So I was listening to a CD of a contemporary, highly succesful, highly praised ITM group of youngish guys. ( I won't say who they were to avoid the derailing of the thread, but the album was recorded in a castle.. )
So 25% of the tunes are old faithfuls, the other 75% are new tunes composed by the group, or members thereof.
But heres the thing...ALL the "new" tunes sound like top and tails of OLD tunes...as i was listening to each one i was like "thats such-and-such mixed with such-and-such with that one run from such-and-such thrown in".
So my question is: are there enough tunes already? Do we really need any more?
But actually to me the more interesting question is this: are we at a stage in the evolution and/or commercialisation of ITM, where to get kudos and critical praise (and, consequently, album and ticket sales), young groups feel the necessity to record more and more NEW tunes (regardless of their artistic and creative merit), to somehow separate them from the "herd" of non-household name players who are content playing and recording the old classics. And does this then create an environment where the ability to "compose" a "new" tune from cut-and-paste of old ones is, even subliminally, more highly regarded (and commercially rewarded) than the ability to make the old tunes forever young?
Is this a good, a cynical, or just a natural progression?
Fat Boy Slim made a living out of doing it in the Pop world so it was bound to cross over to ITM, Classical, Rock and so on. Any way this was going on way back when think of all the tunes that sound the same as each other eg. "Siege Of Ennis" and "Salmon Tails Up In The Water" to name two.
I'm pretty sure that at several points in history, composers have made statements to the effect that it's impossible to come up with new music, and that everything that could be written has already been written. But if we think of our spoken or written language, we have a limited alphabet, grammar and vocabulary and we wouldn't ever suggest that we don't need more, or that we've reached any sort of limit about what can be expressed.
Members of such a band (but I can't remember which) are on record as saying they couldn't be bothered to find the good tunes when it was so much easier to come up with their own.
A good tune's a good tune. It can be so even if it's a cobble-up of two or more widely known ones, with or without some original input also, provided the cobbling-up's good enough.
I think tune composition is a sign of life. I also think a lot of the self-composed tunes are undistinguished, or not very viable outside some tight scheme (such as some of Flook!'s), though every so often a really marvellous new tune goes into circulation. I believe that the best tunes float to the top and continue in circulation, and the weaker ones get forgotten. It seems to have been ever thus. In NE England where I live, old tunebooks contain a lot of dull stuff and some goodies - and it's the latter that stayed in circulation into modern times. Contemporary tunebooks collect their share of contemporary spaff, old ones in their time did the same.
I think there may be a band solidarity thing at work as well. When one member comes up with a tune it's a lot easier for other members to say "fantastic, we must play it," particularly if they're got their own tunes that they're trying to push.
The great deflator when someone claims to have written a tune is "reminds me of" or "sounds like a version of," but the likelihood of that happening depends on how many tunes people can name.
I agree - it seems like the best tunes will survive if they're adopted by session players, as well as other recording artists, "cobbled" or not. That seems like the ultimate test, or judgement.
Some Liz Carroll tunes, for example, have moved into those areas rather quickly. Others may be great tunes, but too virtuosic for wide spread playing by us more pedestrian musicians. I think I read, or maybe heard, Liz Carroll in an interview say that she once attended a session where one of her tunes was played, but that no one there knew it was hers, and made no remark about it. She said that really pleased her; that it was being played not because she was there, but because it had "entered the tradition" (not her words).
I've brought this topic up loads. Yes, there are way way too many tunes.
One of the main modern day problems is that kids make a CD of their cobbled together unoriginal tunes and their fans learn these tunes not only merely instead of the original tunes, but don't even get to learn of the existence of the original tunes.
On the one hand, I've nothing against trying to maximise your profit from a recording by "written by..." instead of "arranged by....". But how much extra are they really making? If it's just ego, then it's obviously not good enough.
And as I've said before, and this is very important, the very very worst reason to learn a tune is merely because your mate wrote it.
I just get so cynical and depressed with all this irreverent churning out of dross. It's just so blindingly obvious that there are way way too many tunes. My advice too anyone wishing to pen their own tune is just to sit down and think of all the best tunes they know and humble your self at their feet. And after that, if you really really do believe that you have something worthy to offer, it's probable (to a degree of winning the lottery style astronomical odds) that you are a feckin arrogant t w a t.
(... however, I'm sure glad that Liz Carroll would never pay any attention to the above...)
Thre may be a lot of similar tunes in circulation at any given time, but I'll bet there are places all around the globe where real musicians are composing real tunes simply because they must. The copycats will come and go, but the real new tunes will suddenly appear, fresh and unlike anything else, and you'll get charged up again over the music. it's like that with art and with dance. everybody does the same thing forever and then suddenly there's a new voice that astounds the world. it's the nature of art. all the copycat stuff may have its day and may replace one or two pieces, but people will always rediscover the original source music and the cycle begins again.
actually, no one person can learn every single piece and variation out there. To listen to some of our players, it takes years to master a single piece to perfection -- so any more than four or five pieces is redundant... most of the people i Iknow play the same 100 tunes anyway, so it doesn't matter how many there are out there, they'll still play the 100 they like and enjoy. So why limit someone else's 100?
This could really turn into a big debate as to the possible creativity of the ones and others, but I think it would undoubtedly be a sterile one in the end.
A friend of Brahms' was saying to him one day on the shores of the north sea that all the "good" music had been written. Brahms answered "look, here comes the last wave". I tend to subscribe to this sardonic philosophy.
However, having composed a couple tunes myself, humility has yet forbidden me to even dream of posting them on such a website as this, despite their commercialisation.
Attitude in the face of tradition, or the respect or dismissal of it make the difference between a cut-and-paste job of two-bit originality and the inspiration (good or bad) behind a tune.
I don't regard my own compositions with half the respect the other members of my ensemble have shown them (to my surprise), and I explained to them that I felt I might have been re-invenitng the wheel when I wrote them.
When a piece comes, uninvited, raw and utterly unexpected, is it not at least worth giving it a chance at being played? If the good pieces float to the top, and the "bad" ones sink, is that not a good enough form of natural selection?
Except there is nothing natural in the selection if it's your mates selecting them.
Try the double blind test on them. Say you have three old tunes, but one of them is yours, and see which they like the best. And try not to choose old boring ones against yours. Make your mates compare the best of the old ones
The question is whether they will still be played in 50 years time. Then, like Liz Carroll's tune, they will have been accepted into the tradition.
But there is also a financial incentive for the bands doing this, they get royalties for each tune,and once it's published and out it brings in some cash each year. Don't knock it, for these professional musicians, every little helps !
I have to say I think most new tunes are rubbish... but everyone said that about the Skinner tunes when they arrived here 1oo years ago., and now they're played widely. It's a generational thing... most people in their fifties insist that Oasis just reworked songs by the Beatles. There comes a time when we all just don't 'get' what the kids are into.
There's a financial side to this as well. The more self composed tunes there are on a cd the more chance of making royalties back as a result. The estates of many of the great composers from the 40's onwards realise this and are after their fair share of the pie. So, why record a Paddy O'Brien or Junior Crehan tune with all the issues about accreditation when you can fill an album with your own or your buddy's from down the road. The composer of "Kelsey's wee reel" is a regular punter at one of our sessions and is very candid about how that tune has made a financial difference in his life. By the same token Brian Pickell did a google search of his tunes and realised that everyone was recording them with little or no personal return. It becomes cynical when you see the results of the various degree courses out of LImerick, Glasgow etc where the really nasty side of music publication becomes the basis on which long term careers are built. It's all predicated on the pop music industry standard and bears little or no resemblance to the tradition. There are very valid points made about this especially given the financial returns that some artists are realising but ultimately a lot of commercial trad has it's head up it's arse and is going the same way as rap and pop, vacuous, irrelevant and hyper inflated. Best bet ? Don't buy it.
Jerry Holland, Phil Cunningham, Paddy Fahey, Liz Carroll, Tommy Peoples, Jennifer Wrigley---all living composers---shall we tell them not to bother, there are enough tunes already?
And I suppose Ed Reavy and Junior Crehan should have just stuck to playing the old standards as well. No sense in letting personal creativity contaminate our traditional ways.
Sarcasm aside, you have to allow for a few clunkers from any one composer. Not every tune will be a gem, but the good ones might be wonderful, and there can never be enough of those.
There's nothing particularly wrong to write new tunes. However, it's not desirable to keep learning recently composed ear-catching tunes blindly.
There are many great musicians who keep composing attractive tunes. But do they really compose tunes, expecting others will learn and play? Probably not. Most of the players, both famous and lesser-known, basically play this music just for themselves, so all those composers mentioned above wouldn't care whether others like or learn to play their tunes.
So, the composers are almost innocent. People just should look for and learn more good old tunes.
"most people in their fifties insist that Oasis just reworked songs by the Beatles."
What a daft thing. Actually it's Noel Gallaher who admits his songs are reworkings of the Beatles.
I'm not convinced that the test of time thing is infallable. It would be fine if the good tunes were learned as well as the dross, but this just doesn't happen. People, especially youngsters, learn tunes on a basis of their trendiness, not their quality.
Of course we are all glad that the likes of Liz Carroll write tunes. But the question is, why is there a culture of every little wannabe writing tunes?
It's just like everything else in the realm of creative activity. Art and music schools everywhere are filled with dreamers. fortunately they will always be with us.
It used to be that we had the tunes, and we played them. We didn't care much where they came from. Sure, sometimes it was interesting, but the composer was not important. The proof of this is the ratio of tunes without a link to a composer to the ratio with.
One of the thinks that makes - or should make - this music stand out from "everything else in the realm of creative activity" is the natural humbling of the process. You play the music how it should be played, you play the music how it was played. Once in a while a truly great player leaves his/her mark on it, but never in the history of the music has anyone ever made a lasting mark before playing the music how it should be played and playing the music how it was played.
The strength of the music lies in the collective contribution, not the individual contribution. Yeah yeah, I know that it's individual contributions that make up the collective, but it's ego-less contributions that really matter.
Art and music schools (and teenagers' bedrooms of course) are indeed filled with dreamers wishing separate themselves from the "herd" of non-household name players. I'd just like to know why the feck so many of them are trying to do it with diddley music? Let them go and play pop or whatever, where that kind of thing is encouraged.
One of the really sad things about fashion, is that a lot of youngsters (and beardy old gits of course) get into "folk" music because they like the tag "alternative".
I like the natural selection idea, and what Llig says also supports this. After all, even Mozart wrote the occasional crappy tune - and those tunes survive because they were written down. Traditional tunes pass through many hands so what you end up with is a collective contribution - and the crappy ones sink into the murk!
so what happens to the 98% of crappie tunes immortalised for ever on this web site?
And what happens when the good tunes get all their lovely spiky bits and unusual turns rounded off them after they've passed through those so many hands that didn't learn them quite properly?
It's a qualitative game. I was having a conversation with someone the other day and he said, "If John Carty and Tommy Peoples play some notes differently to the standard version of the tune, it's a variation. If you or I do it, it's wrong notes." I said that this was not necessarily the case. Ours my well be wrong notes but it might also be an acceptable, even cool, variation. Depends on how well it fits with the tune and that's not something you can quantitatively judge.
Or Zina used to put it much more succinctly. I think she said at one point, "There are a million wrong ways to play a tune. There are also a million right ways."
Nope, if there are very very much fewer ways to play a tune right than wrong.
And the point about learning tunes properly is you should be learning to play them exactly the same as the person you are learning them from before you do anything with them. That's the difference between variation and wrong.
I "shouldn't" be doing anything that I don't want to be doing. It's my music as much as it yours. If I want to change a piece of a bar, or insert triplets and runs wherever I please, then I will. Again, it's interpretive. And I most certainly, don't have to learn tunes "exactly the same as the person I'm learning from". That would mean that playing a tune becomes a pointless exercise of regurgitation rather than interpretation and performance.
I don't want to get into an argument about this. If I want to, I too will vary a piece of a bar, or insert triplets and runs wherever I please. But I won't begin this process until I have it the way the other fella has it first. What I'm complaining about, is people who change bits of tunes because they didn't hear them right in the first place. It happens all the time. It's sloppy and there's no excuse for it.
Not a lot you can do. Except of course not to make matters worse by compounding the error.
I'm always open to hearing other "versions" and there's nothing I like more than someone saying to me after I've played a tune, "I think you've got a little bit wrong there, I have it like this....." Usually, the correct version is easy to spot and is the best.
I'm constantly ammending tunes. Especially the ones I learned decades ago when I was poorer at picking them up.
"One of the really sad things about fashion, is that a lot of youngsters (and beardy old gits of course) get into "folk" music because they like the tag "alternative"."
Ouch. Ouch. That stung.
I really wanna meet you one day llig. You seem to accept no compromise, ever, and while this can be good I can seriously appreciate how annoying it becomes when you simply label creativity "wannabe". I mean - WHAT!?
If a little kid's drawing a picture, it would be like taking the crayons away, saying that "there are alerady enough good pictures and artists in the world anyway, you little wannabe".
The question here really is are there any younger tune composers writing anything of the quality of Fahey, Reavy, Dwyer, