I have read, and heard it said several times, that in the 'olden days' (pre-1930s, perhaps?), rather than play tunes in sets, it was the norm for Irish musicians to play a single tune many times over, introducing new variations with each iteration.
Is this true?
At what point did playing tunes in sets become the norm?
Was playing in sets previously unknown, or an occasional practice that just hadn't yet gained popularity?
Why did it become the norm?
Was it due to the influence of the commercial recordings of Coleman and his contemporaries?
Yes, indeed that was the case that single tunes got played for dances over and over. I understand it was mostly in a dancing context...I think...and I could be dead wrong on this [I defer to the experts like Kenny, Ceolachan& other old timers on this site] that the advent of 78s had the effect of putting tunes into sets in order to fill them up or some such. Also, I suspect that the effect of listening to a tune over and over on an expensive 78 rpm or later 33 1/3 wouldn't have appealed to listeners much, whereas for dancers it's not unusual for a tune to be gone over many times [and still is...at least at dances i've been to]. On the other hand I know current musicians like Caoimhín Ó Raghallaigh are rather fond of exploring one tune at length...at least live. And I also know he adovcates people taking any tune they know well and playing it for 20 or 30 minutes to really understand and explore what the possibilities of a tune are. You can hear him say so in a radio interview on his My Space page someplace. In fact, I'd say perhaps it's a motif that might be encouraged more in session or maybe even on cds. Is that too heretical? anyone have any thoughts on that?
I mean, look at Brian Eno and "Thursday Afternoon"....! ;)
When sessions became an offshoot tradition confined to pubs and mostly separated from the dance, and also with ceili bands and commercial recordings, to pander to the general need of audiences for quantity ~ more tunes per side or track... Amongst older musicians and dancers, those with a conscience of the late 1800s, and I count myself fortunate to have met and shared time with a good number of such folk ~ repeatedly I was told that sets were not the norm, one tune per figure of a set, one tune per dance, often one specific tune for a dance or figure. These were also musicians who on the whole were more comfortable with dancers present, something generally different from probably most session monkies, also in that the musicians also danced.
'Sets' seemed to rise as the ages became younger and the influences less regional and more cosmopolitan, city influences and the adoration of 78s and recordings. The older folk didn't see anything missing or wrong with just playing one tune. In sharing music with them that was how it came, a tune at a time. This was the case across Ireland. There seemed a kind of cut-off point where 'sets' suddenly were just taken for granted as the norm, for that group of people, 'younger' folk. There was even a bit of 'attitude', as if playing a tune on its own, not in a set, was somehow 'wrong' or inferior. The older musicians never expressed a similar attitude toward sets, though they might have expressed a preference for enjoying a tune on its own.
Maybe it's like eating. Some folks will eat one thing at a time. Others pick and mix, and yet others mix it all up into a glop and then eat it ~ like with mash potatoes and other things. The mash is left on its own and eaten on its own, with seasoning, by some folks. Others use it like an amoeba and swirl it around to take in the peas or whatever else is on the plate, and then eat it like that. Mmmmmm!!! Mash potatoes! Roast potatoes! Gratin! ~ Potatoes in all ways!!! Sorry, I'm losing it as dinner time approaches. Mash and mackerel!!!
Hey mtodd, I guess we were in the same ether over this. Caoimhín Ó Raghallaigh sounds like my kind of musician. I haven't any recording by him. After your nod in his direction I'm going to have to give him a listen.
When I'm in a teaching situation I will do both, teach a set, to show some of what can excite moving from one tune to another, including for dancers ~ and I'll also teach one tune just on its lonesome ~ to explore the possibilities. Though 'exploring possibilities' is always a fun part of this music whether or not you play a tune on its own or with another... Getting intimate with a melody is one of the best highs going, as you'll know...
Ha! I remember the lambasting I got here when I suggested playing a tune 5 times! As I said then, this allows you to explore the depths of the tune rather than superficially skimming over the surface.
I just feel that each tune deserves the respect due to it, not a modern, been there , done that , right, on to the next.
IMNSHO Dance music works best when it has trance like almost hypnotic feel to it. Of course in this day and age of widescreen TV and 50million channels to chose from this view is somewhat outdated. I mean, who can stay on one channel without flicking over to see if there is something better on!
But I stand by many of the old ways. I mean who here eats sorrel, or pennywort? or knows what plantain is good for? This is traditional wisdom passed down through generations, all but lost now.
OK Ive drifted...sets are great, a good transition cant be beat. But The real test of a players metal is , IMNSHO, whether on their own they can enchant and capture an audience with one tune and its variations , on its own .
"At the end of the night we play Mountain Road about 20 something times for the sheer joy and hell of it, and because it's a good, well-constructed tune that bears playing again and again. Each time around we find another nuance, another way of going off the metronome while keeping to the wavy underlying beat, and after so many times you lose count of them."
Armand and I have always been big advocates of single tunes and big repeats; I think our average per 3-hour stretch, just the two of us in my kitchen, is 10 tunes?
Our friend, fiddler David, is very fond of what he terms "one tune medleys" - even for long contra dances. Depending on who is handling the tune(s), dancers can still get a kick out of musicians playing around with a single melody. Be ready to jump into another tune, though, if David happens to change his mind in the middle of the dance...
I really enjoy the privilege of once in a while being able to play with some really fun musicians.
Well, I like playing tunes in sets...or medleys, as they used to be called....way back in the 1890s. Sorry to be such a modernist, but that 's the "tradition" that *I* know and am used to.
If you guys want to go ahead and play hour and a half versions of the Kesh, work away, don't let me stop you. Just don't invite me to the session you'll be doing this at.
Ah, the unbalancing whif of slurry slewing air... Were you reading any of the previous key? We weren't saying it was THE ONLY thing we enjoyedm the ONLY way to go ~ or at least I haven't read that. So, medley playing aside, the basic content is to say that that things have changed over time. So nothing new there, eh? I think the gist of it is that we like both possibilities, that maybe there might be a place for both ways, for 'variety'? Maybe not...
Occasionally playing a really good tune over and over for pure pleasure, - no need to 'explore' the melody, etc.-just building up the energy, is simply exhilerating and magical - as in Dervish dancing to obtain a mystical trance like state.
As it happens, a couple of evenings ago I had an ideal, and quite unexpected, opportunity in a session to try out the single tune system.
At the Thursday session at a local social club I was the only one to show. The punters in the room were pretty sparse as well - a couple of elderly men propping up the bar and talking to the barman, two ditto fast asleep in chairs, a middle-aged Irishman on his own (who introduced himself as "Paddy from Youghal"), and a middle-aged couple, also Irish, at the far end.
I sat at a table waiting for other musicians to turn up, and Paddy joined me for a chat. After half-an-hour, with no other musicians in sight, I decided it was time to open the fiddle case. At that, the couple came over and joined us round the table. The evening then passed comfortably enough with good conversation interspersed with tunes whenever they asked me to play something. I didn't try to play sets - it felt far more appropriate to play one tune 3, 4 or even 5 times instead.
One important thing about that particular Thursday session was that I was able to chat with other people in the room in a way that just wouldn't have happened if we'd had our usual complement of half-a-dozen or so musicians in the session.
I suppose for people who don't practice a tune over and over and then hear it over and over in sessions regularly, hearing it a bunch of times in a row doesn't get boring too fast.
I would follow a middle course. Playing one single tune 10 times is too much for me. And playing a tune strictly 3 times is just boring. Playing a set of two tunes with each tune repeated 4 or 5 times works best for me. That's what people do in West Yorkshire and some part of West Clare.
I can really only talk about Scotland, where playing dance tunes in sets is a well-established practice, mentioned in tune collections from the early 1800s, but common during the eighteenth century.
Slew of support for the one-tune-at-a-time norm, pre the classical robbery of 19th century Scotland, mining the existing tradition and twisting it to ones own ends, which I'm not against, honest, but this is about two extremes and the worst is how some Scots madfolk don't repeat a tune at all ~ one-after-another-after-another-after ~ ad nauseum... That extreme does nothing justice. It is more about how many tunes one can cram in a given set...
So, one-on-one ~ early 20th Century was sort of where we started ~ then there's the 1800s, 1700s, 1600s, 1500s, and I'll stop there. In ALL CASES, and worldwide by my limited experience and knowledge ~ ONE TUNE AT A TIME!!!
However, I love a good set and change, beautiful and invigorating when it happens, and if the musicians feel that then, well timed, the dancers will too. However, I am not exactly found of the tune type change, say from jigs to reels, as it seems a bit more like a cheap trick and often is designed to support the idea of reels being better than everything else, the 'ultimate', the last form to burn through. Though, having said that, I quite like the step dance set which has become traditional under Scottish influences and is fun to dance, through the forms. And yes, I've played that way too, and enjoyed the hell out of it. But, I still prefer above all, when sharing music with a friend, one-on-one... That doesn't mean I don't enjoy other options.
Back to the history, over all it supports the lone melody, on all the accounts I've had the pleasure of reviewing, digging up and studying ~ including live sources I've had the blessing of sharing tradition with...
I've enjoyed the comment, whatever the content, nice one lazyhound... Slainte, Clare has been under the influence of the big smoke for a long time. Early accounts have it no different as far as how things used to be. There's nothing wrong with change, but it can be nice to mix our options and just enjoy a melody on its lonesome. I've never gotten bored with that as every turn I learn something more. That doesn't mean it has to be 'extreme', in repetition or in treatment...
Interesting discussion this. I have in my record collection a Regal 78 record on which Peter Wyper plays two hornpipes: The Cliff and the Harvest Home on one side and Queen Mary's Waltz on the other side . Scotsman Peter Wyper (reputed to be the first B/C player in these Islands) recorded in the mid twenties /early thirties. I'd imagine that sets of tunes came into their own through the Ceili Bands playing for dances. Especially in the case where a change of key gives the dancers such a kick up the arse that they respond with 'Whoop' or a ' Yaa Hoo'. Obviously there are certain tunes which are meant to be played singly but players who keep playing the same 'mickey mouse tune' over and over again strike me as being limited in their playing capacity. When unfortunately I am subjected to such an event, I always get the awful urge to shout out 'For Christ's sake change the poxy record'....
I believe that John Kirkpatrick also believes in the "one tune per dance" theory, as it gives you time to explore the tune in all its variety. My last band tried this once, and didn't repeat it, though it was fun. In another context my present band ( another barndance bunch ) once left the music behind by accident, and it did us good having to try to remember the sets, and sometimes we played only one or two tunes for a dance. Indeed, when I announced what we'd done just before the end of the evening, no-one in the audience had noticed or realised, so you don't NEED a multi-tune set for dancing, although it can, indeed, give a kick up th fundament to a routine to change keys, accents, etc.
In my experiance as a dancer and solo fiddler for the sets A single tune can be 'more' reliable. A change can be like taking the wave out from under the surfer. It can take a while to adjust to the change in lift, melody and lilt of another tune. I am my no means arguing against sets, in their place they shine, and a well executed thought out change really can be like shifting up a gear, adding excitement and impetus. However, it can also distract and detract from the experiance, . Especially when done randomly, like say after 3 turns we move on, not paying attention to the form of the dance.
In the hands of some people it wouldnt matter whether they play one tune 10 times or 10 tunes once each, it will be brilliant, and of course in other hands dull and flat......
I have to agree with free reed there, rote repetition, whether 3 times or 10 can be dull, its what we, as artists, do with or to a tune that adds the energy, after all, if it were 'just' the tune a midi rendition would be fine!
Boredom is a state of mind, an attitude, a way of looking at things, not something you get but something you give. I personally gave it up as a bad habit about 20yrs ago and I can honestly say I haven't been bored since.[though it has got close at times I recomend it to every one.... give it up.
Free Reed: " ~ players who keep playing the same 'mickey mouse tune' over and over again strike me as being limited in their playing capacity."
jig: "In the hands of some people it wouldnt matter whether they play one tune 10 times or 10 tunes once each, it will be brilliant, and of course in other hands dull and flat......
I have to agree with free reed there, rote repetition, whether 3 times or 10 can be dull, its what we, as artists, do with or to a tune that adds the energy, after all, if it were 'just' the tune a midi rendition would be fine!
Boredom is a state of mind, an attitude, a way of looking at things, not something you get but something you give."
'c' Boredom is something you bring on yourself, a decision you make... It is also a species of rudeness. It is not uncommon amongst those who value the technical over the social ~ in showing what they can do rather than sharing and enjoying the music and the company, the craic, and respecting that there will always be differences in approach, ability and understanding. It is my experience that with folk in this mind frame, the later is sadly lacking... The greater limitation is with the person who chooses boredom as an option, who expects or demands that everything should meet their expectations and approval.
Free Reed: "When unfortunately I am subjected to such an event, I always get the awful urge to shout out 'For Christ's sake change the poxy record'...."
'c': That makes me want to ask, what's your hang up? I'm sure there are enough opportunities and places you can go to find like minded individuals short on patience, understanding and courtesy... Whether or not you actually come out with it, the thought in itself is a discourtesy, as is the assmption that those that might like to play a tune on its own are somehow inferior to you in attitude and skill.
The question of commercial recordings with regards to sets was previously in discussion...
Changes can add interest and can actually help the dancers, for example in a long figure for a set where the first half is primarily danced by say the two head couples in a square set or quadrille, and the second half is danced by the two side couples. It a tune change coincides with a change in the dance it adds extra lift and helps the dancers, wherever that change in music and dance meet. Another practice was to keep the same melody and just change the key... Changes can also be cack, as we all know, badly chosen and badly executed. They can also cause confusion for dancers, as can tunes that have very little dance in them in the first place, like so many 'new' tunes, or where the player has cut their teeth on session playing and hasn't the understanding to put dance in the dance music, to help give it that definition so it actually speaks to and helps the dancer(s)...
If I started listing all the known musicians who have enjoyed and enjoy playing one-tune-at-a-time, and even confining it to Irish musicians, the list would be huge and include those who have produced commercial recordings or who are names well known and respected... They are not what I would consider, as Free Reed suggests ~ "~ limited in their playing capacity."
It wasn't you that was defending playing tunes without repetition sometime back was it? ~ with the argument being that there were just so many tunes to play that once through was enough? Whoever it was, there's no skill or understanding required there...
I used to yearn for the 'one tune at a time, let's explore the possibilities of this tune' approach- that is until recently.
The caller at the dance we were playing for wanted a nice bright tune, and his choice, turned out to be 'Zippedee Doo Dah'- (play it?- I can't even spell it.)
Anyway we did dutifully play it, over and over, to a point where some of us were losing the will to live.
So maybe sets do have their uses after all
I was always curious about this topic as well. My simple mind would say it's related to dancing. If you're playing for dancers, a single tune makes a lot of sense. You're not the main focus, per se. Playing the same tune over and over at a pub would be boring, and not very appealing to the listener.
Both ways can work, both situations, dance and session, even more so a private session between friends where you are listening to each others take on it and giving the other persons way with it a try. In dance, to time your tune changes with the changes in the dance itself is also a high worth experiencing, from either side, especially if the set works that magic well, is a good fit to the dance and vice versa. Variety is good. Why deny your options ~ to a point anyway. That variety itself adds interest. I haven't any problem focusing in on listening to the different instruments present, and even consider percussion and accompaniment, when done with respect and skill, something I can learn from... That is part of the joy of holding a tune for more than a couple of times through, or even carrying it on its own. It is also healthy when you're in a situation of trust and understanding where you can ask for ~ once more, or more times through ~ not necessarily just to get the tune, but to hear and try what those present are palying, their take on it. I love that, I love those little points of difference, those individual ways with this music, which seem infinite... For me that is part of the craic. I don't expect others to agree, but it would be nice if we at least understood and had some respect for those that may have a different way with this tradition, with respect for its past and the musicians, dancers and contexts we've gained our understanding and appreciation from...
zippedy do dah!? Oh my god! time to get up and leave methinks! or... sorry dont know that one...never ever ever [ well for a very large sum I suppose I could learn it quickly...like 3 figures! minimum] oh dear, wanders off shaking his head.....
Why doesn't playing a tune for 30 years give you the chance to explore the tune and all its variations? If you are still playing exactly the same tune after 30 years, you do have limited capabilities.
How on earth can we pass on this fine aural tradition if we only play 10 tunes in an evening?.
Give me 10 sets per evening any night!!
Geoff, thats not quite what we mean i think. just that the formulaic change after 3 times round is not the only way. Also allthough we may have been playing these tunes for decades but every time we play them its fresh and new. The changing faces in the session, different moods etc etc. Perhaps just trying it out for one tune in an evening, 2 tunes through 5 times etc etc....
Thanks to everyone for your informed and thoughtful responses.
"How on earth can we pass on this fine aural tradition if we only play 10 tunes in an evening? Give me 10 sets per evening any night!!"
Geoff - The flipside is, if you play 100 tunes a night, three times each, how is anyone supposed to learn any tunes? Those hearing the tunes for the first time will, at best, go home with a couple of disjointed phrases rattling around their heads - even if they manage to play the tune on the 3rd time round, they'll probably forget it 5 minutes later (I speak for myself here). Play each tune ten times and they'll go home having thoroughly familiarised themselves with those tunes.
That said, I am by no means a staunch advocate of playing tunes singly, being more comfortable with the current trend of playing a tune 3-4 times and moving on. In fact, on occasions when I have played with people who like to repeat tunes more times than I am used to, before starting the next tune, I have often found myself getting impatient for the change. But I put my 'boredom' primarily down to the fact that I just don't have the creative resources to find ten different ways of playing the same tune in one sitting. I have had a few rare moments of inspiration when I could happily have played the same tune for all eternity and still had variations to spare. This is, I like to think, somewhere near where those single-tune players are every time they play a tune. I'd like to buy a house there one day.
"How on earth can we pass on this fine aural tradition if we only play 10 tunes in an evening?" ~ Geoff
~ not necessarily limited to 10, as it could go all night till the sun rose the next morning, but this was how it was done. Who are we to judge that was wrong? It wasn't just about quantity and the idea that 'more is better' didn't really enter into it... It was not uncommon for me to find amongst older players and areas a quite limited repertoire as far as the tunes considered theirs, or 'local'... The same was true of songs and dances. This mania for quantity really is more about our current media state...and quite often lacks the other 'q' ~ 'quality'...
Another joy to this, when you've given tunes a bit more air than a few times through ~ is hearing the dancers humming them as they leave the dance floor. That is a lovely high I wouldn't trade for much else, not even a bottle of a favoured single malt... But I'd settle for both, please...
For me it has never been just about the tunes, though I appreciate that seasoning, it has been about sharing them, enjoying them and the company present, other musicians and dancers, the social craic. You can have that either way, one at a time or in groups...
Sets vs. Single Tunes
Sets vs. Single Tunes
I have read, and heard it said several times, that in the 'olden days' (pre-1930s, perhaps?), rather than play tunes in sets, it was the norm for Irish musicians to play a single tune many times over, introducing new variations with each iteration.
Is this true?
At what point did playing tunes in sets become the norm?
Was playing in sets previously unknown, or an occasional practice that just hadn't yet gained popularity?
Why did it become the norm?
Was it due to the influence of the commercial recordings of Coleman and his contemporaries?
Was it the influence of the ceili bands?
Just curious.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by granama
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
Fascinating granny! I'm eagerly awaiting responses.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
Yes, indeed that was the case that single tunes got played for dances over and over. I understand it was mostly in a dancing context...I think...and I could be dead wrong on this [I defer to the experts like Kenny, Ceolachan& other old timers on this site] that the advent of 78s had the effect of putting tunes into sets in order to fill them up or some such. Also, I suspect that the effect of listening to a tune over and over on an expensive 78 rpm or later 33 1/3 wouldn't have appealed to listeners much, whereas for dancers it's not unusual for a tune to be gone over many times [and still is...at least at dances i've been to]. On the other hand I know current musicians like Caoimhín Ó Raghallaigh are rather fond of exploring one tune at length...at least live. And I also know he adovcates people taking any tune they know well and playing it for 20 or 30 minutes to really understand and explore what the possibilities of a tune are. You can hear him say so in a radio interview on his My Space page someplace. In fact, I'd say perhaps it's a motif that might be encouraged more in session or maybe even on cds. Is that too heretical? anyone have any thoughts on that?
I mean, look at Brian Eno and "Thursday Afternoon"....! ;)
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by mtodd
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
Yes! ~ and Yes! again...
When sessions became an offshoot tradition confined to pubs and mostly separated from the dance, and also with ceili bands and commercial recordings, to pander to the general need of audiences for quantity ~ more tunes per side or track... Amongst older musicians and dancers, those with a conscience of the late 1800s, and I count myself fortunate to have met and shared time with a good number of such folk ~ repeatedly I was told that sets were not the norm, one tune per figure of a set, one tune per dance, often one specific tune for a dance or figure. These were also musicians who on the whole were more comfortable with dancers present, something generally different from probably most session monkies, also in that the musicians also danced.
'Sets' seemed to rise as the ages became younger and the influences less regional and more cosmopolitan, city influences and the adoration of 78s and recordings. The older folk didn't see anything missing or wrong with just playing one tune. In sharing music with them that was how it came, a tune at a time. This was the case across Ireland. There seemed a kind of cut-off point where 'sets' suddenly were just taken for granted as the norm, for that group of people, 'younger' folk. There was even a bit of 'attitude', as if playing a tune on its own, not in a set, was somehow 'wrong' or inferior. The older musicians never expressed a similar attitude toward sets, though they might have expressed a preference for enjoying a tune on its own.
Maybe it's like eating. Some folks will eat one thing at a time. Others pick and mix, and yet others mix it all up into a glop and then eat it ~ like with mash potatoes and other things. The mash is left on its own and eaten on its own, with seasoning, by some folks. Others use it like an amoeba and swirl it around to take in the peas or whatever else is on the plate, and then eat it like that. Mmmmmm!!! Mash potatoes! Roast potatoes! Gratin! ~ Potatoes in all ways!!! Sorry, I'm losing it as dinner time approaches.
Mash and mackerel!!!
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by ceolachan
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
Hey mtodd, I guess we were in the same ether over this. Caoimhín Ó Raghallaigh sounds like my kind of musician. I haven't any recording by him. After your nod in his direction I'm going to have to give him a listen.
When I'm in a teaching situation I will do both, teach a set, to show some of what can excite moving from one tune to another, including for dancers ~ and I'll also teach one tune just on its lonesome ~ to explore the possibilities. Though 'exploring possibilities' is always a fun part of this music whether or not you play a tune on its own or with another... Getting intimate with a melody is one of the best highs going, as you'll know...
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by ceolachan
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
Ha! I remember the lambasting I got here when I suggested playing a tune 5 times! As I said then, this allows you to explore the depths of the tune rather than superficially skimming over the surface.
I just feel that each tune deserves the respect due to it, not a modern, been there , done that , right, on to the next.
IMNSHO
Dance music works best when it has trance like almost hypnotic feel to it. Of course in this day and age of widescreen TV and 50million channels to chose from this view is somewhat outdated. I mean, who can stay on one channel without flicking over to see if there is something better on!
But I stand by many of the old ways. I mean who here eats sorrel, or pennywort? or knows what plantain is good for? This is traditional wisdom passed down through generations, all but lost now.
OK Ive drifted...sets are great, a good transition cant be beat. But The real test of a players metal is , IMNSHO, whether on their own they can enchant and capture an audience with one tune and its variations , on its own .
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by jig
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
"At the end of the night we play Mountain Road about 20 something times for the sheer joy and hell of it, and because it's a good, well-constructed tune that bears playing again and again. Each time around we find another nuance, another way of going off the metronome while keeping to the wavy underlying beat, and after so many times you lose count of them."
Ciaran Carson, "Last Night's Fun"
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
Armand and I have always been big advocates of single tunes and big repeats; I think our average per 3-hour stretch, just the two of us in my kitchen, is 10 tunes?
--DtM
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Dan the Man
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
You two are hanging around together? We are in trouble...
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by ceolachan
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
Our friend, fiddler David, is very fond of what he terms "one tune medleys" - even for long contra dances. Depending on who is handling the tune(s), dancers can still get a kick out of musicians playing around with a single melody. Be ready to jump into another tune, though, if David happens to change his mind in the middle of the dance...
I really enjoy the privilege of once in a while being able to play with some really fun musicians.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by vonnieestes
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
"IMNSHO
Dance music works best when it has trance like almost hypnotic feel to it."
i would agree, this is the feeling i get from those old pipe78s someone has kindly put on archive.org
for example: http://www.archive.org/details/MichaelCarneyTheJollyTinker
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by DubChieftain
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
Dub - that was a great link! Thank you. Made me flashback to sitting in my Granny's parlor in Brooklyn listening to her old LP's.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
Well, I like playing tunes in sets...or medleys, as they used to be called....way back in the 1890s. Sorry to be such a modernist, but that 's the "tradition" that *I* know and am used to.
If you guys want to go ahead and play hour and a half versions of the Kesh, work away, don't let me stop you. Just don't invite me to the session you'll be doing this at.
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
Ah, the unbalancing whif of slurry slewing air... Were you reading any of the previous key? We weren't saying it was THE ONLY thing we enjoyedm the ONLY way to go ~ or at least I haven't read that. So, medley playing aside, the basic content is to say that that things have changed over time. So nothing new there, eh? I think the gist of it is that we like both possibilities, that maybe there might be a place for both ways, for 'variety'? Maybe not...
# Posted on May 2nd 2008 by ceolachan
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
We live in a slurrly slinging part of the world...
# Posted on May 3rd 2008 by ceolachan
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
Occasionally playing a really good tune over and over for pure pleasure, - no need to 'explore' the melody, etc.-just building up the energy, is simply exhilerating and magical - as in Dervish dancing to obtain a mystical trance like state.
# Posted on May 3rd 2008 by JNW
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
As it happens, a couple of evenings ago I had an ideal, and quite unexpected, opportunity in a session to try out the single tune system.
At the Thursday session at a local social club I was the only one to show. The punters in the room were pretty sparse as well - a couple of elderly men propping up the bar and talking to the barman, two ditto fast asleep in chairs, a middle-aged Irishman on his own (who introduced himself as "Paddy from Youghal"), and a middle-aged couple, also Irish, at the far end.
I sat at a table waiting for other musicians to turn up, and Paddy joined me for a chat. After half-an-hour, with no other musicians in sight, I decided it was time to open the fiddle case. At that, the couple came over and joined us round the table. The evening then passed comfortably enough with good conversation interspersed with tunes whenever they asked me to play something. I didn't try to play sets - it felt far more appropriate to play one tune 3, 4 or even 5 times instead.
One important thing about that particular Thursday session was that I was able to chat with other people in the room in a way that just wouldn't have happened if we'd had our usual complement of half-a-dozen or so musicians in the session.
# Posted on May 3rd 2008 by lazyhound
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
I suppose for people who don't practice a tune over and over and then hear it over and over in sessions regularly, hearing it a bunch of times in a row doesn't get boring too fast.
# Posted on May 3rd 2008 by Whiddler
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
I would follow a middle course. Playing one single tune 10 times is too much for me. And playing a tune strictly 3 times is just boring. Playing a set of two tunes with each tune repeated 4 or 5 times works best for me. That's what people do in West Yorkshire and some part of West Clare.
# Posted on May 3rd 2008 by slainte
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
I can really only talk about Scotland, where playing dance tunes in sets is a well-established practice, mentioned in tune collections from the early 1800s, but common during the eighteenth century.
# Posted on May 3rd 2008 by nigelg
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
Not dates again!?
Slew of support for the one-tune-at-a-time norm, pre the classical robbery of 19th century Scotland, mining the existing tradition and twisting it to ones own ends, which I'm not against, honest, but this is about two extremes and the worst is how some Scots madfolk don't repeat a tune at all ~ one-after-another-after-another-after ~ ad nauseum... That extreme does nothing justice. It is more about how many tunes one can cram in a given set...
So, one-on-one ~ early 20th Century was sort of where we started ~ then there's the 1800s, 1700s, 1600s, 1500s, and I'll stop there. In ALL CASES, and worldwide by my limited experience and knowledge ~ ONE TUNE AT A TIME!!!
However, I love a good set and change, beautiful and invigorating when it happens, and if the musicians feel that then, well timed, the dancers will too. However, I am not exactly found of the tune type change, say from jigs to reels, as it seems a bit more like a cheap trick and often is designed to support the idea of reels being better than everything else, the 'ultimate', the last form to burn through. Though, having said that, I quite like the step dance set which has become traditional under Scottish influences and is fun to dance, through the forms. And yes, I've played that way too, and enjoyed the hell out of it. But, I still prefer above all, when sharing music with a friend, one-on-one... That doesn't mean I don't enjoy other options.
Back to the history, over all it supports the lone melody, on all the accounts I've had the pleasure of reviewing, digging up and studying ~ including live sources I've had the blessing of sharing tradition with...
I've enjoyed the comment, whatever the content, nice one lazyhound... Slainte, Clare has been under the influence of the big smoke for a long time. Early accounts have it no different as far as how things used to be. There's nothing wrong with change, but it can be nice to mix our options and just enjoy a melody on its lonesome. I've never gotten bored with that as every turn I learn something more. That doesn't mean it has to be 'extreme', in repetition or in treatment...
# Posted on May 3rd 2008 by ceolachan
Even now, and back and beyond, with dance in Scotland, the R.S.C.D.S. included, one-tune-per-dance is not, was not, uncommon...
# Posted on May 3rd 2008 by ceolachan
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
Interesting discussion this. I have in my record collection a Regal 78 record on which Peter Wyper plays two hornpipes: The Cliff and the Harvest Home on one side and Queen Mary's Waltz on the other side . Scotsman Peter Wyper (reputed to be the first B/C player in these Islands) recorded in the mid twenties /early thirties. I'd imagine that sets of tunes came into their own through the Ceili Bands playing for dances. Especially in the case where a change of key gives the dancers such a kick up the arse that they respond with 'Whoop' or a ' Yaa Hoo'. Obviously there are certain tunes which are meant to be played singly but players who keep playing the same 'mickey mouse tune' over and over again strike me as being limited in their playing capacity. When unfortunately I am subjected to such an event, I always get the awful urge to shout out 'For Christ's sake change the poxy record'....
