulate. He's still a great figure of course, but those early recordings do sound rough, and there are now tens of thousands of players who are better than that. In those days nobody even dreamed that what McManus does might be possible, but I'll bet there are young folks learning now who'll be even more amazing.
I suppose guitar does have it's place in ITM as an accompanying rhythm instrument, but personally I've done enough strumming for one lifetime. I want to get at the melody, but stay away from the classical style. As Iris has mentioned several times, it probably makes more sense to see this style of guitar playing as being an inheritor of the harp's role in ITM.
Again personally, I've heard quite enough O'Carolan. It fits guitar so easily, because it's quite close to so much standard classical guitar music. I try to follow my own heart, listen to what I like, attempt to play it, not be influenced by anybody else's style or achievement.
Referring back to the thread where hakanozel was talking about emulating the pipes on guitar. Seems kinda daft. If that's the sound you love most, then learn the pipes. It's always going to be more satisfactory than trying to get pipe sounds out of acoustic guitar, though it's fun to try.
The articulate musician of any instrument (in any style) evokes an attraction to those with ears to hear, among whose numbers are those who are further compelled to create something similar(however articulate they may be), the subtleties of which are a life-long pursuit.
Hi wolfbird - all very well, but I did say IMHO. Fine, I'm sure there will undoubtably be some very talented youngsters coming out of the woodwork and possibly even bettering Tony McManus - but from a session-playing perspective, most acoustic guitars simply ain't loud enough to play the tunes on..
I think you're right there drone. Probably my all time favourite guitar CD is Tumblin Gap by Alec Stone Sweet. He's taken old fiddle and banjo tunes and reinterpreted them on guitar with his own unique playing technique, in a way that really works. IMHO, it's a magnificent achievement. He hasn't taken the tunes (which are mostly oldtime) into a new genre, he's just found the beauty in them, and simultaneously extended the range of what can be done with an acoustic guitar. A fiddler or banjo player who didn't know the tunes, could learn from those guitar versions and the essence of the tune would remain intact.
Sure, Ron P IMHO also! I know, delicate fingerstyle is a non-starter for noisy sessions unless electrically amplified. It's probably best to view it as specific category, like I said, similar to the harp tradition.
Fair enough - really more the, dare I say it..... performance v's session thingy again. I might even consider flat-picking/finger-picking tunes myself for things like amplified pub gigs, or concert-type situations, but as I said beore, this might sound a bit neutral wrt style - but for that type of situation, that's not a hinderance.
Maybe Tumblin Gap is out of print, doesn't seem to be there. Here's the previous CD he made. I think his playing illustrates how fiddle or banjo tunes can work with fingerstyle guitar.
Articulation is the main reason I took up the fiddle, after twenty years of playing guitar. Thirty years later, it’s also the main reason I occasionally prefer to play a tune on the guitar. It’s also why I play clawhammer banjo instead of bluegrass style.
An extraordinary guy, Ron P, being a professor and finding time to get so good. He doesn't pluck the strings the way most (all ?) other players do, he uses the back of his fingernails, as some banjo players do, and mostly relies on hammers and pulloffs and lets the resonance of the guitar, in unusual tunings, do the work. Yes, I know about that title
Ha, ha, ha, don't be so hard on yerself, Ron P.....
Personally, I take comfort from the fact that I don't have the misfortune of having to waste time being a professor, so I can devote more to playing.
You can articulate just fine on a guitar if you want to, just not in the same way as a fiddle or flute etc. necessarily, though some can be mimicked at times, triplets, slurs etc., and it can have volume, and fullness too, esp. fingerstyle. Won't beat a fiddle, box or whistle for loud, but can be heard with a decent instrument and good attack... and a thumbpick and nails will help. Tony McManus... quite audible. Think Martin Carthy for loud strong attack too.
Well, yes, you can articulate fine on a guitar. But to say, "just not in the same way as a fiddle or flute" is seriously missing the point of this thread.
two points:
1. With fiddles and flutes it's the amount of articulations available to you that far outstrip the availability on the guitar.
2. With fiddles and flutes there is a whole range of specific articulations which are part of this music that are not available on a guitar.
The question I'm asking is, do you really want to play this music? Or do you want to play the guitar. If your aim is to play the guitar, for whatever reason, then fine, do your best. But if it's this music you are after, specifically the music, then if you don't learn to play it on an instrument it's better suited too, you will be for ever missing out.
Don't forget the late and dearly missed Tony Cuffe when you talk about guitarists who capture the feel of The Music. The solo guitar in this genre reminds me more of the harp than any other instrument. And those who would argue that the harp doesn't fit the tradition have a tough row to hoe.
And I am always amazed how, despite the differences between instruments like the box and fiddle, and how different the mechanics of the ornaments or articulations are, how good players can make them sing along together.
Obviuosly, "this music" isn't just about fiddles and flutes. You might like what fiddles and flutes can do in the way of articulation better, but that doesn't exclude or diminish what the other instruments add to the sound as a whole. I doubt Matt Malloy would spout out, "Aargh, the freakin' guitar is a waste of time if you REALLY want to play this music." Why? Because he's a musician first and probably not all hung up on what can or can't be done on specific instruments. I'm obviously speculating here, but I can't imagine he spent a lot of time dissing Mícheál Ó Domhnaill or Dónal Lunny for their choice of instrument. Do you actually think they were/are "forever missing out?"
I play guitar. I've played guitar for nearly 40 years, so it's obviously my instrument of choice. I'm a few short years into learning the tunes as well as backing and I'm not about to take up the fiddle just so I can play a "proper" roll. If I can get people dancing to an ITM tune with a guitar, or enjoy a few tunes with other musicians, then there you go--I don't give rat's arse if I can do a roll like a fiddle player. And neither do dancers or other musicians, quite frankly, unless, of course, they've been sitting around the same table with the same group of people for a hundred years not really giving a sh*te what other people are experiencing when they play their perfectly academic "cuts, rolls, taps, crans, slurrs, tonguing, triplets, slides, microtones.... etcetera."
To state, "The question I'm asking is, do you really want to play this music? Or do you want to play the guitar..." is actually quite ludicrous--IMHO, of course
And of course, this is entirely dependent upon the presupposition that the fiddle/pipes/flute/whistle ornaments are somehow more "correct." If you take the position, as llig has in the past, that "you don't give a fig for tradition," then it becomes entirely a matter of taste. Reliance on the other ornaments is either traditional, or a matter of personal aesthetics.
Such sweeping generalisations are typical of Mr. Gill. I don't know why I bother replying to him sometimes, but for fear that some poor soul will actually take him seriously here goes.......
Good guitarists can do things that emulate the harp in a way that no fiddler, piper or flautist can do.
Many fiddle ornaments are mere adaptations of piping ornaments, particularly cranning. No fiddler can cran exactly like a piper and contrary to what Mr. Gill thinks it is possible to do a very good cranning effect on guitar, banjo, mandolin and other such instruments. Of course it isn't exactly like the pipes cranning but neither is the fiddle cran!
So there are techniques and articulations more suited to certain instruments but through the ages players have developed techniques to emulate the articulations of other instruments on their own instruments. Of course they'll never be exactly like the techniques on other instruments but to simply dismiss the guitar as a melody instrument just because it can't exactly imitate the fiddle, pipes or flute is ridiculous. You might as well just dismiss accordions, concertinas, pianos, banjos, harmonicas etc. etc, none of which can articulate a roll like fiddles, pipes or flutes can.
Ultimately I would agree to some extent that the fiddle, pipes and flutes are the best instruments for playing most of the tunes in the tradition but when it comes to harp tunes the guitar is a far better instrument than the fiddle, pipes or flute for emulating such a sound. But I suppose harp music has nothing to do with the tradition does it Gill?............
Following Michael's reasoning, if guitar just emulates a harp's sound, and you want to play this music, why not learn harp?
Personally, it doesn't matter to me. I enjoy the allegedly pure sound of fiddle and flute and pipes and whistle. But I also enjoy playing music--even this music--with anyone who's a good musician, regardless of their choice of instrument.
The articulations we use are not just specific to the instruments, but also to the player. Not only do fiddle rolls not sound like pipe rolls, but Seamus Connolly's rolls sound different from Kevin Burke rolls. And I can go blindfolded around the fiddlers in my session and tell them apart based on what their rolls and triplets sound like.
Of course. Well said. The soul of the music. Been keeping me occupied for nigh on 40 years, & not exhausted yet....
Ye wouldn't, would ye, be the same llig who put it to me on another thread :-
--oOo--
"....must say that when ever I come across anyone who believes that "Irish dance music is about instrumental virtuosity", I make a beeline for the bar. There is nothing more tedious that someone ruining lovely tunes with their instrumental virtuosity."
--oOo--
By virtuosity I mean a mastery of the techniques you mention. I'm often called a "Purist" for this. The first discussion I got in to on this site turned in to an argument over (what I would call) competence - to wit, the techniques you mention. The folkie brigade did not at all like my averral that this music is *complex*.
I think the danger of the subtlety being lost is long past, but it was real in the 50s and 60s. I don't particularly care for the Ó Riada stuff myself, but he did break the straitjacket of céilí bands with saxophones & snare drums.
Lest I bring down the wrath of other "Purists" - there were, of *course* legendary players during the period; they kept the tradition alive. I'll give meself high blood pressure if start asking whether there's any other damn' country in the world that would allow economic necessity to drive Julia Clifford to clean hotels in London for a living or Joe Heaney to work as a doorman in Chicago.....
Sean, I'm in your camp. What I meant about virtuosity was I hate a show off, doesn't everyone?
But competence in articulation is a prerequisite.
And yes, there is pipe stuff that you can't do on a fiddle, and fiddle stuff you can't do on the pipes etc, but the general arsenal of articulation available to the fiddle, pipes and flute is remarkably similar.
And there's a lot you can do on a guitar, but very little of it traditional. Does that matter? Well I think it does. You could say that over time it will be traditional and that's true, but because there is less articulation available on the guitar, things will be lost. That's why it matters.
To some extent......... Whatever anyone wants to play, I often advise that beginners get some familiarity with the whistle first to learn the basics of structure & ornamentation.
That said - there are box wizards, and the odd banjo wizard....
Fully agreed with regard to solo guitar. Sensitive backing on a guitar can sound good, but playing accompaniment is, as I think you intimate, *vastly* different to playing melody. In ITM, I thing solo guitar is unsubtle, & the limitation is w the instrument, not the players. Of exponents, Arty McGlynn probably comes closes to the tradition.
Mr Leachim said, "...things will be lost. That's why it matters"
Unless you want to be part of a museum exhibit, "things" have to be lost in order to evolve. New "things" will pop up naturally, in this case maybe fretted instrument idiosyncrasies, maybe the digital technology revolution, maybe the "cosmopolitan global village-ing" of all culture. We are already living in a "equal temperament" world. (thanks to worldwide accordians!)
Old "things" fizzle out. It's the survival of the fittest, n'est que pas? But it's a very very slow process and no-one can stop it.
The future looks good to me. I don't want to pretend I'm in the past, I want to look forward and play GOOD music.
Sean Liad Leath "....but playing accompaniment is, as I think you intimate, *vastly* different to playing melody. In ITM, I thing solo guitar is unsubtle, & the limitation is w the instrument, not the players. Of exponents, Arty McGlynn probably comes closes to the tradition."
Yes, accompaniment and melody, vastly different. Apples and oranges.
Do you think Alec Stone Sweet, above, sounds unsubtle ? I don't. I think the instrument can be as subtle as any, (although he plays a Schoenberg Soloist, and having a very high quality instrument helps a lot).
Perhaps Arty McGlynn does come closest to the tradition, but he plays with a flatpick (at least I don't recall hearing any example of his fingerstyle ) and those two are styles are vastly different. Apples and oranges.
I think some of the differences of opinion on this thread are because folks are motivated towards different ambitions.
Michael explained a while back that he plays a sub-genre of a sub-genre of the genre. He doesn't play dance music, he extracts the tunes.
Perhaps it's just as valid to extract the tunes into a sub-genre of fingerstyle guitar ? I mean, classical guitarists have been stealing French and Spanish and other folk melodies for centuries.
The problem I have, is that if I want to play a tune and say that it's Irish, as a matter of conscience and self-respect, I want it to *sound* Irish, and not crap. That's why I'm here. To learn.
I don't know Yhaalhouse, you may be onto something.
When did the tradition actually start? was it before or after fretted instrument, and in fact, the viol I believe is older than the violin yet it's fretted
Should we not be blowing into sheeps bladders? get some nice rolls (of fat) out of that
These are techniques that define the Irish instrumental tradition. If they die, then ITM is dead. Oh sure, there may be lineal descendants that emerge, but new genres will not have the same artistry if the said techniques die. It is perfectly possible to play something derivative of ITM using a fiddle bow on a woodsaw. ITM it ain't.
Yhaalhouse's - "cosmopolitan global village-ing" of all culture" - Not while I draw breath.
"Old "things" fizzle out. It's the survival of the fittest, n'est que pas? But it's a very very slow process and no-one can stop it."
yhaalhouse (and maybe Cath). This concept, the phrase 'survival of the fittest ', was put forward by Charles Darwin in his quest to explain evolution of biological species over millions of years. He did not mean 'fit' in the sense it is commonly used today. He meant best adapted to a specific environment or niche.
There's no evidence that human culture, in this case a musical genre, operates along the same (or even similar principles) as biological evolution. Your confusing categories, you can't just take a theory from one system and apply it willynilly to a completely different system.
Music has evolved.
Who knows when "cuts, rolls, crans, slurrs et cetera et cetera" came into ITM? Did all of these techniques evolve at once? I doubt it.
Some techniques must have been lost; some must have been newly introduced at some time. It's that process that has given us "ITM" as it stands 1-May-2008 (Gregorian Calendar). It will infinitesimally different tomorrow and so on...
It means that "ITM" will change but not over night but over generations (as it has already).
I don't understand why anyone would be so fanatical and opposed to change since the thing you are "protecting" is an artifact of change.
And surely it's the outside influences that change, strenghten and spice up cultures!
Different categories exist. Evolutionary Psychology anyone? Richard Dawkins?
But you're missing the point which is when did tradition become tradition?
Did it not evolve in some way?
It surely did not come fully formed sometime in September 1879 or any other date for instance. It has changed over the year, whatever the influence.
It only became crystallised as a tradition thanks to some rather anal self-appointed upholders of something which cannot remain fixed.
"Different categories exist. Evolutionary Psychology anyone? Richard Dawkins?"
Yes, different categories exist.
What's evolutionary psychology got to do with it ? It's claims are attempts to explain why we behave in certain ways.
What's Dawkins got to do with it ?
"But you're missing the point which is when did tradition become tradition?"
Tradition is tradition now.
"Did it not evolve in some way?"
Not in the biological sense of the word. Better to say it developed.
"It surely did not come fully formed sometime in September 1879 or any other date for instance. It has changed over the year, whatever the influence."
Of course it didn't. But nobody has suggested it did. Or that it hasn't changed. But the 'rules', if there are any, have no connection whatsoever with biological evolution, or 'survival of the fittest'.
"It only became crystallised as a tradition thanks to some rather anal self-appointed upholders of something which cannot remain fix"
Seems you just want to throw insults for no good reason.
Same point as above. Sloppy language. Music changes as a part of wider human culture. Fashion in clothes changes likewise. But that's nothing to do with 'survival of the fittest'
"Who knows when "cuts, rolls, crans, slurrs et cetera et cetera" came into ITM? Did all of these techniques evolve at once? I doubt it."
Nobody said they did.
"Some techniques must have been lost;"
How do you know ? Evidence ? Or just a dumb statement ?
"some must have been newly introduced at some time. It's that process that has given us "ITM" as it stands 1-May-2008 (Gregorian Calendar). It will infinitesimally different tomorrow and so on..."
Sheesh. What do you think a musical genre is ?
"It means that "ITM" will change but not over night but over generations (as it has already)."
Nobody has said nothing changes.
"I don't understand why anyone would be so fanatical and opposed to change since the thing you are "protecting" is an artifact of change.
And surely it's the outside influences that change, strenghten and spice up cultures!"
You don't understand because your thinking is hopelessly muddled and intellectually confused. It doesn't take a fanatic to see that.
I don't think anybody is suggesting that guitars take over the tradition. We would loose quite a bit if the articulations of the fiddle, whistle, flute and pipes were gone. The underlying question is whether the guitar has a place in the tradition, and whether or not the emulations possible on it are good enough.
These are techniques that define the Irish instrumental tradition''
Sean, Im not sure I agree with you there. Surely its the tunes that define the tradition? If you play German christmas carrols in an 'authentic' style with all the ornaments above does that make it Irish music? I dont think so. A Fella from Clare, who plays his tunes without these, does that mean he is not playing ITM?
No.
Therefore, to my mind at least, the tunes are the defining aspect. The tricks and 'articulation' of the players depend on the personal, and regional style, and instrumental idiosyncrasies
There is a search for authenticity in the Air today, and that is great, but this is symptomatic of a 'revival' . As far as I am concerned, it is enough that folk play the tunes with verve, excitement, joy, spirit, love. whether they choose to roll a note or not seems pretty irrelevant. What matters is the life in the playing. You can put all the ornaments in you like but if it has no spirit?!
Was Micho Russel searching for authenticity in his playing? did he load his tunes with ornaments because he felt he had to conform to an external vision of 'authentic' Irish music? No. He played his tunes as he chose.
I feel that there is a push to equate ITM with forms of music such as 'Classical'. To intellectualise. IMNSHO this is 'folk' music, dance music even, not European art music. All the rolls in the world wont make your music 'authentic' . Untill it 'is' authentic' nothing will make it so.... 'It will just be imitation, Which is grand, an essential step on the road, but The soul in music comes from the heart, not the head.
"The underlying question is whether the guitar has a place in the tradition, and whether or not the emulations possible on it are good enough."
TaoCat, It's not for me to say what instruments have a place in the tradition. I don't think any individual has power, in that sense. If someone introduces a new instrument, and others think 'wow, that's cool', it'll maybe become accepted, as the bazouki was, and find a following. The guitar, as rhythm accompaniment has established itself, e.g. John Doyle, Arty McGlynn. Eugene Kelly does a fine job accompanying Paddy Canny. But that style of guitar playing doesn't involve (many of) the list of articulations. Fingerstyle solo guitar might almost be considered as a different instrument, in which case, I agree with you, it's a question of whether the instrument is capable of 'sounding right'. I wish I could say yes, but so far all my personal attempts fall short, and almost all those of other players likewise. But there are some exceptions. Randal Bays might be an example, although I think his fiddle sounds even better. Donal Clancy does a great job, IMHO. There are a handful of others. Perhaps that's just fine. A sub-genre on the fringe. No need for it to cause any controversy or upset anyone.
How much are you missing out by not being capable of making the articulations? Are the articulations postulated by llig really as absolutely necessary as he claims?
Dawkins is relevant because of his concept of the "meme"-i cant be arsed explaining it here tho!
LLig's whole position is indefensible because its based on a faulty presupposition - that the guitar is capable of less forms of ornamentation than other instruments. This is not true (maybe it is true of most guitarISTS and his faulty reasoning comes from his lack of contact with many decent ones).
Even IF we were to allow him this 1st faulty presupposition, his argument still doesn't hold. Tenor banjo players dont use the full gamut of ornamentation either. I've never heard a fiddle player play a cran. I've never heard a flute player play the 1st 3 notes of a slow air and leave the1st 2 notes ringing to create a lovely suspension "halo" underneath the 3rd.I've never heard a box player bend a 7th slightly sharp like a piper. Ive never heard a piper play the same note 3 times a row without little grace notes in between - beacause they cant.
In fact, in the hands of a decent player, a guitarist has a far wider range of ornaments available than almost all the "proper" ITM instruments.
This really is, in all fairness, the last word on the subject!
It is what it is - and, that is, it is exemplified by the techniques to which llig refers. Abolish cranning. Is it still ITM ? Ban long rolls. Is it still ITM ? Ye get the drift.
You may know the Beard Paradox. If I grow a hair on my chin, I clearly do not have a beard. Conversely, if I grow several thousand I clearly do. There is no single point at which the addition of a single hair is going to effect the state transition from non-beard to beard. The poles of beard & non-beard are nevertheless readily identifiable.
Historical fact - The Sean Nós tradition (Hi Cath - "Art" if you prefer) was weakened by Conradh na Gaeilge types heading down to the Gaeltacht for a spot of bucolic theme-park touristry & singing Conradh na Gaeilge type songs. That's not a value judgment. Joe Heaney singing Casadh an tSúgáin is a tad different to some Conradh type singing Óró mo Bháidín.
If you're interested in slow airs, listen to the extant Sean Nós tradition before the language dies altogether. "Survival of the Fittest" ? - indeed. Even if one were to accept, which along with wolf I do not, that concepts of Darwinism (eugenics, anyone ?) have any validity in this instance - the sort of view expressed by Yhaalhouse re inevitability does not make any particular "Inevitable" outcome desirable. [C'mon Yhaalhouse -Resounding chorus of "Tomorrow Belongs to Me"]
I hope I do no participant here a disservice if I state that arguments to the effect that mastery of the techniques of ITM is unnecessary to the playing of the music become tedious and self-referential. The techniques are the salient characteristic of the genre.
Well, that's maybe the issue. If I remember where we started, which was in a previous thread, it was an attempt to isolate the qualities that make Irish music sound distinctively Irish.
I have a slew of CDs by 'celtic' guitarists, sometimes playing tunes with Irish names, but, to my ear, they don't sound Irish.
I'd say they don't even sound 'celtic' but I'm in trouble if you ask me what 'celtic' should sound like. I guess it's an impression I've gained over my lifetime, hearing Scottish and Irish music.
Michaels view is, I think, that it's the articulation that provides that distinctive quality.
I don't think I agree with jig
"If you play German christmas carrols in an 'authentic' style with all the ornaments above does that make it Irish music? "
It'd come out sounding Irish. If it was a good strong tune, it'd probably get accepted into the tradition.
"Dawkins is relevant because of his concept of the "meme"-i cant be arsed explaining it here tho!"
No, it's not relevant. Neither evolutionary psychology nor meme theory can even offer any adequate or convincing argument for why we even have or like music, or why we find beauty and pleasure in sounds. The only place meme theory might have a bearing is why particular catchy phrases stick in peoples heads and pass from one person to another.
"LLig's whole position is indefensible because its based on a faulty presupposition - that the guitar is capable of less forms of ornamentation than other instruments. This is not true (maybe it is true of most guitarISTS and his faulty reasoning comes from his lack of contact with many decent ones)."
Okay,hakanozel. Stick an mp3 somewhere where we can all have a listen to you demonstrating llig's list of articulations on acoustic steel string guitar. Put up or shut up THEN the case will be closed. Maybe...
Good point wolfbird. But if that were the case, where are they? pachabels frolics would be as close as it gets, n'est pas?
Sean, I am not arguing against ornaments, sorry, ''Articulations' simply the idea that a persons playing is any less 'authentic' if they chose to play the notes in a 'simple' fashion.
''Abolish cranning. Is it still ITM ? Ban long rolls. Is it still ITM ? Ye get the drift.''
Exactly! yes it is.
example; its not possible to cran on the fiddle[ vague approximations maybe] .therefor the cran is not a defining characteristic of ITM. [unless ITM can not be played authentically on the fiddle ]
Its not possible to Roll on a High D on the pipes.. or the banjo, but that does'nt mean that ITM can not be played 'authentically' on the banjo... etc etc
Great explanation re the beard, Sean ! I like that.
Bit like the straw that breaks the camel's back. But, what if you have a fake beard, (all the hairs are the articulations) and stick it onto an unshaven chin ? That's jigs argument. German tune plus articulations doesn't make for an Irish tune. Or does it ?
TaoCat.... right.... who is suggesting guitars take over. No one. Many melody players like accomanpiment, some don't, so it seems there is a place for it in the tradition. Believe me I like real old style trad quite a lot, pre guitar even.... and yet some real old style players will ask for accompaniment. So go figure. Sometimes I like to sit out and let it happen without guitar and people tell you to come in and play. Guess it means it has become accepted in the tradition.
I think the discussion is about articulation though, and no I don't believe you can articulate in the same ways, though can do some bits approximately, but guitars on the other hand can do things the other instruments either can't or don't commonly do, if they work with the music... and believe me any decent backer takes VERY seriously every suggestion a melody player makes....keep it or get rid of what you just did.... in my mind we are here for them, here for the music, and if it doesn't work for them or the music, out it goes. After a while you get a pretty good idea though! Melody players can be quite blunt and opinionated about what they will or won't accept in the music, which I think is a good thing. Most of us really want to keep them happy, not foist things on them that don't fit.
Being both a melody player and a backer/accompanist, and seeing things from both sides.... used to play mandolin a lot years ago (gave up pretty much to focus on fingerstyle guitar long ago, and am rusty but can revive it now and then), can play some whistle tunes decently and am getting there on harp, as well as tunes on guitar, I do agree that if one only plays backup guitar, in that sense they are missing that other dimension of playing the tunes, and not knocking backers who don't have the wish to play tunes, but it does give great pleasure and joy to be able to play tunes too. So in that sense I am in aggreement with llig in that one may be missing something great, but.... truly there are some MAJOR thrills in accompaniment too.... and couldn't we who love doing it say to the melody players... boy, what you are missing? You will never know the joys some of us feel, the free float, the freedom to improvise, to move in and out of the melody, help create moods, it's a real deep down joy that a melody player may never know. Can anyone imagine someone like Tony McManus, even when backing, is not having the time of his life? he sure looks fulfilled, enthused, inspired!
I love doing both, am totally loving the harp too, strictly tunes and technique learning at this point (four months), the backing actually baffles me at this point on harp. I find it harder, and think really good accompaniment (not just rotating two/three chords around, but knowing the tunes in your mind, yet having to do something else with your hands, and having the ability to join in parts of the tune etc.... again, like the good pianos do) is more challenging than tune playing in many ways....having seen the music from both sides of the fence.
So many will ask why, if you can play tunes, are you playing backup at all? Like it's something inferior. Why does Charlie Lennon accompany? Why does Felix Dolan love playing the piano backing when he could play flute all the time? The two sisters, Maeve and Bernadette Flanagan (of the Conway lineage) Maeve is a brilliant fiddler, but I would not consider Bernadette any less of a musician for playing piano accompaniment...she is brilliant. She could be playing tunes too, and I believe is a fine whistler, but mainly plays her piano.
I love it because of the challenge in it. It's less defined than playing a tune note for note, you can make things up as you go along, and believe me, you learn fast what a melody player doesn't think fits.... and even that varies with each melody player. I love meeting a new melody player and the challenge of learning about their style, sometimes right on the spot....no, OFTEN right on the spot, by listening intently, and going into that great mental spot with them that happens when you click.....though that happens when two melody players hit it off as well.... but just to make note that this does happen with "us" too. Accompanying has many dimensions, if the player really wishes to deeply explore it.
One time a melody player made some comment at a session that guitar players couldn't cut it as melody players, so took up something easy. Unfortunatley there are many out there who do just that, learn a few chords and rotate them and learn nothing further. Usually their motivation is not love of the music, they maybe 'like' the music, but more want the social thing, to be part of the crowd. There are also flute, whistle, box and fiddle players who don't put the work in, try to get by on a few tunes played badly so they can be part of the fun, a few of them playing with poor intonation and all with different timing from each other can really wreck a session as easily as a few guitars. Why they don't get knocked as badly as the guitar players is another topic, but..... not on this thread most likely!
"In fact, in the hands of a decent player, a guitarist has a far wider range of ornaments available than almost all the "proper" ITM instruments."
This may be true, but they are not traditional Irish music. And there is a reason I'm using the word articulation, not ornament. It's because this music is driven by articulated melody, and without a doubt, fiddles flutes and pipes have more articulations available to them than a guitar.
I can make any tune sound Irish. In fact, I'm unable to play any tune without it sounding Irish.
www.hakanozel.com
tho, MY acknowledged inabilty to pull off ALL the articulations obviously doesnt mean the INSTRUMENT is necessarily incapable. 1 hour on youtube you could find examples of them all. just one example-Richard Thompson is well known for using crans during improvised solos on the electric guitar. It doesnt sound like ITM, but he's using the technique.
Memes- relevant to the idea of "evolution" of technique and tunes. i wasnt referring to WHY we like music. But the Bucks/Foxhunter combo that ends almost EVERY gig or sesion where i live is a good example of a meme. but ur are right it doesnt explain why those particular tunes became so popular in the 1st place. (or why such constant overexposure can make u start to grow sick of them!!)
i agree in principle with your comment about the German xmas carol - it IS the ornamentation which to a large extent defines the style, more even than the notes. there is a guy near here who wrote a tune on the bazouki which uses the Spanish Phrygian scale so its very "exotic" for West Kerry..but he uses rolls etc and suddenly it sounds "Irish " again.
I'm not actually sure that you are being entirely serious. The fact that not all piping ornaments translate to the fiddle, or for that matter vice versa, does not in any sense vitiate fact that the "Armoury" of technique, ornamentation & embellishment is what defines the music. Plain as the non-beard on me face. (Actually, I'm in the desert. Is 3 days' growth a beard ?)
"fiddles, flutes and pipes have more articulations available to them than a guitar"..
well of course they do - thats outnumbering by 3 to 1! No fair!
My orchestra is better than your string quartet!
many of the arguments on this site are interesting, enjoyable and thought provoking., but sometimes the logic behind them is as shaky as an Out On The Ocean in someones first fiddle lesson!
However. one of the greatest strengths of this music is the many and varied ways in which you can articulate. So it makes sense to play it on an instrument that is capable of the articulations you want. llig
So it also makes sense to play an instrument that has the sound you want, that defines what you want to contribute to your session. An accordion is not a fiddle, nor is it capable of the articulations. I doubt, however, that most people would want the music restricted to flutes, fiddles and pipes.
I tried your site, hakanozel, and most of 'em wouldn't play for me.
Don't want to get personal, but you're side stepping the challenge here. Same goes for the Richard Thompson example. It's an *electric* guitar.
Meme theory does try to explain why tunes get popular. You don't seem to understand it very well. But it's completely irrelevant anyway, in this context, so I don't know why it gets mentioned.
So, you agree with llig ? It's the articulation that makes for the 'Irishness' ? But you disagree with llig, that the guitar can't match his list ?
Hang on WB, The proposition was 'guitar', without preconditions such as; accoustic or steel stringed.
Different instruments facilitate different ornaments. To suggest, laughably, that one instrument or another is inherently superior strikes me as somewhat elitist...or that ITM can not be played 'authentically' on, say a concertina, is simply nonesense.
Of course if you aim to authentically mimic a particular sound it makes sense to play 'the instrument 'that created that sound. But to think there for that your mimicry has some vestige of authenticity because you can copy the outward form is to miss the point.
This begs the question then, how to 'be' authentic ?
IMNSHOMy answer would be that it doesnt come from 'tricks' or slight of hand but from the heart and spirit.
I just feel its all a bit superficial, that by adopting certain gestures that one can somehow obtain an 'authenticity' that is not available to others who dont conform to your idea of authenticity. According to this logic Micho did'nt play ITM right?! or authentically...
ill hunt one down sometime - basic gist is playing an open string but with v fast pull offs at 5th or 7th or even 9th fret.There was also a column in a guitar magazine yrs ago where RT gave a lesson in how to do it.
"Hang on WB, The proposition was 'guitar', without preconditions such as; accoustic or steel stringed."
You're not paying attention, jig. We already sorted that. An electric guitar with a synth can make any sound imaginable. Stick in yer uilllean pipe samples and you're going to sound as close as dammit. Same goes for didjeridoo or lute or glockenspiel. We (or I) am talking about unamplified acoustic steel string.
Iris, some of your posts are making me sad. You've played at my session more than once and I love hearing you play---I've even stopped playing myself a few times so I could hear you better. Actually, that would be the only thing about guitar in a session that I think is a drawback---played fingerstyle, it can be hard to hear. But I've seen a harp player in a busy session (there's an amazing one near us---have you seen her?) who fits in beautifully, even though the harp is hard to hear as well, even amplified. But the other players around her will compensate for this and quiet down sometimes to give her instrument a chance to shine---both for the sake of the music and because they love to hear her play. I think the players in the best sessions will always bring the focus to the musical strengths of everyone in the group, and not reserve their attention for certain instruments based on some hierarchy of instruments. What a silly notion!
I really disagree with the contention that guitars are out of place in Irish/Scottish music. It has much more to do with the skill and the feeling for the music that the player can bring to it---McManus and Gaughan and McGlynn and Thompson have proved that beyond argument.
(Sean, from past experience on this site, it's useless referring directly to specific tecniques, 'cause people just define them however they want)
The post-modernist curse. Allied to the most nefarious US export ever - The idea that self-regard is a substitute for excellence. "It reinforces my self-esteem to believe that (x) is so, therefore contradictory facts are immaterial".
sorry my site doesnt work properly on your pc..but having a website chock full of my playing hardly constiutes "sidestepping the issue"!!! anyway its the GUITAR's versatility which is the issue, not MY abilities! (and certainly not my "HTML for Dummies" webdesign abilities!! )
ok, come to the Marina Inn in Dingle this sunday at 6pm and I'll play you some reels and then you can judge me worthy or not. Forgive me if the willingness of locals born and bred on this music to play with me and often REQUEST to play with me continues to hold more importance to me than your opinion.
neither of us is willing to explain memes so lets leave that one there.
Llig - maybe my definitions of crans etc are faulty, I'm more than happy to be put right. Thats what its all about, after all.
Sean, you aint wrong. my wife is currently doing a Masters thesis on linguistics and says that current thought states all uses of language are equally valid. I'm having great fun saying things like "This chicken soup is disgusting! What? Where i come from, Disgusting is a valid compliment." Childish but fun.
(Though, come to think of it, she hasnt cooked for me recently..)
"neither of us is willing to explain memes so lets leave that one there"
Hey, hakanozel, speak for yourself ! I'm happy to explain/discuss meme theory until the cows come home with anyone. Just that meme theory, evolutionary psychology, Dawkins, Darwinian evolution, etc, have no connection whatsoever with the topic, and only came up because yaalhouse suggested that 'survival of the fittest' was relevant. Which it is not !
Sean, I have no documentary support, but Charlemagne, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, maybe ? There's no shortage of power crazed megalomaniacs is there . Did you catch a snip of some journalist who visited all of Stalin's 16 palaces ? Apparently the visitors books show that the only other individual who had ever visited all 16 was Sadaam Hussein. Whoa, way off topic
I am entirely serious sean. I suggest that the armory' of techniques are a part and parcel of ITM but that its the tunes, pure and simple that define the genre.
\There are 2 aspects, the the content and the presentation. Bach played with ornaments does not make ITM, but the bucks played without ornaments IMNSHO, is. I keep using Micho Russel as an example. because that is the CD in the player right now. His rendition of a tune is what it is. I really dont care what any one says, as far as i am concerned he epitomises ITM .
I presume we are talking unaccompanied solo artists here.... Its a different argument were we to consider say a synth backing!
When I am Grand Master Of All That I Survey pipes, banjos, boxes and fiddles will all be made illegal and everyone will have to play the Gold Ring perfectly on the guitar whenever they are randomly stopped and searched by The Cran Police.
''Stick in yer uilllean pipe samples and you're going to sound as close as dammit. Same goes for didjeridoo or lute or glockenspiel. We (or I) am talking about unamplified acoustic steel string.''
Well now i got to disagree with that! Without the 'articulations' it would not sound like a piper[ Hmm am i arguing against myself here? ] Ps I have an electric midi enabled guitar with synth.
Hi, KML. Well, damn, Lamarck was right all along !
Naah, not that simple. But Margolis showed that the neo-darwinists are wrong, must be wrong, 20 years ago, in a study I read. Environment can change genetic material and changes be inherited, and there's been loads more studies since then although I'm not up to speed.
The way I see it, epigenesis doesn't displace yer basic darwinian understanding. But it's an 'add on' which makes the whole picture more complicated and interesting. Is that how you see it ?
Mostly I was just curious on your "take" on this new topic, and with some reference to what was being said above (not that I actually read the whole thread so please forgive me for barging in). I just wonder whether epigenetic gene expression has any impact on future gene pools which are selected by sexual (or more specifically socially -engineered sexual ) -selection.
Well, I met Mrs. Sean Lead Liath playing music. Hence my PhD thesis, now in progress - "Use of Cuts, Rolls, Taps, Crans, Slurrs, Tonguing (no jokes, please), Triplets, Slides, Microtones, Attack, Dynamism Space/gaps, Barks, Tone and Variation as Primary Mechanisms of Sexual Attraction by the Human Male". Worked for me. Especially the barks. Wuff Wuff.
Danny, I'll read your links in a minute. I got diverted. I did a google for the Lynn Margulis papers I mentioned. I'm a big fan of her stuff, but obviously some people completely miss the point of what she was saying, or just hate her on other grounds, e.g.
Hey Kennedy...don't cry, LOL.... thank you though, you are kind.... i wish I knew WHICH Kennedy you are that I know!! Know at least Three...maybe you can email off group?
I really don't take things so seriously or worry that someone can't hear me, I just have a good time. Actually, depends on
the size of the session, I can be pretty agressive on the loud when wanted, for backing esp. In fact at our session, which we record, I make sure I sit off mike, it comes in too loud otherwise.
I don't often play a listening piece at a big session, those are harder to hear, but that's not the main reason... it's more the tuning and retuning, fear of breaking a string on the way back up. If I am asked I will, othewise just leave it go and pass my turn. I am there to play with others really, and toss lots of melody in the backing anyway, I like the energy of it, and don't worry so much about presenting a piece. Time for that at a gig or a house session more appropriately.
Anyway.... the harp has been out a few times, it's much like a big guitar, tunes are actually easier to find and you gain the use of your whole left hand, because it is not busy fretting and creating notes....they are already there on harp. Not to say it's a walk in th park either, it's a whole different hand discipline, different exercises, muscles to build up. Only recently has my neck stopped hurting when I play for over an hour.
Linda and I did a gig a few weeks back and I managed an air and Planxty Irwin without too much embarrassment! Have a long way to go, but the thing is people are asking for the harp at a gig even though I can barely play it.... the funny thing is I'd do much better playing these same tunes on guitar, but the harp has that mystique, people ooh and ahh over it. I got asked to two wedding gigs for later this year, just on the info I BOUGHT a harp, the very week I got it, and couldn't make heads nor tails of the thing... just for 20 min.. each, so figured I'd have at least a few airs by then. That would NEVER happen with another instrument... they don't even want to know if you can play. In fact they were more sure than I was that i'd have some tunes by the Fall.
Izzit just me, or does anyone else get feeling that this discussion, at least the part about articulation and guitars, is mainly a lot of violent, unacknowledged, agreement, with bits of real disagreement around the margins where most facts are really just opinions anyway?
The discussion is happening on two levels, which, like the proverbial ships that pass in the night.....
Let me get some credentials out of the way first. I am one of those odd people with twin mother tongues, English and Irish. I am not, however, either a political or a cultural nationalist, and I have a horror of exaggerated expressions of ethnicity. I cite Srebenica, and Nagorno Karabash, and Sri Lanka and Belfast. I knew a man who was in the contingent that liberated Belsen.
The music tradition means something different to us who were born in to it than it does to others. For fear of misinterpretation, I am *not* stating that anyone who is not Irish, or who was not born to it, can never learn. But for those of us born to it, it is not an interest, or a passtime. It is a passion akin to other biologically driven passions. It's just there. Like the rest of the passions. That was part of the formation. Does that sound nuts ? Maybe it does. But it was so.
Good technique was taught, shared, practised, mentored, tutored, lived, breathed from the time we were old enough to hold "G" register whistles or quarter-sized fiddles........
Any Americans out there ? When we got to our teens, rhe adulation that American high school kids confer on sports jocks was the preserve of the good musicians. That's how important it was. In the inimitable manner of teenage value systems, the best musicians, being the alpha males & females, got the best-looking guys & gals. By "Good" musicians, I mean of course those with a mastery of technique & its close cousin, rhythm.
To go hear one of the giants playing was aking to seeing - name me a rock star - live. We would not have *dreamt* of "Joining in". When we got old enough to drive, we criss-crossed the country to hear good playing. Whatever else we might have been studying at university took great discipline - keep away from the music for a few hours to get on top of some study.
That was the environment, the culture, the formation. Obsessional ? Perhaps. But we carry it with us. We're not priests, or prosletysers. We're not trying to convert anyone. Each to his own,musically and otherwise. Sometimes we make the mistake of assuming that everyone with an interest in the music will share our passion for perfection of technique. It is not so, of course.
Cath- Does that still sound "Anal" - I am truly sorry if it does.
Perfection of technique is my aim right enough, I am just wary that technique becomes the only aim ... Its there to facilitate the music, not the other way round.
Sean, your post reminds me of a mustard board discussion a while back about fiddle technique. There was a battle about studying and practicing technique, and whether one should simply feel the music in their soul and not sweat the technique, so to speak. Also there was a notion about whether studying technique would interfere with the passion and 'feeling the music'.
What you said reminded me of my response, that the passion fuels the drive to master the technique, along with all aspects of the music. In Gifted and Talented education they call it "Rage to Master":
'Dr. Ellen Winner, head of the graduate psychology department at Boston College, wrote Gifted Children: Myths and Realities in 1996. In this book she states that gifted people “demonstrate three atypical characteristics:
* Precocity - Performing well above age level expectations in some area
* Rage to Master - Having a passion to do or to know in some specific area
* Marching to a Different Drummer - looking at their area of interest in a unique or unusual way.”'
Sean Lead Liath, I'm certain we can all benefit from the depth of your knowledge of the music, if you're willing to share it here, and if you can cope with all the kindergarten stuff...
Here's one for Ramiro and Galicia. Thanks, Ramiro.
Dawkins is a good scientist, but his memm stuff owes more to his popularism and status as media pundit than to science. I'm not knocking this, I'm a fan of his memm theory and have often proposed that diddley tunes are superb examples of memms. But the reason memms are not science is because the basis is in analogy, not evidence. And when you use analogy, there is always some fecker who pipes up with the ubiquitous, "the analogy doesn't work because ..."
However, regardless of such feckers, analogy is useful and I'm a fan of it, especially when people get their heads so locked into a belief. A good analogy can always prompt a different perspective.
‘Once we were worms’ in the New Scientist (Simon Conway Morris, Aug 2003) brought my attention to the echinoderms, which include sea urchins and star fish. It is suggested that just before adopting their fivefold (or petraradial) body plan, they shared a common bilaterally symmetrical ancestor with us, the ventulicolians. These creatures were first discovered in 1987 in the Chengjiang fossil deposits in south-western China, laid down during the Cambrian evolutionary explosion 530 million years ago. Originally classified as arthropods they have been recently re-classified to a line closer to ours on account of their primitive gill slits, bipartite body and elongated, segmented tail – a candidate for an early vertebrate.
As mobile filter feeders, New Scientist suggests that ventulicolians had an advanced nervous system – for their time – with a brain and nerve chord and yet the echinoderms evolvement discarded this and replaced it with a diffuse set of nervous tissue. They “threw away their brains.”
Yes, memes. As I see it, it isn't analogy, it's fact - or rather memes is just Dawkins' term for ideas, fragments of fact and memory, stuff that can be remembered. And yes tunes are good examples. It's not real, it's abstract but the abstraction is fact. It's just his play on the term "gene", which also is an abstraction, because lots of nonsense DNA exists - the correct term for DNA that is able to be transcribed is exon. A gene coding for a protein is a collection of exons and may be in slightly different loci (but usually on the same chromosome [in eukaryotes]), and some genes actually just encode for proteins which regulate other gene expression. So, although yes, meme is an analogy of gene, it is simplistic because it doesn't take into account the complexity of modern understanding of genes, UAS's and the like.
....hmmm, that wasn't very clear was it? memes are analogous to genes, but memes do exist, as fragments of memory, which although abstractions can be treated as as factual as one can treat genes.
And UAS means upstream activator sequence.
Gifted, is it ? - Well Begod - All these years I just thought it was Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
re : "Also there was a notion about whether studying technique would interfere with the passion and 'feeling the music"
Not quite sure as I personally could distinguish, but I am with you that if the "Feeling" is not there, no amount of technique is going to compensate. I can think of not a few well-known players who I think sacrifice feeling, and rhythm to technique - All light and no heat, so to speak. Irritating. I could program a computer to do that.
Mary Bergin puts matters rather succinctly, as follows :
"One fear I would always have, even in my class situation, is that the emphasis is on technicality, whereas for me, the whole thing is the feeling and heart and soul, that's what the older musicians had - something special, an internal rhythm, that nya! or sway, you find yourself moving your shoulders.
"I don't think you can teach that, it comes with feeling, and mixing with people that have it, and it's important to impart that right from the cradle - even from an enjoyment and social point of view, the sharing of the playing."
KML, I don't think it's right to say that memes are true or that memes do exist.
Going back to Dawkins first, he is a clever scientist, very fluent and clear thinking, but also extremist or fundamentalist or whatever the word is for someone who takes a position that can't tolerate alternative views. (IMO, Lynn Margulis is twice as smart as Dawkins).
Dawkins reckoned he could explain all of our bodily structures and behaviour as being produced by evolution and genes. But then there's all the cultural stuff left over, which is the main thing that distinguishes us from animals. So he proposed an additional unit of cultural evolution, the meme.
But it's just a theory. Or maybe better, only a hypothesis, because I don't think it's possible to prove. It's a theory with some explanatory value. But there's lots of other ways of understanding culture that have explanatory value, and some may be better than meme theory.
The reason meme theory got so well known is because it was taken up by commercial marketing people who say it as a brilliant way to make money. If you can invent an advert that is a mind virus, linked to a product, that jumps from person to person like flu, then what a great way to sell stuff. But it doesn't really work, because, if the product is crap, then that news jumps from person to person equally efficiently.
Basically, the meme concept comes out of information theory, and the word 'meme' is just a fancy substitute for 'idea'. If I say a phrase here now, for example, 'form follows function' and it goes down the phone line to a router to your computer, into your eyes and into your brain, and you now say 'form follows function', then that's a meme, spreading. It might die, or it might stay in your brain, encoded electrochemically in memory, and you might pass it on to other people. Some memes spread easily, others disappear. That's why it seemed to offer an understanding for cultural evolution.
But everybody knew this happened, before meme theory. A catchy phrase in a pop song or a nonsense phrase, can get into your head even if you hate the song, and you hum it and somebody else picks it up.
Calling it a meme might help to formalize the process to assist study, but it doesn't increase our understanding all that much.
It's just a fresh way of looking at what happens from a different angle. And when folks try to compare it with standard genetic evolution, the comparisom doesn't stand up very well.
As Danny said above, there's all sorts of stuff going on in the evolution and expression of genes that's actually real and can be checked with microscopes and statistics. I don't think anybody has been able to find equivalent hard patterns in human culture. It's all a lot more woolly.
Incidentally, the word or idea 'meme' is itself a meme, and when you first heard it, you were infected. Fascinating, that, in Michael's mind it mutated into a 'memm', because that's what the theory says is supposed to happen
Yeah, when I wrote that I was half asleep. You're right. Memes only exist as much as ideas exist, or are facts, however you want to describe their "existence". That's all I was trying to say. Michael's spelling may not be his strongest point, which he has explained here previously, but he has good memes.
meme - memm, same thing, different label.
fiddle/flute roll - guitar "roll". same label, different thing.
Yes, it's impossible to study the "evolution" of culture in any scientific way. And the evolution of diddley music also. But we still use the concept of music evolving and while it's not the same as evolutionary biology, it's a reasonable and helpful concept.
For example, it's interesting to look at the rise of the conical-bore simple system flute in diddley music. Although probably played before the nineteenth century, In the 1850s a glut of these flutes became cheaply available because of the classical players switching to the boehm system. And the genre of diddley flute playing took off. As Lynn Margulis would put it, there is a symbiotic relationship between the music and the specific instrument. The music evolved to do stuff that the instrument is capable of.
But there is a common misconception that if something "evolves", it gets more complicated or somehow better. Evolve merely means change. And this was what my anaology of the echinoderms was about. I fear that the rise of the guitar in diddley music will make the music worse. In biology we wouldn't countanance the term better in a pejorative manner, merely "better" at existing in it's environment. But I think we can use it with regards to art.
My suggestion is that if the environment diddley music "lives" in, ie. the instruments it is played on, has less articulation, then the music will evolve into something less articulate.
(I've just found a classic wikipediaism: "While non-Boehm flutes are still made in limited numbers, they are primarily restricted to non-ensemble situations such as folk music, where tuning and regularity of tone are not considered as critical." tee he)
About the 'evolution' of flutes, etc. - it's a perfectly sensible word to use, kind of synonymous with progression or development and similar concepts. My gripe further up the page concerned the confusion some people make between the common usage and the biological, Darwinian usage.
English language is so frustrating ! The way mathematicians use 'function' and the way furniture designers use 'function' and the way surgeons use 'function'...it makes for endless muddle.
It's obvious that motor cars have evolved, and computers and mobile phones have evolved, and musical instruments have evolved, but although there may be superficial similarities, that kind of technological and cultural evolution isn't directly comparable to Darwinian Evolution of, say, whales or coconut palms.
I think I probably agree with you llig, that guitar is or could be, a - what's the right word ? retrograde ? or negative ? - influence in ITM. Not wanting to cause offence or be unkind to any individual player, but there are examples of CDs by guitarists, mostly in the 'celtic' category, where the music is so bland and diluted and 'New Agey' as to be almost unrecognizable. The reason why I'm here discussing this stuff is to try and avoid that trap, and raise the level of my own music making. I don't think it's fair to criticize these guys for making the music 'worse'. They're serious musicians and at least to my ears, sound authentic.
Sorry, I lost a paragraph somewhere...I mean to add, that because guitarists are not going to stop wanting to play Irish music, then the best strategy must be to try and set the standard as high as possible, e.g. mastery of the appropriate articulations.
''CDs by guitarists, mostly in the 'celtic' category, where the music is so bland and diluted and 'New Agey' as to be almost unrecognizable.''
Pipers fluters and fiddlers too unfortunately.
Have you heard dick Gaughan? on his album coppers [buttons?]and brass....classic. lack of articulation? methinks not.
i agree with Llig that the guitar has been a negative influence in ITM. However i disagree that its because of the instrument - i think its the players. The standard of musicianship of some guitarists in sessions relative to the other players there is derisory-if the same players played pipes or fiddle, they would be struggling through their 1st jig and wouldnt dare to assume parity with everyone else. ive seen guys with 6 chords in sessions. as a guitar teacher, im telling you you can learn 6 chords in a few hrs. would a piper assume he could join a session with skills that took a few hours work?
hate to say it, but bodhran is the same. percussionists in general. but Llig is 100% wrong when he extrapolates from this that the guitar as an instrument is therefore limited. The guitar's biggest barrier to ITM credibility is guitarists.
Lligs worry that ITM will become less articulate if played on instruments less capable of articulation is again almost but not quite spot on. He should be worried that it will become less articulate if performed by PLAYERS with less ability. And, ultimately, what is to blame for the influx of 4 chord bashers at sessions? Its the passive-aggressive attitude shown by the other musicians who let them sit there and bring down the aggregate standard. If you cant learn to say no, or "sorry mate but ur going to have to stop playing-you arent ready quite just yet" ...well, then you cant complain about their bashing.
hakanozel, it's frustrating that I'm not getting through to you. I don't extrapolate from anything that the guitar as an instrument is limited. I'm merely exploring the fact that every instrument is limited. You can only play one note at a time on a flute. The pipes have no dynamic range. etc.
Traditional Irish diddley music has evolved within the limitations of the instruments it's played on and will continue to do so. But it has also evolved to exploit what the instruments are capable of. And part of that evolving was/is the invention of cuts, rolls, taps, crans etc.
cuts, slurs, triplets, slides, space/gaps, dynamics, attack, tone variation
the following are possible though not as accurate as they are on the holy trinity instruments
rolls, crans, microtones (possible by bending the strings), it takes a very good player to execute these well and while they sound different to the other instruments they aren't so different as to sound out of character with the music. I personally think cranning when done well on guitar is just as good as on fiddle.
taps, crans and barks are particular to the pipes and any attempt to emulate them on the fiddle is a mere approximation.
There are so many different approaches to rolls on different instruments. A good guitarist can do a good roll, it won't sound like a fiddle roll, but a fiddle roll doesn't sound like a pipes or flute roll either.
Also when's the last time you tongued your fiddle Gill?!!!
So in the end all instruments have their limitations but a good player can overcome these limitations. As hakanozel points out there are a lot more good pipers, flautists and fiddlers playing trad than there are good guitarists so that's the main issue here.
did u know the opening note of Stravinskys Rite OfSpring is technically impossible? The 1st note is theoretically beyond the range of the bassoon. But Stravinsky wrote it and since then every bassoonist who wants a gig had better be able to play that note!
Anyone want to extapolate what my point is feel free cuz ive forgotten!
Michael, I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that this music developed within the limitations of the instruments it is played on. The players have always imposed limits on what articulations they would use, often stopping far short of exploring all of the potential of their givien instrument.
So it is that vibrato on fiddle is still widely regarded as "out of place" in the dance tunes (though this is slowly changing), as are a whole host of bowings more common in the classical arsenal. Similarly, breath vibrato on flute is almost never heard, in favor of wiggling the fingers over the holes. And even that, sparingly.
Trills sound out of place in this dance music on any instrument, which begins to shed some light on why certain articulations are "traditional" and others are not--it's all about rhythm and timing. A trill fills space, but not in a particularly rhythmic way. It's more like fillagree added to embelish a note, not the rhythm.
Which, for me anyway, gets to the heart of this whole debate. Irish trad musicians favor articulations that enhance pulse and create a sense of rhythmic lift (and also suspense or surprise). The articulations are peculiar to each instrument, and they've developed to suit the music (so that an Irish roll, for example, is different than a classical mordant).
If this all holds true (despite it being merely my grossly inadequate and ill-informed opinion), then it stands that guitar could have it's own set of articulations that work idiomatically within this music. Will it sound different from flute, pipes, and fiddle? Yes, by definition. Have the Irish ever stopped adding instruments to the trad pantheon? Not over the previous 400 years they haven't.
Some, but not all pipers can hit E and F# in the third octave. Ennis could do it routinely. But then he was Ennis. Right hand man to the Holy Ghost, as I recall.
he was good, alright. have you heard Pierre Bensusans version of Merrily Kissed The Quaker? hes got every nuance of Ennis down on the guitar...etc etc etc
I didn't mention them, but I was thinking of Nazis when I said "I have a horror of exaggerated expressions of ethnicity". I also made a ref to eugenics.
You'll have to Mr. Llig, Sean. It's his thread. He'll probably give you detention, but you might get away with writing out "cuts, rolls, taps, crans, slurrs, tonguing, triplets, slides, microtones, attack, dynamics. space/gaps, barks, tone variation" one thousand times, if he's in a tranquil mood...
Come on Will, how could it develop outside the limitations of the instruments? And that is not connected to exploiting "all" the possibilities. In fact, the fact that the music doesn't explore "all" the possibilities, that it developed with less than even what is available, makes it even harder to move to a completely different instrument.
But yes, a lot of Irish music's articulation is about how to put rhythm into a continuos tone. Both by Interrupting the continuous tone with very very precisely placed blips and squeaks and by letting the tone flow uninterrupted to accentuate where you do interrupt it. All stuff that just doesn't work on an instrument where you have to keep plucking it all time.
"A lot of Irish music's articulation is about how to put rhythm into a continuous tone."
That's *it*.
I disagree about banjo tho'. It's more about banjo players, and most banjos. I know two who have a terrific - even uncanny - ability to make the banjo sing - I mean sustained notes & extraordinarily fluid flow to the extent that the plucking sound gets subsumed. I asked one of them about it. He actually agreed with the point re - his words - the "Plonking" style of most players & the lack of sustain on most banjos. Interestingly, he told me that he perfected his technique listening to fiddle players. I was there when Kieran Hanrahan - presumably a better judge than I - sought out my man to compliment him on his extraordinary fluidity.
If BF Skinner's lab is still open we could all go there & play all day. Wolf's buddy Dawkins could make the intros. Skinner's lads could watch us in action like they did the pigeons & rats -
"Perfectly executed triplet - Wait for the endorphin rush - Wow - Cran of subtlety to be borderline audible - wait for the endorphin rush...."
What about harp players, Sean ? Have you heard any remarkable harpists similar to the banjo player you mentioned ? Names of Ireland's premier harp players ?
Harpists - I don't know much I'm afarid. Antoinette McKenna - Mary Bergin's sister - did some nice-ish backing to her husband Joe on the pipes. There's a young lassie called Laoise Kelly who seems to be making a name for herself. I've heard her a couple of times - v pleasant. It's quite possible that other young players have come to the fore while I've been away in the jungles & deserts. Someone told me recently I should listen to a girl called Lynn Saoirse, which I haven't yet.
(Intriguing name- Could it be real ? "Saoirse" - Freedom - It's what Provos call their dogs & sometimes their kids)
Thinking about Michael's concern for the music expressed above,
if the harp had never been an Irish instrument, and, newly invented, was being introduced to the Irish tradition, would it pose the threat that Michael sees in the guitar ?
The second piece he plays tho' is an excellent example of what I mean by sacrificing rhythm to speed. He could with much benefit slow down & get a more driving rhythm out.
The trouble w any discussion about the harp is that the old tradition died out completely. No-one really knows how harp music was played at its apogee in the 17th & 18th centuries. All modern harping is a modern development.
There was a man called Edward Bunting engaged to transcribe music played my harpers at the last great convocation of same - in Belfast some time in the 1790s. Bunting though was a classical man, and did not transcribe the music as it was played (if, indeed that could have been done), but ratehr made "Corrections".
Yes, I take your point about the rhythm. I'd say that was a weakness. Listening to African kora harp players, they set the rhythm up first, at the start and keep it pulsing all the way through. The widdly diddly bits are decoration on the background. Listening to Paul Dooley, he's concentrating so hard on his right hand, and then fitting the left in every now and then...nice though.
Interesting that ann Irish guy with a trad Irish harp is resurrecting lost Welsh harp music tradition.
You've probably often heard the technique - Irish players - Clare players in particular - sometimes play a tune all but completely unadorned first time round, then accentuate the rhythm second time round & introduce ornamentation & variation second time, and then drive all three like hell third time round -
General message is along the lines of - OK - you can hear I'm good - now listen up & you'll progressively hear *how* good.....
Yes, well, I think that rhythm is a physical thing, a bodily thing. I've got a great dvd by Dwight Diller, old time banjo player, where he teaches rhythm. Thing is, if it's a body thing, you can't just switch it on. It needs the body to understand what's wanted and then to warm up and get a rhythmic loop going around. That takes a little while, 20 or 30 seconds perhaps, and after that you can leave the body on autopilot and it'll stay with the rhythm, and you can start to think about the tricky fingering and stuff.
That's the trouble with being a musician. If you paint or write you can stand back and think it over, go for a walk, come back, make a few changes. But live music performance in real time, there's only the one chance to hit it right.
Not saying I'm particularly good at any of this, but way back, I learned a lot of the old American guitar stuff, Rev. Gary Davis and Mississippi John Hurt and Elizabeth Cotten and players like that, where the thumb is picking the bass, which is equivalent to left hand at a piano keyboard. So, you start by setting that up with a good strong rhythm. Then you forget about the thumb. It'll just keep on doing what it's been told to do, and fingers can concentrate on the tricky melody bits.
I don't know what the exact correct technical term is for the fast repetition of notes these girls do on the harp there. But following on from above, where the guitarists thumb provides rhythm on the bass strings, one of the awesome achievements that Tony McManus has, he's trained his thumb to do the very fast down-up- down, similar to what those girls are doing. (Whew, I'm on topic for once ) which, IMO, is one of the articulations that make his playing sound authentic. Most guitarists can't do that. They just do the thump thump thump, which is not very interesting and doesn't drive the rhythm forward on Irish tunes.
Yes - I'll give it to the American country folks - They understand rhythm. Many years ago, I was out in the back of beyond in the Appalachians - place populatd by men called Cletus Leroy and girls called Heaven Lee - & heard some terrific playing. I could clearly the Irish influence. I didn't stress that - these guys and gals barely knew there were neighbouring states, let alone other countries. I clearly remember a version of the "Four Poster Bed" played in a terrific swinging style.
put 'em up ... put 'em up ... how long do you stay fresh in that can? I'll fight ye with one paw tied behind my back.
Actually, I think the guitar suits Scottish music quite well. There are some snappy fast rolls in Scottish bag pipe music which the fiddle usually translates into bowed triplets. These are easily transferable to finger-stile guitar triplets.
And I enjoyed listening to those harp clips, especially the paul dooly one. But the lack of slow rolls does stand out. And the other thing about the harp is the lack of aggression.
Ah, but me, I'm old and mellow. I like gentle exquisite music. If I want aggression I've got a custom strat upstairs and an amp with overdrive switch that'll wake the dead within a ten mile radius
Pity that clip of Tony McManus doesn't show his fast thumbnail triplets. I looked on youtube but didn't find an example.
Good thread though. Centres on the area most relevant to what I've been trying to do myself.
Thanks for the tip, lazyhound. I had a look, there's ten thousand of 'em ! I found much of interest, but not that exact trick that Tony McManus does yet.
articulation
articulation
Every instrument has it's limitations. Some more than others. Of course, overcoming the limitations of an instrument, substituting what you can't do with something you can, or even realising your approximation is so way off you leave space instead, are great skills to be admired. Some of the best music I've heard has come from such skilful innovation.
However. one of the greatest strengths of this music is the many and varied ways in which you can articulate. So it makes sense to play it on an instrument that is capable of the articulations you want.
# Posted on April 30th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: articulation
Yes, and?
# Posted on April 30th 2008 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: articulation
Can you define articulation more precisely, please, and how it differs for the common ITM instruments.
# Posted on April 30th 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
cuts, rolls, taps, crans, slurrs, tonguing, triplets, slides, microtones, attack, dynamics. space/gaps, barks, tone variation etcetera
# Posted on April 30th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: articulation
I think I see where you're coming from Michael - is this is following on from the guitar thread and your comments about the suitability of different instruments for playing the tunes themselves?
# Posted on April 30th 2008 by Ron P
Re: articulation
Thanks, llig, just wanted to be certain we're talking about the same thing to avoid any confusion; so, the manner in which notes are started, sustained, and released, yes ?
# Posted on April 30th 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
yes, including the fast percussive things you do with notes.
# Posted on April 30th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: articulation
Re the guitar - unless you're Tony McManus, or approaching his calibre, I think it's very difficult to articulate style on a guitar if picking the tunes; it's generally a style-neutral instrument IMHO. This is why to date I've never bothered even attempting to play tunes on it - I scrape on my fiddle for that - though only for Scottish tunes, as I would need another lifetime to develop an authentic approximation of an Irish fiddle style! For Irish music, I restrict the guitar to (as subtle as I can, as required) accompaniment.
# Posted on April 30th 2008 by Ron P
Re: articulation
As so often, in many areas of life, not just music or guitar, the consensus is that something is very difficult or impossible, then someone pops up who shows how it can be done. Look at Charlie Christian or Eddie Lang, then Django Reinhardt, right up to Alan Holdsworth. They kinda learn everything their mentors had achieved and then build on it.
Tony McManus built on what Dick Gaughan did. When I was first learning, Davy Graham was the heroic guitarist to attempt to emulate. He's still a great figure of course, but those early recordings do sound rough, and there are now tens of thousands of players who are better than that. In those days nobody even dreamed that what McManus does might be possible, but I'll bet there are young folks learning now who'll be even more amazing.
I suppose guitar does have it's place in ITM as an accompanying rhythm instrument, but personally I've done enough strumming for one lifetime. I want to get at the melody, but stay away from the classical style. As Iris has mentioned several times, it probably makes more sense to see this style of guitar playing as being an inheritor of the harp's role in ITM.
Again personally, I've heard quite enough O'Carolan. It fits guitar so easily, because it's quite close to so much standard classical guitar music. I try to follow my own heart, listen to what I like, attempt to play it, not be influenced by anybody else's style or achievement.
Referring back to the thread where hakanozel was talking about emulating the pipes on guitar. Seems kinda daft. If that's the sound you love most, then learn the pipes. It's always going to be more satisfactory than trying to get pipe sounds out of acoustic guitar, though it's fun to try.
# Posted on April 30th 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
The articulate musician of any instrument (in any style) evokes an attraction to those with ears to hear, among whose numbers are those who are further compelled to create something similar(however articulate they may be), the subtleties of which are a life-long pursuit.
# Posted on April 30th 2008 by drone
Re: articulation
Hi wolfbird - all very well, but I did say IMHO. Fine, I'm sure there will undoubtably be some very talented youngsters coming out of the woodwork and possibly even bettering Tony McManus - but from a session-playing perspective, most acoustic guitars simply ain't loud enough to play the tunes on..
# Posted on April 30th 2008 by Ron P
Re: articulation
I think you're right there drone. Probably my all time favourite guitar CD is Tumblin Gap by Alec Stone Sweet. He's taken old fiddle and banjo tunes and reinterpreted them on guitar with his own unique playing technique, in a way that really works. IMHO, it's a magnificent achievement. He hasn't taken the tunes (which are mostly oldtime) into a new genre, he's just found the beauty in them, and simultaneously extended the range of what can be done with an acoustic guitar. A fiddler or banjo player who didn't know the tunes, could learn from those guitar versions and the essence of the tune would remain intact.
# Posted on April 30th 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Sure, Ron P
IMHO also! I know, delicate fingerstyle is a non-starter for noisy sessions unless electrically amplified. It's probably best to view it as specific category, like I said, similar to the harp tradition.
# Posted on April 30th 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Fair enough - really more the, dare I say it..... performance v's session thingy again. I might even consider flat-picking/finger-picking tunes myself for things like amplified pub gigs, or concert-type situations, but as I said beore, this might sound a bit neutral wrt style - but for that type of situation, that's not a hinderance.
# Posted on April 30th 2008 by Ron P
Re: articulation
Maybe Tumblin Gap is out of print, doesn't seem to be there. Here's the previous CD he made. I think his playing illustrates how fiddle or banjo tunes can work with fingerstyle guitar.
http://cdbaby.com/cd/alecstonesweet
# Posted on April 30th 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
"cuts, rolls, taps, crans, slurrs, tonguing, triplets, slides, microtones, attack, dynamics. space/gaps, barks, tone variation etcetera"
Dontcha love it when he talks like that?
# Posted on April 30th 2008 by Bob himself
Re: articulation
Articulation is the main reason I took up the fiddle, after twenty years of playing guitar. Thirty years later, it’s also the main reason I occasionally prefer to play a tune on the guitar. It’s also why I play clawhammer banjo instead of bluegrass style.
# Posted on April 30th 2008 by Bob himself
Re: articulation
Wolfbird - I just listened to the tracks on the link above - very nice playing. I must say though, that's a bit of a sanitized translation:
An Phis Fluich, (or) the Choice Wife.
I suppose you do have to be careful though - this might be a family show after all....
# Posted on April 30th 2008 by Ron P
Re: articulation
An extraordinary guy, Ron P, being a professor and finding time to get so good. He doesn't pluck the strings the way most (all ?) other players do, he uses the back of his fingernails, as some banjo players do, and mostly relies on hammers and pulloffs and lets the resonance of the guitar, in unusual tunings, do the work. Yes, I know about that title
# Posted on April 30th 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Whoa! wolfbird, I thought you were talking about me for a minute there... unfortunately none of these things are true of me
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Ron P
Re: articulation
Ha, ha, ha, don't be so hard on yerself, Ron P.....
Personally, I take comfort from the fact that I don't have the misfortune of having to waste time being a professor, so I can devote more to playing.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
You can articulate just fine on a guitar if you want to, just not in the same way as a fiddle or flute etc. necessarily, though some can be mimicked at times, triplets, slurs etc., and it can have volume, and fullness too, esp. fingerstyle. Won't beat a fiddle, box or whistle for loud, but can be heard with a decent instrument and good attack... and a thumbpick and nails will help. Tony McManus... quite audible. Think Martin Carthy for loud strong attack too.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by irisnevins
Re: articulation
Been trying to articulate that wild wet west sound...
http://www.soundlantern.com/UpdatedSoundPage.do?ToId=1010&Path=Prettygirlmilkinghercow.mp3
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Well, yes, you can articulate fine on a guitar. But to say, "just not in the same way as a fiddle or flute" is seriously missing the point of this thread.
two points:
1. With fiddles and flutes it's the amount of articulations available to you that far outstrip the availability on the guitar.
2. With fiddles and flutes there is a whole range of specific articulations which are part of this music that are not available on a guitar.
The question I'm asking is, do you really want to play this music? Or do you want to play the guitar. If your aim is to play the guitar, for whatever reason, then fine, do your best. But if it's this music you are after, specifically the music, then if you don't learn to play it on an instrument it's better suited too, you will be for ever missing out.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: articulation
Don't forget the late and dearly missed Tony Cuffe when you talk about guitarists who capture the feel of The Music. The solo guitar in this genre reminds me more of the harp than any other instrument. And those who would argue that the harp doesn't fit the tradition have a tough row to hoe.
And I am always amazed how, despite the differences between instruments like the box and fiddle, and how different the mechanics of the ornaments or articulations are, how good players can make them sing along together.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by AlBrown
Re: articulation
Obviuosly, "this music" isn't just about fiddles and flutes. You might like what fiddles and flutes can do in the way of articulation better, but that doesn't exclude or diminish what the other instruments add to the sound as a whole. I doubt Matt Malloy would spout out, "Aargh, the freakin' guitar is a waste of time if you REALLY want to play this music." Why? Because he's a musician first and probably not all hung up on what can or can't be done on specific instruments. I'm obviously speculating here, but I can't imagine he spent a lot of time dissing Mícheál Ó Domhnaill or Dónal Lunny for their choice of instrument. Do you actually think they were/are "forever missing out?"
I play guitar. I've played guitar for nearly 40 years, so it's obviously my instrument of choice. I'm a few short years into learning the tunes as well as backing and I'm not about to take up the fiddle just so I can play a "proper" roll. If I can get people dancing to an ITM tune with a guitar, or enjoy a few tunes with other musicians, then there you go--I don't give rat's arse if I can do a roll like a fiddle player. And neither do dancers or other musicians, quite frankly, unless, of course, they've been sitting around the same table with the same group of people for a hundred years not really giving a sh*te what other people are experiencing when they play their perfectly academic "cuts, rolls, taps, crans, slurrs, tonguing, triplets, slides, microtones.... etcetera."
To state, "The question I'm asking is, do you really want to play this music? Or do you want to play the guitar..." is actually quite ludicrous--IMHO, of course
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by gw
Re: articulation
And of course, this is entirely dependent upon the presupposition that the fiddle/pipes/flute/whistle ornaments are somehow more "correct." If you take the position, as llig has in the past, that "you don't give a fig for tradition," then it becomes entirely a matter of taste. Reliance on the other ornaments is either traditional, or a matter of personal aesthetics.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by TaoCat
Re: articulation
Such sweeping generalisations are typical of Mr. Gill. I don't know why I bother replying to him sometimes, but for fear that some poor soul will actually take him seriously here goes.......
Good guitarists can do things that emulate the harp in a way that no fiddler, piper or flautist can do.
Many fiddle ornaments are mere adaptations of piping ornaments, particularly cranning. No fiddler can cran exactly like a piper and contrary to what Mr. Gill thinks it is possible to do a very good cranning effect on guitar, banjo, mandolin and other such instruments. Of course it isn't exactly like the pipes cranning but neither is the fiddle cran!
So there are techniques and articulations more suited to certain instruments but through the ages players have developed techniques to emulate the articulations of other instruments on their own instruments. Of course they'll never be exactly like the techniques on other instruments but to simply dismiss the guitar as a melody instrument just because it can't exactly imitate the fiddle, pipes or flute is ridiculous. You might as well just dismiss accordions, concertinas, pianos, banjos, harmonicas etc. etc, none of which can articulate a roll like fiddles, pipes or flutes can.
Ultimately I would agree to some extent that the fiddle, pipes and flutes are the best instruments for playing most of the tunes in the tradition but when it comes to harp tunes the guitar is a far better instrument than the fiddle, pipes or flute for emulating such a sound. But I suppose harp music has nothing to do with the tradition does it Gill?............
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by !@£$%^&*()
Re: articulation
Following Michael's reasoning, if guitar just emulates a harp's sound, and you want to play this music, why not learn harp?
Personally, it doesn't matter to me. I enjoy the allegedly pure sound of fiddle and flute and pipes and whistle. But I also enjoy playing music--even this music--with anyone who's a good musician, regardless of their choice of instrument.
The articulations we use are not just specific to the instruments, but also to the player. Not only do fiddle rolls not sound like pipe rolls, but Seamus Connolly's rolls sound different from Kevin Burke rolls. And I can go blindfolded around the fiddlers in my session and tell them apart based on what their rolls and triplets sound like.
So what.
Time to play some tunes!
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Will CPT
Re: articulation
".....cuts, rolls, taps, crans, slurrs, tonguing, triplets, slides, microtones, attack, dynamics, space/gaps, barks, tone variation etcetera....
Of course. Well said. The soul of the music. Been keeping me occupied for nigh on 40 years, & not exhausted yet....
Ye wouldn't, would ye, be the same llig who put it to me on another thread :-
--oOo--
"....must say that when ever I come across anyone who believes that "Irish dance music is about instrumental virtuosity", I make a beeline for the bar. There is nothing more tedious that someone ruining lovely tunes with their instrumental virtuosity."
--oOo--
By virtuosity I mean a mastery of the techniques you mention. I'm often called a "Purist" for this. The first discussion I got in to on this site turned in to an argument over (what I would call) competence - to wit, the techniques you mention. The folkie brigade did not at all like my averral that this music is *complex*.
I think the danger of the subtlety being lost is long past, but it was real in the 50s and 60s. I don't particularly care for the Ó Riada stuff myself, but he did break the straitjacket of céilí bands with saxophones & snare drums.
Lest I bring down the wrath of other "Purists" - there were, of *course* legendary players during the period; they kept the tradition alive. I'll give meself high blood pressure if start asking whether there's any other damn' country in the world that would allow economic necessity to drive Julia Clifford to clean hotels in London for a living or Joe Heaney to work as a doorman in Chicago.....
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
"Ultimately I would agree to some extent that the fiddle, pipes and flutes are the best instruments for playing most of the tunes in the tradition"
Well ... there you go then.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: articulation
Sean, I'm in your camp. What I meant about virtuosity was I hate a show off, doesn't everyone?
But competence in articulation is a prerequisite.
And yes, there is pipe stuff that you can't do on a fiddle, and fiddle stuff you can't do on the pipes etc, but the general arsenal of articulation available to the fiddle, pipes and flute is remarkably similar.
And there's a lot you can do on a guitar, but very little of it traditional. Does that matter? Well I think it does. You could say that over time it will be traditional and that's true, but because there is less articulation available on the guitar, things will be lost. That's why it matters.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: articulation
To some extent......... Whatever anyone wants to play, I often advise that beginners get some familiarity with the whistle first to learn the basics of structure & ornamentation.
That said - there are box wizards, and the odd banjo wizard....
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
Fully agreed with regard to solo guitar. Sensitive backing on a guitar can sound good, but playing accompaniment is, as I think you intimate, *vastly* different to playing melody. In ITM, I thing solo guitar is unsubtle, & the limitation is w the instrument, not the players. Of exponents, Arty McGlynn probably comes closes to the tradition.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
Mr Leachim said, "...things will be lost. That's why it matters"
Unless you want to be part of a museum exhibit, "things" have to be lost in order to evolve. New "things" will pop up naturally, in this case maybe fretted instrument idiosyncrasies, maybe the digital technology revolution, maybe the "cosmopolitan global village-ing" of all culture. We are already living in a "equal temperament" world. (thanks to worldwide accordians!)
Old "things" fizzle out. It's the survival of the fittest, n'est que pas? But it's a very very slow process and no-one can stop it.
The future looks good to me. I don't want to pretend I'm in the past, I want to look forward and play GOOD music.
Cheers!
Yhaalhouse
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by yhaalhouse
Re: articulation
yhaalhouse, it's completely ridiculous to apply your notion of Spencerian social darwinism to music, especially ITM. That's just nonsense.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Sean Liad Leath "....but playing accompaniment is, as I think you intimate, *vastly* different to playing melody. In ITM, I thing solo guitar is unsubtle, & the limitation is w the instrument, not the players. Of exponents, Arty McGlynn probably comes closes to the tradition."
Yes, accompaniment and melody, vastly different. Apples and oranges.
Do you think Alec Stone Sweet, above, sounds unsubtle ? I don't. I think the instrument can be as subtle as any, (although he plays a Schoenberg Soloist, and having a very high quality instrument helps a lot).
Perhaps Arty McGlynn does come closest to the tradition, but he plays with a flatpick (at least I don't recall hearing any example of his fingerstyle ) and those two are styles are vastly different. Apples and oranges.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
I think some of the differences of opinion on this thread are because folks are motivated towards different ambitions.
Michael explained a while back that he plays a sub-genre of a sub-genre of the genre. He doesn't play dance music, he extracts the tunes.
Perhaps it's just as valid to extract the tunes into a sub-genre of fingerstyle guitar ? I mean, classical guitarists have been stealing French and Spanish and other folk melodies for centuries.
The problem I have, is that if I want to play a tune and say that it's Irish, as a matter of conscience and self-respect, I want it to *sound* Irish, and not crap. That's why I'm here. To learn.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
I don't know Yhaalhouse, you may be onto something.
When did the tradition actually start? was it before or after fretted instrument, and in fact, the viol I believe is older than the violin yet it's fretted
Should we not be blowing into sheeps bladders? get some nice rolls (of fat) out of that
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Cath
Re: articulation
cuts, rolls, taps, crans, slurrs, tonguing, triplets, slides, microtones, attack, dynamics. space/gaps, barks, tone variation etcetera
These are techniques that define the Irish instrumental tradition. If they die, then ITM is dead. Oh sure, there may be lineal descendants that emerge, but new genres will not have the same artistry if the said techniques die. It is perfectly possible to play something derivative of ITM using a fiddle bow on a woodsaw. ITM it ain't.
Yhaalhouse's - "cosmopolitan global village-ing" of all culture" - Not while I draw breath.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
"Old "things" fizzle out. It's the survival of the fittest, n'est que pas? But it's a very very slow process and no-one can stop it."
yhaalhouse (and maybe Cath). This concept, the phrase 'survival of the fittest ', was put forward by Charles Darwin in his quest to explain evolution of biological species over millions of years. He did not mean 'fit' in the sense it is commonly used today. He meant best adapted to a specific environment or niche.
There's no evidence that human culture, in this case a musical genre, operates along the same (or even similar principles) as biological evolution. Your confusing categories, you can't just take a theory from one system and apply it willynilly to a completely different system.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Music has evolved.
Who knows when "cuts, rolls, crans, slurrs et cetera et cetera" came into ITM? Did all of these techniques evolve at once? I doubt it.
Some techniques must have been lost; some must have been newly introduced at some time. It's that process that has given us "ITM" as it stands 1-May-2008 (Gregorian Calendar). It will infinitesimally different tomorrow and so on...
It means that "ITM" will change but not over night but over generations (as it has already).
I don't understand why anyone would be so fanatical and opposed to change since the thing you are "protecting" is an artifact of change.
And surely it's the outside influences that change, strenghten and spice up cultures!
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by yhaalhouse
Re: articulation
Different categories exist. Evolutionary Psychology anyone? Richard Dawkins?
But you're missing the point which is when did tradition become tradition?
Did it not evolve in some way?
It surely did not come fully formed sometime in September 1879 or any other date for instance. It has changed over the year, whatever the influence.
It only became crystallised as a tradition thanks to some rather anal self-appointed upholders of something which cannot remain fixed.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Cath
Re: articulation
"Different categories exist. Evolutionary Psychology anyone? Richard Dawkins?"
Yes, different categories exist.
What's evolutionary psychology got to do with it ? It's claims are attempts to explain why we behave in certain ways.
What's Dawkins got to do with it ?
"But you're missing the point which is when did tradition become tradition?"
Tradition is tradition now.
"Did it not evolve in some way?"
Not in the biological sense of the word. Better to say it developed.
"It surely did not come fully formed sometime in September 1879 or any other date for instance. It has changed over the year, whatever the influence."
Of course it didn't. But nobody has suggested it did. Or that it hasn't changed. But the 'rules', if there are any, have no connection whatsoever with biological evolution, or 'survival of the fittest'.
"It only became crystallised as a tradition thanks to some rather anal self-appointed upholders of something which cannot remain fix"
Seems you just want to throw insults for no good reason.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
"Music has evolved."
Same point as above. Sloppy language. Music changes as a part of wider human culture. Fashion in clothes changes likewise. But that's nothing to do with 'survival of the fittest'
"Who knows when "cuts, rolls, crans, slurrs et cetera et cetera" came into ITM? Did all of these techniques evolve at once? I doubt it."
Nobody said they did.
"Some techniques must have been lost;"
How do you know ? Evidence ? Or just a dumb statement ?
"some must have been newly introduced at some time. It's that process that has given us "ITM" as it stands 1-May-2008 (Gregorian Calendar). It will infinitesimally different tomorrow and so on..."
Sheesh. What do you think a musical genre is ?
"It means that "ITM" will change but not over night but over generations (as it has already)."
Nobody has said nothing changes.
"I don't understand why anyone would be so fanatical and opposed to change since the thing you are "protecting" is an artifact of change.
And surely it's the outside influences that change, strenghten and spice up cultures!"
You don't understand because your thinking is hopelessly muddled and intellectually confused. It doesn't take a fanatic to see that.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
I don't think anybody is suggesting that guitars take over the tradition. We would loose quite a bit if the articulations of the fiddle, whistle, flute and pipes were gone. The underlying question is whether the guitar has a place in the tradition, and whether or not the emulations possible on it are good enough.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by TaoCat
Re: articulation
''But competence in articulation is a prerequisite.''
A prerequisite for what llig?
''cuts, rolls, taps, crans, slurrs, tonguing, triplets, slides, microtones, attack, dynamics. space/gaps, barks, tone variation etcetera
These are techniques that define the Irish instrumental tradition''
Sean, Im not sure I agree with you there. Surely its the tunes that define the tradition? If you play German christmas carrols in an 'authentic' style with all the ornaments above does that make it Irish music? I dont think so. A Fella from Clare, who plays his tunes without these, does that mean he is not playing ITM?
No.
Therefore, to my mind at least, the tunes are the defining aspect. The tricks and 'articulation' of the players depend on the personal, and regional style, and instrumental idiosyncrasies
There is a search for authenticity in the Air today, and that is great, but this is symptomatic of a 'revival' . As far as I am concerned, it is enough that folk play the tunes with verve, excitement, joy, spirit, love. whether they choose to roll a note or not seems pretty irrelevant. What matters is the life in the playing. You can put all the ornaments in you like but if it has no spirit?!
Was Micho Russel searching for authenticity in his playing? did he load his tunes with ornaments because he felt he had to conform to an external vision of 'authentic' Irish music? No. He played his tunes as he chose.
I feel that there is a push to equate ITM with forms of music such as 'Classical'. To intellectualise. IMNSHO this is 'folk' music, dance music even, not European art music. All the rolls in the world wont make your music 'authentic' . Untill it 'is' authentic' nothing will make it so.... 'It will just be imitation, Which is grand, an essential step on the road, but The soul in music comes from the heart, not the head.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by jig
Re: articulation
"The underlying question is whether the guitar has a place in the tradition, and whether or not the emulations possible on it are good enough."
TaoCat, It's not for me to say what instruments have a place in the tradition. I don't think any individual has power, in that sense. If someone introduces a new instrument, and others think 'wow, that's cool', it'll maybe become accepted, as the bazouki was, and find a following. The guitar, as rhythm accompaniment has established itself, e.g. John Doyle, Arty McGlynn. Eugene Kelly does a fine job accompanying Paddy Canny. But that style of guitar playing doesn't involve (many of) the list of articulations. Fingerstyle solo guitar might almost be considered as a different instrument, in which case, I agree with you, it's a question of whether the instrument is capable of 'sounding right'. I wish I could say yes, but so far all my personal attempts fall short, and almost all those of other players likewise. But there are some exceptions. Randal Bays might be an example, although I think his fiddle sounds even better. Donal Clancy does a great job, IMHO. There are a handful of others. Perhaps that's just fine. A sub-genre on the fringe. No need for it to cause any controversy or upset anyone.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
How much are you missing out by not being capable of making the articulations? Are the articulations postulated by llig really as absolutely necessary as he claims?
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by TaoCat
Re: articulation
Dawkins is relevant because of his concept of the "meme"-i cant be arsed explaining it here tho!
LLig's whole position is indefensible because its based on a faulty presupposition - that the guitar is capable of less forms of ornamentation than other instruments. This is not true (maybe it is true of most guitarISTS and his faulty reasoning comes from his lack of contact with many decent ones).
Even IF we were to allow him this 1st faulty presupposition, his argument still doesn't hold. Tenor banjo players dont use the full gamut of ornamentation either. I've never heard a fiddle player play a cran. I've never heard a flute player play the 1st 3 notes of a slow air and leave the1st 2 notes ringing to create a lovely suspension "halo" underneath the 3rd.I've never heard a box player bend a 7th slightly sharp like a piper. Ive never heard a piper play the same note 3 times a row without little grace notes in between - beacause they cant.
In fact, in the hands of a decent player, a guitarist has a far wider range of ornaments available than almost all the "proper" ITM instruments.
This really is, in all fairness, the last word on the subject!
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by hakanozel
Re: articulation
It is what it is - and, that is, it is exemplified by the techniques to which llig refers. Abolish cranning. Is it still ITM ? Ban long rolls. Is it still ITM ? Ye get the drift.
You may know the Beard Paradox. If I grow a hair on my chin, I clearly do not have a beard. Conversely, if I grow several thousand I clearly do. There is no single point at which the addition of a single hair is going to effect the state transition from non-beard to beard. The poles of beard & non-beard are nevertheless readily identifiable.
Historical fact - The Sean Nós tradition (Hi Cath - "Art" if you prefer) was weakened by Conradh na Gaeilge types heading down to the Gaeltacht for a spot of bucolic theme-park touristry & singing Conradh na Gaeilge type songs. That's not a value judgment. Joe Heaney singing Casadh an tSúgáin is a tad different to some Conradh type singing Óró mo Bháidín.
If you're interested in slow airs, listen to the extant Sean Nós tradition before the language dies altogether. "Survival of the Fittest" ? - indeed. Even if one were to accept, which along with wolf I do not, that concepts of Darwinism (eugenics, anyone ?) have any validity in this instance - the sort of view expressed by Yhaalhouse re inevitability does not make any particular "Inevitable" outcome desirable. [C'mon Yhaalhouse -Resounding chorus of "Tomorrow Belongs to Me"]
I hope I do no participant here a disservice if I state that arguments to the effect that mastery of the techniques of ITM is unnecessary to the playing of the music become tedious and self-referential. The techniques are the salient characteristic of the genre.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
Well, that's maybe the issue. If I remember where we started, which was in a previous thread, it was an attempt to isolate the qualities that make Irish music sound distinctively Irish.
I have a slew of CDs by 'celtic' guitarists, sometimes playing tunes with Irish names, but, to my ear, they don't sound Irish.
I'd say they don't even sound 'celtic' but I'm in trouble if you ask me what 'celtic' should sound like. I guess it's an impression I've gained over my lifetime, hearing Scottish and Irish music.
Michaels view is, I think, that it's the articulation that provides that distinctive quality.
I don't think I agree with jig
"If you play German christmas carrols in an 'authentic' style with all the ornaments above does that make it Irish music? "
It'd come out sounding Irish. If it was a good strong tune, it'd probably get accepted into the tradition.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
"Dawkins is relevant because of his concept of the "meme"-i cant be arsed explaining it here tho!"
No, it's not relevant. Neither evolutionary psychology nor meme theory can even offer any adequate or convincing argument for why we even have or like music, or why we find beauty and pleasure in sounds. The only place meme theory might have a bearing is why particular catchy phrases stick in peoples heads and pass from one person to another.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
"LLig's whole position is indefensible because its based on a faulty presupposition - that the guitar is capable of less forms of ornamentation than other instruments. This is not true (maybe it is true of most guitarISTS and his faulty reasoning comes from his lack of contact with many decent ones)."
Okay,hakanozel. Stick an mp3 somewhere where we can all have a listen to you demonstrating llig's list of articulations on acoustic steel string guitar. Put up or shut up
THEN the case will be closed. Maybe...
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Good point wolfbird. But if that were the case, where are they? pachabels frolics would be as close as it gets, n'est pas?
simply the idea that a persons playing is any less 'authentic' if they chose to play the notes in a 'simple' fashion.
Sean, I am not arguing against ornaments, sorry, ''Articulations'
''Abolish cranning. Is it still ITM ? Ban long rolls. Is it still ITM ? Ye get the drift.''
Exactly! yes it is.
]
example; its not possible to cran on the fiddle[ vague approximations maybe] .therefor the cran is not a defining characteristic of ITM. [unless ITM can not be played authentically on the fiddle
Its not possible to Roll on a High D on the pipes.. or the banjo, but that does'nt mean that ITM can not be played 'authentically' on the banjo... etc etc
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by jig
Re: articulation
Great explanation re the beard, Sean ! I like that.
Bit like the straw that breaks the camel's back. But, what if you have a fake beard, (all the hairs are the articulations) and stick it onto an unshaven chin ? That's jigs argument. German tune plus articulations doesn't make for an Irish tune. Or does it ?
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
TaoCat.... right.... who is suggesting guitars take over. No one. Many melody players like accomanpiment, some don't, so it seems there is a place for it in the tradition. Believe me I like real old style trad quite a lot, pre guitar even.... and yet some real old style players will ask for accompaniment. So go figure. Sometimes I like to sit out and let it happen without guitar and people tell you to come in and play. Guess it means it has become accepted in the tradition.
I think the discussion is about articulation though, and no I don't believe you can articulate in the same ways, though can do some bits approximately, but guitars on the other hand can do things the other instruments either can't or don't commonly do, if they work with the music... and believe me any decent backer takes VERY seriously every suggestion a melody player makes....keep it or get rid of what you just did.... in my mind we are here for them, here for the music, and if it doesn't work for them or the music, out it goes. After a while you get a pretty good idea though! Melody players can be quite blunt and opinionated about what they will or won't accept in the music, which I think is a good thing. Most of us really want to keep them happy, not foist things on them that don't fit.
Being both a melody player and a backer/accompanist, and seeing things from both sides.... used to play mandolin a lot years ago (gave up pretty much to focus on fingerstyle guitar long ago, and am rusty but can revive it now and then), can play some whistle tunes decently and am getting there on harp, as well as tunes on guitar, I do agree that if one only plays backup guitar, in that sense they are missing that other dimension of playing the tunes, and not knocking backers who don't have the wish to play tunes, but it does give great pleasure and joy to be able to play tunes too. So in that sense I am in aggreement with llig in that one may be missing something great, but.... truly there are some MAJOR thrills in accompaniment too.... and couldn't we who love doing it say to the melody players... boy, what you are missing? You will never know the joys some of us feel, the free float, the freedom to improvise, to move in and out of the melody, help create moods, it's a real deep down joy that a melody player may never know. Can anyone imagine someone like Tony McManus, even when backing, is not having the time of his life? he sure looks fulfilled, enthused, inspired!
I love doing both, am totally loving the harp too, strictly tunes and technique learning at this point (four months), the backing actually baffles me at this point on harp. I find it harder, and think really good accompaniment (not just rotating two/three chords around, but knowing the tunes in your mind, yet having to do something else with your hands, and having the ability to join in parts of the tune etc.... again, like the good pianos do) is more challenging than tune playing in many ways....having seen the music from both sides of the fence.
So many will ask why, if you can play tunes, are you playing backup at all? Like it's something inferior. Why does Charlie Lennon accompany? Why does Felix Dolan love playing the piano backing when he could play flute all the time? The two sisters, Maeve and Bernadette Flanagan (of the Conway lineage) Maeve is a brilliant fiddler, but I would not consider Bernadette any less of a musician for playing piano accompaniment...she is brilliant. She could be playing tunes too, and I believe is a fine whistler, but mainly plays her piano.
I love it because of the challenge in it. It's less defined than playing a tune note for note, you can make things up as you go along, and believe me, you learn fast what a melody player doesn't think fits.... and even that varies with each melody player. I love meeting a new melody player and the challenge of learning about their style, sometimes right on the spot....no, OFTEN right on the spot, by listening intently, and going into that great mental spot with them that happens when you click.....though that happens when two melody players hit it off as well.... but just to make note that this does happen with "us" too. Accompanying has many dimensions, if the player really wishes to deeply explore it.
One time a melody player made some comment at a session that guitar players couldn't cut it as melody players, so took up something easy. Unfortunatley there are many out there who do just that, learn a few chords and rotate them and learn nothing further. Usually their motivation is not love of the music, they maybe 'like' the music, but more want the social thing, to be part of the crowd. There are also flute, whistle, box and fiddle players who don't put the work in, try to get by on a few tunes played badly so they can be part of the fun, a few of them playing with poor intonation and all with different timing from each other can really wreck a session as easily as a few guitars. Why they don't get knocked as badly as the guitar players is another topic, but..... not on this thread most likely!
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by irisnevins
Re: articulation
"In fact, in the hands of a decent player, a guitarist has a far wider range of ornaments available than almost all the "proper" ITM instruments."
This may be true, but they are not traditional Irish music. And there is a reason I'm using the word articulation, not ornament. It's because this music is driven by articulated melody, and without a doubt, fiddles flutes and pipes have more articulations available to them than a guitar.
I can make any tune sound Irish. In fact, I'm unable to play any tune without it sounding Irish.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: articulation
www.hakanozel.com
tho, MY acknowledged inabilty to pull off ALL the articulations obviously doesnt mean the INSTRUMENT is necessarily incapable. 1 hour on youtube you could find examples of them all. just one example-Richard Thompson is well known for using crans during improvised solos on the electric guitar. It doesnt sound like ITM, but he's using the technique.
Memes- relevant to the idea of "evolution" of technique and tunes. i wasnt referring to WHY we like music. But the Bucks/Foxhunter combo that ends almost EVERY gig or sesion where i live is a good example of a meme. but ur are right it doesnt explain why those particular tunes became so popular in the 1st place. (or why such constant overexposure can make u start to grow sick of them!!)
i agree in principle with your comment about the German xmas carol - it IS the ornamentation which to a large extent defines the style, more even than the notes. there is a guy near here who wrote a tune on the bazouki which uses the Spanish Phrygian scale so its very "exotic" for West Kerry..but he uses rolls etc and suddenly it sounds "Irish " again.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by hakanozel
Re: articulation
"I can make any tune sound Irish. In fact, I'm unable to play any tune without it sounding Irish."
Ha,ha, Sooo, if the fake beard stays on long enough, it takes root ?
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Jig -
I'm not actually sure that you are being entirely serious. The fact that not all piping ornaments translate to the fiddle, or for that matter vice versa, does not in any sense vitiate fact that the "Armoury" of technique, ornamentation & embellishment is what defines the music. Plain as the non-beard on me face. (Actually, I'm in the desert. Is 3 days' growth a beard ?)
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
"fiddles, flutes and pipes have more articulations available to them than a guitar"..
well of course they do - thats outnumbering by 3 to 1! No fair!
My orchestra is better than your string quartet!
many of the arguments on this site are interesting, enjoyable and thought provoking., but sometimes the logic behind them is as shaky as an Out On The Ocean in someones first fiddle lesson!
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by hakanozel
Re: articulation
However. one of the greatest strengths of this music is the many and varied ways in which you can articulate. So it makes sense to play it on an instrument that is capable of the articulations you want. llig
So it also makes sense to play an instrument that has the sound you want, that defines what you want to contribute to your session. An accordion is not a fiddle, nor is it capable of the articulations. I doubt, however, that most people would want the music restricted to flutes, fiddles and pipes.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by TaoCat
Re: articulation
Hak -
"Richard Thompson is well known for using crans during improvised solos on the electric guitar"
Cranning ? On a guitar ? I'm checking for squadrons of pigs flying by, but I don't see any. But I'm an open-minded fellow. You got a clip ?
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
I tried your site, hakanozel, and most of 'em wouldn't play for me.
Don't want to get personal, but you're side stepping the challenge here. Same goes for the Richard Thompson example. It's an *electric* guitar.
Meme theory does try to explain why tunes get popular. You don't seem to understand it very well. But it's completely irrelevant anyway, in this context, so I don't know why it gets mentioned.
So, you agree with llig ? It's the articulation that makes for the 'Irishness' ? But you disagree with llig, that the guitar can't match his list ?
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Hang on WB, The proposition was 'guitar', without preconditions such as; accoustic or steel stringed.
Different instruments facilitate different ornaments. To suggest, laughably, that one instrument or another is inherently superior strikes me as somewhat elitist...or that ITM can not be played 'authentically' on, say a concertina, is simply nonesense.
My answer would be that it doesnt come from 'tricks' or slight of hand but from the heart and spirit.
Of course if you aim to authentically mimic a particular sound it makes sense to play 'the instrument 'that created that sound. But to think there for that your mimicry has some vestige of authenticity because you can copy the outward form is to miss the point.
This begs the question then, how to 'be' authentic ?
IMNSHO
I just feel its all a bit superficial, that by adopting certain gestures that one can somehow obtain an 'authenticity' that is not available to others who dont conform to your idea of authenticity. According to this logic Micho did'nt play ITM right?! or authentically...
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by jig
Re: articulation
Sean, from past experience on this site, it's useless referring directly to specific tecniques, 'cause people just define them however they want.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: articulation
"(Actually, I'm in the desert. Is 3 days' growth a beard ?)"
You're splitting hairs, Sean. We'd have to see a photo.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
So, llig, please tell me in no uncertain terms: Joe Cooley, Elizabeth Crotty, Mick Moloney, etc. just didn't get Irish music?
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by TaoCat
Re: articulation
ill hunt one down sometime - basic gist is playing an open string but with v fast pull offs at 5th or 7th or even 9th fret.There was also a column in a guitar magazine yrs ago where RT gave a lesson in how to do it.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by hakanozel
Re: articulation
"Hang on WB, The proposition was 'guitar', without preconditions such as; accoustic or steel stringed."
You're not paying attention, jig. We already sorted that. An electric guitar with a synth can make any sound imaginable. Stick in yer uilllean pipe samples and you're going to sound as close as dammit. Same goes for didjeridoo or lute or glockenspiel. We (or I) am talking about unamplified acoustic steel string.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Iris, some of your posts are making me sad. You've played at my session more than once and I love hearing you play---I've even stopped playing myself a few times so I could hear you better. Actually, that would be the only thing about guitar in a session that I think is a drawback---played fingerstyle, it can be hard to hear. But I've seen a harp player in a busy session (there's an amazing one near us---have you seen her?) who fits in beautifully, even though the harp is hard to hear as well, even amplified. But the other players around her will compensate for this and quiet down sometimes to give her instrument a chance to shine---both for the sake of the music and because they love to hear her play. I think the players in the best sessions will always bring the focus to the musical strengths of everyone in the group, and not reserve their attention for certain instruments based on some hierarchy of instruments. What a silly notion!
I really disagree with the contention that guitars are out of place in Irish/Scottish music. It has much more to do with the skill and the feeling for the music that the player can bring to it---McManus and Gaughan and McGlynn and Thompson have proved that beyond argument.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by kennedy
Re: articulation
(Sean, from past experience on this site, it's useless referring directly to specific tecniques, 'cause people just define them however they want)
The post-modernist curse. Allied to the most nefarious US export ever - The idea that self-regard is a substitute for excellence. "It reinforces my self-esteem to believe that (x) is so, therefore contradictory facts are immaterial".
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
sorry my site doesnt work properly on your pc..but having a website chock full of my playing hardly constiutes "sidestepping the issue"!!! anyway its the GUITAR's versatility which is the issue, not MY abilities! (and certainly not my "HTML for Dummies" webdesign abilities!!
)
ok, come to the Marina Inn in Dingle this sunday at 6pm and I'll play you some reels and then you can judge me worthy or not. Forgive me if the willingness of locals born and bred on this music to play with me and often REQUEST to play with me continues to hold more importance to me than your opinion.
neither of us is willing to explain memes so lets leave that one there.
Llig - maybe my definitions of crans etc are faulty, I'm more than happy to be put right. Thats what its all about, after all.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by hakanozel
Re: articulation
"It reinforces my self-esteem to believe that (x) is so, therefore contradictory facts are immaterial".
Just like the poor wretches in mental asylums who believe they are Napoleon. The question to ask is "Okay. Well, where's yer army ?"
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Sean, you aint wrong. my wife is currently doing a Masters thesis on linguistics and says that current thought states all uses of language are equally valid. I'm having great fun saying things like "This chicken soup is disgusting! What? Where i come from, Disgusting is a valid compliment." Childish but fun.
(Though, come to think of it, she hasnt cooked for me recently..)
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by hakanozel
Re: articulation
Dead in the snow outside Moscow
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by hakanozel
Re: articulation
Wolf -
Interesting point. I've often wondered who delusional people thought they were before Napoleon came to prominence.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
"neither of us is willing to explain memes so lets leave that one there"
Hey, hakanozel, speak for yourself ! I'm happy to explain/discuss meme theory until the cows come home with anyone. Just that meme theory, evolutionary psychology, Dawkins, Darwinian evolution, etc, have no connection whatsoever with the topic, and only came up because yaalhouse suggested that 'survival of the fittest' was relevant. Which it is not !
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
lol!
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by hakanozel
Re: articulation
What's your take on epigenetics, wolf?
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: articulation
Sean, I have no documentary support, but Charlemagne, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, maybe ?
There's no shortage of power crazed megalomaniacs is there . Did you catch a snip of some journalist who visited all of Stalin's 16 palaces ? Apparently the visitors books show that the only other individual who had ever visited all 16 was Sadaam Hussein. Whoa, way off topic 
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
I am entirely serious sean. I suggest that the armory' of techniques are a part and parcel of ITM but that its the tunes, pure and simple that define the genre.
\There are 2 aspects, the the content and the presentation. Bach played with ornaments does not make ITM, but the bucks played without ornaments IMNSHO, is. I keep using Micho Russel as an example. because that is the CD in the player right now. His rendition of a tune is what it is. I really dont care what any one says, as far as i am concerned he epitomises ITM .
I presume we are talking unaccompanied solo artists here.... Its a different argument were we to consider say a synth backing!
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by jig
Re: articulation
When I am Grand Master Of All That I Survey pipes, banjos, boxes and fiddles will all be made illegal and everyone will have to play the Gold Ring perfectly on the guitar whenever they are randomly stopped and searched by The Cran Police.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by hakanozel
Re: articulation
The Queen of Sheba.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: articulation
''Stick in yer uilllean pipe samples and you're going to sound as close as dammit. Same goes for didjeridoo or lute or glockenspiel. We (or I) am talking about unamplified acoustic steel string.''
Well now i got to disagree with that! Without the 'articulations' it would not sound like a piper[ Hmm am i arguing against myself here? ] Ps I have an electric midi enabled guitar with synth.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by jig
Re: articulation
"What's your take on epigenetics, wolf?"
Hi, KML. Well, damn, Lamarck was right all along !
Naah, not that simple. But Margolis showed that the neo-darwinists are wrong, must be wrong, 20 years ago, in a study I read. Environment can change genetic material and changes be inherited, and there's been loads more studies since then although I'm not up to speed.
The way I see it, epigenesis doesn't displace yer basic darwinian understanding. But it's an 'add on' which makes the whole picture more complicated and interesting. Is that how you see it ?
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
DNA methylation.....? acetylation of nuclear proteins (histones)....?
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: articulation
Dunno if you were around at The Session.org when I posted this discussion, wolf, but it may interest you:
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/8317/comments
Mostly I was just curious on your "take" on this new topic, and with some reference to what was being said above (not that I actually read the whole thread so please forgive me for barging in). I just wonder whether epigenetic gene expression has any impact on future gene pools which are selected by sexual (or more specifically socially -engineered sexual ) -selection.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: articulation
Well, I met Mrs. Sean Lead Liath playing music. Hence my PhD thesis, now in progress - "Use of Cuts, Rolls, Taps, Crans, Slurrs, Tonguing (no jokes, please), Triplets, Slides, Microtones, Attack, Dynamism Space/gaps, Barks, Tone and Variation as Primary Mechanisms of Sexual Attraction by the Human Male". Worked for me. Especially the barks. Wuff Wuff.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
You mean especially the slides......
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: articulation
Danny, I'll read your links in a minute. I got diverted. I did a google for the Lynn Margulis papers I mentioned. I'm a big fan of her stuff, but obviously some people completely miss the point of what she was saying, or just hate her on other grounds, e.g.
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=199797
But talking about the 'mechanics' of evolution, or our bodies and genetics, is a long way from the topic...
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Dear Dr. Sean,
I like women who know how to articulate. Especially if they also claim to be the Queen of Sheba. Should I be worried ?
sincerely,
a concerned reader.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Dear Concerned Reader
This requires research. Please forward pix and phone numbers of the ladies in question. Then I can help you.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Hey Kennedy...don't cry, LOL.... thank you though, you are kind.... i wish I knew WHICH Kennedy you are that I know!! Know at least Three...maybe you can email off group?
I really don't take things so seriously or worry that someone can't hear me, I just have a good time. Actually, depends on
the size of the session, I can be pretty agressive on the loud when wanted, for backing esp. In fact at our session, which we record, I make sure I sit off mike, it comes in too loud otherwise.
I don't often play a listening piece at a big session, those are harder to hear, but that's not the main reason... it's more the tuning and retuning, fear of breaking a string on the way back up. If I am asked I will, othewise just leave it go and pass my turn. I am there to play with others really, and toss lots of melody in the backing anyway, I like the energy of it, and don't worry so much about presenting a piece. Time for that at a gig or a house session more appropriately.
Anyway.... the harp has been out a few times, it's much like a big guitar, tunes are actually easier to find and you gain the use of your whole left hand, because it is not busy fretting and creating notes....they are already there on harp. Not to say it's a walk in th park either, it's a whole different hand discipline, different exercises, muscles to build up. Only recently has my neck stopped hurting when I play for over an hour.
Linda and I did a gig a few weeks back and I managed an air and Planxty Irwin without too much embarrassment! Have a long way to go, but the thing is people are asking for the harp at a gig even though I can barely play it.... the funny thing is I'd do much better playing these same tunes on guitar, but the harp has that mystique, people ooh and ahh over it. I got asked to two wedding gigs for later this year, just on the info I BOUGHT a harp, the very week I got it, and couldn't make heads nor tails of the thing... just for 20 min.. each, so figured I'd have at least a few airs by then. That would NEVER happen with another instrument... they don't even want to know if you can play. In fact they were more sure than I was that i'd have some tunes by the Fall.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by irisnevins
Re: articulation
Izzit just me, or does anyone else get feeling that this discussion, at least the part about articulation and guitars, is mainly a lot of violent, unacknowledged, agreement, with bits of real disagreement around the margins where most facts are really just opinions anyway?
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Bob himself
Re: articulation
Bob -
The discussion is happening on two levels, which, like the proverbial ships that pass in the night.....
Let me get some credentials out of the way first. I am one of those odd people with twin mother tongues, English and Irish. I am not, however, either a political or a cultural nationalist, and I have a horror of exaggerated expressions of ethnicity. I cite Srebenica, and Nagorno Karabash, and Sri Lanka and Belfast. I knew a man who was in the contingent that liberated Belsen.
The music tradition means something different to us who were born in to it than it does to others. For fear of misinterpretation, I am *not* stating that anyone who is not Irish, or who was not born to it, can never learn. But for those of us born to it, it is not an interest, or a passtime. It is a passion akin to other biologically driven passions. It's just there. Like the rest of the passions. That was part of the formation. Does that sound nuts ? Maybe it does. But it was so.
Good technique was taught, shared, practised, mentored, tutored, lived, breathed from the time we were old enough to hold "G" register whistles or quarter-sized fiddles........
Any Americans out there ? When we got to our teens, rhe adulation that American high school kids confer on sports jocks was the preserve of the good musicians. That's how important it was. In the inimitable manner of teenage value systems, the best musicians, being the alpha males & females, got the best-looking guys & gals. By "Good" musicians, I mean of course those with a mastery of technique & its close cousin, rhythm.
To go hear one of the giants playing was aking to seeing - name me a rock star - live. We would not have *dreamt* of "Joining in". When we got old enough to drive, we criss-crossed the country to hear good playing. Whatever else we might have been studying at university took great discipline - keep away from the music for a few hours to get on top of some study.
That was the environment, the culture, the formation. Obsessional ? Perhaps. But we carry it with us. We're not priests, or prosletysers. We're not trying to convert anyone. Each to his own,musically and otherwise. Sometimes we make the mistake of assuming that everyone with an interest in the music will share our passion for perfection of technique. It is not so, of course.
Cath- Does that still sound "Anal" - I am truly sorry if it does.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
Perfection of technique is my aim right enough, I am just wary that technique becomes the only aim ... Its there to facilitate the music, not the other way round.
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by jig
Re: articulation
Sean, your post reminds me of a mustard board discussion a while back about fiddle technique. There was a battle about studying and practicing technique, and whether one should simply feel the music in their soul and not sweat the technique, so to speak. Also there was a notion about whether studying technique would interfere with the passion and 'feeling the music'.
What you said reminded me of my response, that the passion fuels the drive to master the technique, along with all aspects of the music. In Gifted and Talented education they call it "Rage to Master":
'Dr. Ellen Winner, head of the graduate psychology department at Boston College, wrote Gifted Children: Myths and Realities in 1996. In this book she states that gifted people “demonstrate three atypical characteristics:
* Precocity - Performing well above age level expectations in some area
* Rage to Master - Having a passion to do or to know in some specific area
* Marching to a Different Drummer - looking at their area of interest in a unique or unusual way.”'
http://www.nhage.org/addendum.htm
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: articulation
Sean Lead Liath, I'm certain we can all benefit from the depth of your knowledge of the music, if you're willing to share it here, and if you can cope with all the kindergarten stuff...
Here's one for Ramiro and Galicia. Thanks, Ramiro.
http://www.soundlantern.com/UpdatedSoundPage.do?ToId=1030&Path=DoubleG.mp3
# Posted on May 1st 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Dawkins is a good scientist, but his memm stuff owes more to his popularism and status as media pundit than to science. I'm not knocking this, I'm a fan of his memm theory and have often proposed that diddley tunes are superb examples of memms. But the reason memms are not science is because the basis is in analogy, not evidence. And when you use analogy, there is always some fecker who pipes up with the ubiquitous, "the analogy doesn't work because ..."
However, regardless of such feckers, analogy is useful and I'm a fan of it, especially when people get their heads so locked into a belief. A good analogy can always prompt a different perspective.
‘Once we were worms’ in the New Scientist (Simon Conway Morris, Aug 2003) brought my attention to the echinoderms, which include sea urchins and star fish. It is suggested that just before adopting their fivefold (or petraradial) body plan, they shared a common bilaterally symmetrical ancestor with us, the ventulicolians. These creatures were first discovered in 1987 in the Chengjiang fossil deposits in south-western China, laid down during the Cambrian evolutionary explosion 530 million years ago. Originally classified as arthropods they have been recently re-classified to a line closer to ours on account of their primitive gill slits, bipartite body and elongated, segmented tail – a candidate for an early vertebrate.
As mobile filter feeders, New Scientist suggests that ventulicolians had an advanced nervous system – for their time – with a brain and nerve chord and yet the echinoderms evolvement discarded this and replaced it with a diffuse set of nervous tissue. They “threw away their brains.”
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: articulation
Michael, by "memm" do you mean "meme"?
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by lazyhound
Re: articulation
Yes, memes. As I see it, it isn't analogy, it's fact - or rather memes is just Dawkins' term for ideas, fragments of fact and memory, stuff that can be remembered. And yes tunes are good examples. It's not real, it's abstract but the abstraction is fact. It's just his play on the term "gene", which also is an abstraction, because lots of nonsense DNA exists - the correct term for DNA that is able to be transcribed is exon. A gene coding for a protein is a collection of exons and may be in slightly different loci (but usually on the same chromosome [in eukaryotes]), and some genes actually just encode for proteins which regulate other gene expression. So, although yes, meme is an analogy of gene, it is simplistic because it doesn't take into account the complexity of modern understanding of genes, UAS's and the like.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: articulation
....hmmm, that wasn't very clear was it? memes are analogous to genes, but memes do exist, as fragments of memory, which although abstractions can be treated as as factual as one can treat genes.
And UAS means upstream activator sequence.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: articulation
~~groan~~...I'm going to bed.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: articulation
"Forever missing out" in Gaza!
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by gw
Re: articulation
SWFL Fiddler -
Gifted, is it ? - Well Begod - All these years I just thought it was Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
re : "Also there was a notion about whether studying technique would interfere with the passion and 'feeling the music"
Not quite sure as I personally could distinguish, but I am with you that if the "Feeling" is not there, no amount of technique is going to compensate. I can think of not a few well-known players who I think sacrifice feeling, and rhythm to technique - All light and no heat, so to speak. Irritating. I could program a computer to do that.
Mary Bergin puts matters rather succinctly, as follows :
"One fear I would always have, even in my class situation, is that the emphasis is on technicality, whereas for me, the whole thing is the feeling and heart and soul, that's what the older musicians had - something special, an internal rhythm, that nya! or sway, you find yourself moving your shoulders.
"I don't think you can teach that, it comes with feeling, and mixing with people that have it, and it's important to impart that right from the cradle - even from an enjoyment and social point of view, the sharing of the playing."
But as I say, the two are intertwined for me.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
KML, I don't think it's right to say that memes are true or that memes do exist.
Going back to Dawkins first, he is a clever scientist, very fluent and clear thinking, but also extremist or fundamentalist or whatever the word is for someone who takes a position that can't tolerate alternative views. (IMO, Lynn Margulis is twice as smart as Dawkins).
Dawkins reckoned he could explain all of our bodily structures and behaviour as being produced by evolution and genes. But then there's all the cultural stuff left over, which is the main thing that distinguishes us from animals. So he proposed an additional unit of cultural evolution, the meme.
But it's just a theory. Or maybe better, only a hypothesis, because I don't think it's possible to prove. It's a theory with some explanatory value. But there's lots of other ways of understanding culture that have explanatory value, and some may be better than meme theory.
The reason meme theory got so well known is because it was taken up by commercial marketing people who say it as a brilliant way to make money. If you can invent an advert that is a mind virus, linked to a product, that jumps from person to person like flu, then what a great way to sell stuff. But it doesn't really work, because, if the product is crap, then that news jumps from person to person equally efficiently.
Basically, the meme concept comes out of information theory, and the word 'meme' is just a fancy substitute for 'idea'. If I say a phrase here now, for example, 'form follows function' and it goes down the phone line to a router to your computer, into your eyes and into your brain, and you now say 'form follows function', then that's a meme, spreading. It might die, or it might stay in your brain, encoded electrochemically in memory, and you might pass it on to other people. Some memes spread easily, others disappear. That's why it seemed to offer an understanding for cultural evolution.
But everybody knew this happened, before meme theory. A catchy phrase in a pop song or a nonsense phrase, can get into your head even if you hate the song, and you hum it and somebody else picks it up.
Calling it a meme might help to formalize the process to assist study, but it doesn't increase our understanding all that much.
It's just a fresh way of looking at what happens from a different angle. And when folks try to compare it with standard genetic evolution, the comparisom doesn't stand up very well.
As Danny said above, there's all sorts of stuff going on in the evolution and expression of genes that's actually real and can be checked with microscopes and statistics. I don't think anybody has been able to find equivalent hard patterns in human culture. It's all a lot more woolly.
Incidentally, the word or idea 'meme' is itself a meme, and when you first heard it, you were infected. Fascinating, that, in Michael's mind it mutated into a 'memm', because that's what the theory says is supposed to happen
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Yeah, when I wrote that I was half asleep. You're right. Memes only exist as much as ideas exist, or are facts, however you want to describe their "existence". That's all I was trying to say. Michael's spelling may not be his strongest point, which he has explained here previously, but he has good memes.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: articulation
meme - memm, same thing, different label.
fiddle/flute roll - guitar "roll". same label, different thing.
Yes, it's impossible to study the "evolution" of culture in any scientific way. And the evolution of diddley music also. But we still use the concept of music evolving and while it's not the same as evolutionary biology, it's a reasonable and helpful concept.
For example, it's interesting to look at the rise of the conical-bore simple system flute in diddley music. Although probably played before the nineteenth century, In the 1850s a glut of these flutes became cheaply available because of the classical players switching to the boehm system. And the genre of diddley flute playing took off. As Lynn Margulis would put it, there is a symbiotic relationship between the music and the specific instrument. The music evolved to do stuff that the instrument is capable of.
But there is a common misconception that if something "evolves", it gets more complicated or somehow better. Evolve merely means change. And this was what my anaology of the echinoderms was about. I fear that the rise of the guitar in diddley music will make the music worse. In biology we wouldn't countanance the term better in a pejorative manner, merely "better" at existing in it's environment. But I think we can use it with regards to art.
My suggestion is that if the environment diddley music "lives" in, ie. the instruments it is played on, has less articulation, then the music will evolve into something less articulate.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: articulation
(I've just found a classic wikipediaism: "While non-Boehm flutes are still made in limited numbers, they are primarily restricted to non-ensemble situations such as folk music, where tuning and regularity of tone are not considered as critical." tee he)
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: articulation
Thank you so much, Wolfbird
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Ramiro
Re: articulation
About the 'evolution' of flutes, etc. - it's a perfectly sensible word to use, kind of synonymous with progression or development and similar concepts. My gripe further up the page concerned the confusion some people make between the common usage and the biological, Darwinian usage.
English language is so frustrating ! The way mathematicians use 'function' and the way furniture designers use 'function' and the way surgeons use 'function'...it makes for endless muddle.
It's obvious that motor cars have evolved, and computers and mobile phones have evolved, and musical instruments have evolved, but although there may be superficial similarities, that kind of technological and cultural evolution isn't directly comparable to Darwinian Evolution of, say, whales or coconut palms.
I think I probably agree with you llig, that guitar is or could be, a - what's the right word ? retrograde ? or negative ? - influence in ITM. Not wanting to cause offence or be unkind to any individual player, but there are examples of CDs by guitarists, mostly in the 'celtic' category, where the music is so bland and diluted and 'New Agey' as to be almost unrecognizable. The reason why I'm here discussing this stuff is to try and avoid that trap, and raise the level of my own music making. I don't think it's fair to criticize these guys for making the music 'worse'. They're serious musicians and at least to my ears, sound authentic.
http://www.dararecords.com/irish_music_news/masters_of_the_irish_guitar_review.html
http://musicroad.blogspot.com/2007/09/donal-clancy.html
because guitarists interested in playing Irish aren't going to go away. Macruiskeen seems circumspect and doubtful of their place
http://www.irishmusicreview.com/motig.htm
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Sorry, I lost a paragraph somewhere...I mean to add, that because guitarists are not going to stop wanting to play Irish music, then the best strategy must be to try and set the standard as high as possible, e.g. mastery of the appropriate articulations.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
''CDs by guitarists, mostly in the 'celtic' category, where the music is so bland and diluted and 'New Agey' as to be almost unrecognizable.''
Pipers fluters and fiddlers too unfortunately.
lack of articulation? methinks not.
Have you heard dick Gaughan? on his album coppers [buttons?]and brass....classic.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by jig
Re: articulation
i agree with Llig that the guitar has been a negative influence in ITM. However i disagree that its because of the instrument - i think its the players. The standard of musicianship of some guitarists in sessions relative to the other players there is derisory-if the same players played pipes or fiddle, they would be struggling through their 1st jig and wouldnt dare to assume parity with everyone else. ive seen guys with 6 chords in sessions. as a guitar teacher, im telling you you can learn 6 chords in a few hrs. would a piper assume he could join a session with skills that took a few hours work?
hate to say it, but bodhran is the same. percussionists in general. but Llig is 100% wrong when he extrapolates from this that the guitar as an instrument is therefore limited. The guitar's biggest barrier to ITM credibility is guitarists.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by hakanozel
Re: articulation
Lligs worry that ITM will become less articulate if played on instruments less capable of articulation is again almost but not quite spot on. He should be worried that it will become less articulate if performed by PLAYERS with less ability. And, ultimately, what is to blame for the influx of 4 chord bashers at sessions? Its the passive-aggressive attitude shown by the other musicians who let them sit there and bring down the aggregate standard. If you cant learn to say no, or "sorry mate but ur going to have to stop playing-you arent ready quite just yet" ...well, then you cant complain about their bashing.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by hakanozel
Re: articulation
hakanozel, it's frustrating that I'm not getting through to you. I don't extrapolate from anything that the guitar as an instrument is limited. I'm merely exploring the fact that every instrument is limited. You can only play one note at a time on a flute. The pipes have no dynamic range. etc.
Traditional Irish diddley music has evolved within the limitations of the instruments it's played on and will continue to do so. But it has also evolved to exploit what the instruments are capable of. And part of that evolving was/is the invention of cuts, rolls, taps, crans etc.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: articulation
"cuts, rolls, taps, crans, slurrs, tonguing, triplets, slides, microtones, attack, dynamics. space/gaps, barks, tone variation"
ok of these the following are easy on guitar
cuts, slurs, triplets, slides, space/gaps, dynamics, attack, tone variation
the following are possible though not as accurate as they are on the holy trinity instruments
rolls, crans, microtones (possible by bending the strings), it takes a very good player to execute these well and while they sound different to the other instruments they aren't so different as to sound out of character with the music. I personally think cranning when done well on guitar is just as good as on fiddle.
taps, crans and barks are particular to the pipes and any attempt to emulate them on the fiddle is a mere approximation.
There are so many different approaches to rolls on different instruments. A good guitarist can do a good roll, it won't sound like a fiddle roll, but a fiddle roll doesn't sound like a pipes or flute roll either.
Also when's the last time you tongued your fiddle Gill?!!!
So in the end all instruments have their limitations but a good player can overcome these limitations. As hakanozel points out there are a lot more good pipers, flautists and fiddlers playing trad than there are good guitarists so that's the main issue here.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by !@£$%^&*()
Re: articulation
u aint wrong!
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by hakanozel
Re: articulation
did u know the opening note of Stravinskys Rite OfSpring is technically impossible? The 1st note is theoretically beyond the range of the bassoon. But Stravinsky wrote it and since then every bassoonist who wants a gig had better be able to play that note!
Anyone want to extapolate what my point is feel free cuz ive forgotten!
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by hakanozel
Re: articulation
Michael, I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that this music developed within the limitations of the instruments it is played on. The players have always imposed limits on what articulations they would use, often stopping far short of exploring all of the potential of their givien instrument.
So it is that vibrato on fiddle is still widely regarded as "out of place" in the dance tunes (though this is slowly changing), as are a whole host of bowings more common in the classical arsenal. Similarly, breath vibrato on flute is almost never heard, in favor of wiggling the fingers over the holes. And even that, sparingly.
Trills sound out of place in this dance music on any instrument, which begins to shed some light on why certain articulations are "traditional" and others are not--it's all about rhythm and timing. A trill fills space, but not in a particularly rhythmic way. It's more like fillagree added to embelish a note, not the rhythm.
Which, for me anyway, gets to the heart of this whole debate. Irish trad musicians favor articulations that enhance pulse and create a sense of rhythmic lift (and also suspense or surprise). The articulations are peculiar to each instrument, and they've developed to suit the music (so that an Irish roll, for example, is different than a classical mordant).
If this all holds true (despite it being merely my grossly inadequate and ill-informed opinion), then it stands that guitar could have it's own set of articulations that work idiomatically within this music. Will it sound different from flute, pipes, and fiddle? Yes, by definition. Have the Irish ever stopped adding instruments to the trad pantheon? Not over the previous 400 years they haven't.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Will CPT
Re: articulation
AAAAAAAAAAAGHHH this is really begining to wind me up now. I see the future and it hurts.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: articulation
Then our work here is done.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by hakanozel
Re: articulation
...and we havn't even mentioned Global Warming or dots or Nazis yet...
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Hak -
Some, but not all pipers can hit E and F# in the third octave. Ennis could do it routinely. But then he was Ennis. Right hand man to the Holy Ghost, as I recall.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
he was good, alright. have you heard Pierre Bensusans version of Merrily Kissed The Quaker? hes got every nuance of Ennis down on the guitar...etc etc etc
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by hakanozel
Re: articulation
Please Sir - Please Sir - Mr Wolfbird Sir ....
I didn't mention them, but I was thinking of Nazis when I said "I have a horror of exaggerated expressions of ethnicity". I also made a ref to eugenics.
Do I get a prize ?
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
You'll have to Mr. Llig, Sean. It's his thread. He'll probably give you detention, but you might get away with writing out "cuts, rolls, taps, crans, slurrs, tonguing, triplets, slides, microtones, attack, dynamics. space/gaps, barks, tone variation" one thousand times, if he's in a tranquil mood...
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Come on Will, how could it develop outside the limitations of the instruments? And that is not connected to exploiting "all" the possibilities. In fact, the fact that the music doesn't explore "all" the possibilities, that it developed with less than even what is available, makes it even harder to move to a completely different instrument.
But yes, a lot of Irish music's articulation is about how to put rhythm into a continuos tone. Both by Interrupting the continuous tone with very very precisely placed blips and squeaks and by letting the tone flow uninterrupted to accentuate where you do interrupt it. All stuff that just doesn't work on an instrument where you have to keep plucking it all time.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: articulation
like the banjo, you mean
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by hakanozel
Re: articulation
yeah
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: articulation
but not the Spanish guitar?.....
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by jig
Re: articulation
"A lot of Irish music's articulation is about how to put rhythm into a continuous tone."
That's *it*.
I disagree about banjo tho'. It's more about banjo players, and most banjos. I know two who have a terrific - even uncanny - ability to make the banjo sing - I mean sustained notes & extraordinarily fluid flow to the extent that the plucking sound gets subsumed. I asked one of them about it. He actually agreed with the point re - his words - the "Plonking" style of most players & the lack of sustain on most banjos. Interestingly, he told me that he perfected his technique listening to fiddle players. I was there when Kieran Hanrahan - presumably a better judge than I - sought out my man to compliment him on his extraordinary fluidity.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
Instrument invariant is Mary Bergin's , as I have quoted above :
"something special, an internal rhythm, that nya! or sway, you find yourself moving your shoulders"
SLL's equivalent - "If you're playing the tune, and not vice versa, you ain't there yet"
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
I'll tell yiz what -
If BF Skinner's lab is still open we could all go there & play all day. Wolf's buddy Dawkins could make the intros. Skinner's lads could watch us in action like they did the pigeons & rats -
"Perfectly executed triplet - Wait for the endorphin rush - Wow - Cran of subtlety to be borderline audible - wait for the endorphin rush...."
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
& we could issue CDs -
"Skinner's Lean Clean Meming Machine"
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
In Soviet Russia, tune plays you!
Seriously though, I like that notion: "Let the tune play you."
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: articulation
What about harp players, Sean ? Have you heard any remarkable harpists similar to the banjo player you mentioned ? Names of Ireland's premier harp players ?
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Harpists - I don't know much I'm afarid. Antoinette McKenna - Mary Bergin's sister - did some nice-ish backing to her husband Joe on the pipes. There's a young lassie called Laoise Kelly who seems to be making a name for herself. I've heard her a couple of times - v pleasant. It's quite possible that other young players have come to the fore while I've been away in the jungles & deserts. Someone told me recently I should listen to a girl called Lynn Saoirse, which I haven't yet.
(Intriguing name- Could it be real ? "Saoirse" - Freedom - It's what Provos call their dogs & sometimes their kids)
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
Thanks, Sean. I've been checking them out. I found this that I liked..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDKdi3Dm-I8&feature=related
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Pleasant enough, but a bit precious for my taste. I'd be a Devil's Music man myself.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
What about this one ? Not very diabolical.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB8Wonny5fs
Thinking about Michael's concern for the music expressed above,
if the harp had never been an Irish instrument, and, newly invented, was being introduced to the Irish tradition, would it pose the threat that Michael sees in the guitar ?
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Jazuz - It's Phil Lynnott reincarnated !
He's very good.
The second piece he plays tho' is an excellent example of what I mean by sacrificing rhythm to speed. He could with much benefit slow down & get a more driving rhythm out.
The trouble w any discussion about the harp is that the old tradition died out completely. No-one really knows how harp music was played at its apogee in the 17th & 18th centuries. All modern harping is a modern development.
There was a man called Edward Bunting engaged to transcribe music played my harpers at the last great convocation of same - in Belfast some time in the 1790s. Bunting though was a classical man, and did not transcribe the music as it was played (if, indeed that could have been done), but ratehr made "Corrections".
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
Yes, I take your point about the rhythm. I'd say that was a weakness. Listening to African kora harp players, they set the rhythm up first, at the start and keep it pulsing all the way through. The widdly diddly bits are decoration on the background. Listening to Paul Dooley, he's concentrating so hard on his right hand, and then fitting the left in every now and then...nice though.
Interesting that ann Irish guy with a trad Irish harp is resurrecting lost Welsh harp music tradition.
http://pauldooley.com/albums/Volume%20I.html
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
You've probably often heard the technique - Irish players - Clare players in particular - sometimes play a tune all but completely unadorned first time round, then accentuate the rhythm second time round & introduce ornamentation & variation second time, and then drive all three like hell third time round -
General message is along the lines of - OK - you can hear I'm good - now listen up & you'll progressively hear *how* good.....
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
Yes, well, I think that rhythm is a physical thing, a bodily thing. I've got a great dvd by Dwight Diller, old time banjo player, where he teaches rhythm. Thing is, if it's a body thing, you can't just switch it on. It needs the body to understand what's wanted and then to warm up and get a rhythmic loop going around. That takes a little while, 20 or 30 seconds perhaps, and after that you can leave the body on autopilot and it'll stay with the rhythm, and you can start to think about the tricky fingering and stuff.
That's the trouble with being a musician. If you paint or write you can stand back and think it over, go for a walk, come back, make a few changes. But live music performance in real time, there's only the one chance to hit it right.
Not saying I'm particularly good at any of this, but way back, I learned a lot of the old American guitar stuff, Rev. Gary Davis and Mississippi John Hurt and Elizabeth Cotten and players like that, where the thumb is picking the bass, which is equivalent to left hand at a piano keyboard. So, you start by setting that up with a good strong rhythm. Then you forget about the thumb. It'll just keep on doing what it's been told to do, and fingers can concentrate on the tricky melody bits.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oCqHQWoi10
I don't know what the exact correct technical term is for the fast repetition of notes these girls do on the harp there. But following on from above, where the guitarists thumb provides rhythm on the bass strings, one of the awesome achievements that Tony McManus has, he's trained his thumb to do the very fast down-up- down, similar to what those girls are doing. (Whew, I'm on topic for once
) which, IMO, is one of the articulations that make his playing sound authentic. Most guitarists can't do that. They just do the thump thump thump, which is not very interesting and doesn't drive the rhythm forward on Irish tunes.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Yes - I'll give it to the American country folks - They understand rhythm. Many years ago, I was out in the back of beyond in the Appalachians - place populatd by men called Cletus Leroy and girls called Heaven Lee - & heard some terrific playing. I could clearly the Irish influence. I didn't stress that - these guys and gals barely knew there were neighbouring states, let alone other countries. I clearly remember a version of the "Four Poster Bed" played in a terrific swinging style.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Sean Lead Liath
Re: articulation
It's the end of times I tell you, the end of times!! Nothing but vain attempts at articulation--and he's teaching others...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI7zSSRTw0c
Oh dear, it has spread...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW717fECvao
Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by gw
Re: articulation
put 'em up ... put 'em up ... how long do you stay fresh in that can? I'll fight ye with one paw tied behind my back.
Actually, I think the guitar suits Scottish music quite well. There are some snappy fast rolls in Scottish bag pipe music which the fiddle usually translates into bowed triplets. These are easily transferable to finger-stile guitar triplets.
The Irish slow roll is another matter.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: articulation
And I enjoyed listening to those harp clips, especially the paul dooly one. But the lack of slow rolls does stand out. And the other thing about the harp is the lack of aggression.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: articulation
Ah, but me, I'm old and mellow. I like gentle exquisite music. If I want aggression I've got a custom strat upstairs and an amp with overdrive switch that'll wake the dead within a ten mile radius
Pity that clip of Tony McManus doesn't show his fast thumbnail triplets. I looked on youtube but didn't find an example.
Good thread though. Centres on the area most relevant to what I've been trying to do myself.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by wolfbird
Re: articulation
Wolfbird, you might find examples on YouTube if you search flamenco guitar.
# Posted on May 3rd 2008 by lazyhound
Re: articulation
Thanks for the tip, lazyhound. I had a look, there's ten thousand of 'em ! I found much of interest, but not that exact trick that Tony McManus does yet.
# Posted on May 3rd 2008 by wolfbird