# Posted on May 3rd 2008 by Free Reed
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
I believe that John Kirkpatrick also believes in the "one tune per dance" theory, as it gives you time to explore the tune in all its variety. My last band tried this once, and didn't repeat it, though it was fun. In another context my present band ( another barndance bunch ) once left the music behind by accident, and it did us good having to try to remember the sets, and sometimes we played only one or two tunes for a dance. Indeed, when I announced what we'd done just before the end of the evening, no-one in the audience had noticed or realised, so you don't NEED a multi-tune set for dancing, although it can, indeed, give a kick up th fundament to a routine to change keys, accents, etc.
# Posted on May 3rd 2008 by Guernsey Pete
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
In my experiance as a dancer and solo fiddler for the sets A single tune can be 'more' reliable. A change can be like taking the wave out from under the surfer. It can take a while to adjust to the change in lift, melody and lilt of another tune. I am my no means arguing against sets, in their place they shine, and a well executed thought out change really can be like shifting up a gear, adding excitement and impetus. However, it can also distract and detract from the experiance, . Especially when done randomly, like say after 3 turns we move on, not paying attention to the form of the dance.
In the hands of some people it wouldnt matter whether they play one tune 10 times or 10 tunes once each, it will be brilliant, and of course in other hands dull and flat......
I have to agree with free reed there, rote repetition, whether 3 times or 10 can be dull, its what we, as artists, do with or to a tune that adds the energy, after all, if it were 'just' the tune a midi rendition would be fine!
Boredom is a state of mind, an attitude, a way of looking at things, not something you get but something you give. I personally gave it up as a bad habit about 20yrs ago and I can honestly say I haven't been bored since.[though it has got close at times
I recomend it to every one.... give it up.
# Posted on May 3rd 2008 by jig
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
Free Reed: " ~ players who keep playing the same 'mickey mouse tune' over and over again strike me as being limited in their playing capacity."
jig: "In the hands of some people it wouldnt matter whether they play one tune 10 times or 10 tunes once each, it will be brilliant, and of course in other hands dull and flat......
I have to agree with free reed there, rote repetition, whether 3 times or 10 can be dull, its what we, as artists, do with or to a tune that adds the energy, after all, if it were 'just' the tune a midi rendition would be fine!
Boredom is a state of mind, an attitude, a way of looking at things, not something you get but something you give."
'c' Boredom is something you bring on yourself, a decision you make... It is also a species of rudeness. It is not uncommon amongst those who value the technical over the social ~ in showing what they can do rather than sharing and enjoying the music and the company, the craic, and respecting that there will always be differences in approach, ability and understanding. It is my experience that with folk in this mind frame, the later is sadly lacking... The greater limitation is with the person who chooses boredom as an option, who expects or demands that everything should meet their expectations and approval.
Free Reed: "When unfortunately I am subjected to such an event, I always get the awful urge to shout out 'For Christ's sake change the poxy record'...."
'c': That makes me want to ask, what's your hang up? I'm sure there are enough opportunities and places you can go to find like minded individuals short on patience, understanding and courtesy... Whether or not you actually come out with it, the thought in itself is a discourtesy, as is the assmption that those that might like to play a tune on its own are somehow inferior to you in attitude and skill.
The question of commercial recordings with regards to sets was previously in discussion...
Changes can add interest and can actually help the dancers, for example in a long figure for a set where the first half is primarily danced by say the two head couples in a square set or quadrille, and the second half is danced by the two side couples. It a tune change coincides with a change in the dance it adds extra lift and helps the dancers, wherever that change in music and dance meet. Another practice was to keep the same melody and just change the key... Changes can also be cack, as we all know, badly chosen and badly executed. They can also cause confusion for dancers, as can tunes that have very little dance in them in the first place, like so many 'new' tunes, or where the player has cut their teeth on session playing and hasn't the understanding to put dance in the dance music, to help give it that definition so it actually speaks to and helps the dancer(s)...
# Posted on May 3rd 2008 by ceolachan
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
If I started listing all the known musicians who have enjoyed and enjoy playing one-tune-at-a-time, and even confining it to Irish musicians, the list would be huge and include those who have produced commercial recordings or who are names well known and respected... They are not what I would consider, as Free Reed suggests ~ "~ limited in their playing capacity."
It wasn't you that was defending playing tunes without repetition sometime back was it? ~ with the argument being that there were just so many tunes to play that once through was enough? Whoever it was, there's no skill or understanding required there...
# Posted on May 3rd 2008 by ceolachan
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
I used to yearn for the 'one tune at a time, let's explore the possibilities of this tune' approach- that is until recently.
The caller at the dance we were playing for wanted a nice bright tune, and his choice, turned out to be 'Zippedee Doo Dah'- (play it?- I can't even spell it.)
Anyway we did dutifully play it, over and over, to a point where some of us were losing the will to live.
So maybe sets do have their uses after all
# Posted on May 3rd 2008 by P-K
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
I was always curious about this topic as well. My simple mind would say it's related to dancing. If you're playing for dancers, a single tune makes a lot of sense. You're not the main focus, per se. Playing the same tune over and over at a pub would be boring, and not very appealing to the listener.
# Posted on May 3rd 2008 by nofrets
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
Both ways can work, both situations, dance and session, even more so a private session between friends where you are listening to each others take on it and giving the other persons way with it a try. In dance, to time your tune changes with the changes in the dance itself is also a high worth experiencing, from either side, especially if the set works that magic well, is a good fit to the dance and vice versa. Variety is good. Why deny your options ~ to a point anyway. That variety itself adds interest. I haven't any problem focusing in on listening to the different instruments present, and even consider percussion and accompaniment, when done with respect and skill, something I can learn from... That is part of the joy of holding a tune for more than a couple of times through, or even carrying it on its own. It is also healthy when you're in a situation of trust and understanding where you can ask for ~ once more, or more times through ~ not necessarily just to get the tune, but to hear and try what those present are palying, their take on it. I love that, I love those little points of difference, those individual ways with this music, which seem infinite... For me that is part of the craic. I don't expect others to agree, but it would be nice if we at least understood and had some respect for those that may have a different way with this tradition, with respect for its past and the musicians, dancers and contexts we've gained our understanding and appreciation from...
# Posted on May 3rd 2008 by ceolachan
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
zippedy do dah!? Oh my god! time to get up and leave methinks!
or... sorry dont know that one...never ever ever [ well for a very large sum I suppose I could learn it quickly...like 3 figures! minimum] oh dear, wanders off shaking his head.....
# Posted on May 3rd 2008 by jig
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
Play it again Sam!
# Posted on May 4th 2008 by ceolachan
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
There are limits you know, I have my standards! nothing against zippy but it aint ITM!
# Posted on May 4th 2008 by jig
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
Why doesn't playing a tune for 30 years give you the chance to explore the tune and all its variations? If you are still playing exactly the same tune after 30 years, you do have limited capabilities.
How on earth can we pass on this fine aural tradition if we only play 10 tunes in an evening?.
Give me 10 sets per evening any night!!
# Posted on May 4th 2008 by geoffwright
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
Geoff, thats not quite what we mean i think. just that the formulaic change after 3 times round is not the only way. Also allthough we may have been playing these tunes for decades but every time we play them its fresh and new. The changing faces in the session, different moods etc etc. Perhaps just trying it out for one tune in an evening, 2 tunes through 5 times etc etc....
# Posted on May 5th 2008 by jig
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
Thanks to everyone for your informed and thoughtful responses.
"How on earth can we pass on this fine aural tradition if we only play 10 tunes in an evening? Give me 10 sets per evening any night!!"
Geoff - The flipside is, if you play 100 tunes a night, three times each, how is anyone supposed to learn any tunes? Those hearing the tunes for the first time will, at best, go home with a couple of disjointed phrases rattling around their heads - even if they manage to play the tune on the 3rd time round, they'll probably forget it 5 minutes later (I speak for myself here). Play each tune ten times and they'll go home having thoroughly familiarised themselves with those tunes.
That said, I am by no means a staunch advocate of playing tunes singly, being more comfortable with the current trend of playing a tune 3-4 times and moving on. In fact, on occasions when I have played with people who like to repeat tunes more times than I am used to, before starting the next tune, I have often found myself getting impatient for the change. But I put my 'boredom' primarily down to the fact that I just don't have the creative resources to find ten different ways of playing the same tune in one sitting. I have had a few rare moments of inspiration when I could happily have played the same tune for all eternity and still had variations to spare. This is, I like to think, somewhere near where those single-tune players are every time they play a tune. I'd like to buy a house there one day.
# Posted on May 6th 2008 by granama
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
"How on earth can we pass on this fine aural tradition if we only play 10 tunes in an evening?" ~ Geoff
~ not necessarily limited to 10, as it could go all night till the sun rose the next morning, but this was how it was done. Who are we to judge that was wrong? It wasn't just about quantity and the idea that 'more is better' didn't really enter into it... It was not uncommon for me to find amongst older players and areas a quite limited repertoire as far as the tunes considered theirs, or 'local'... The same was true of songs and dances. This mania for quantity really is more about our current media state...and quite often lacks the other 'q' ~ 'quality'...
But I'm still all for variety...
# Posted on May 6th 2008 by ceolachan
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
Another joy to this, when you've given tunes a bit more air than a few times through ~ is hearing the dancers humming them as they leave the dance floor. That is a lovely high I wouldn't trade for much else, not even a bottle of a favoured single malt...
But I'd settle for both, please...
# Posted on May 6th 2008 by ceolachan
Re: Sets vs. Single Tunes
For me it has never been just about the tunes, though I appreciate that seasoning, it has been about sharing them, enjoying them and the company present, other musicians and dancers, the social craic. You can have that either way, one at a time or in groups...
# Posted on May 6th 2008 by ceolachan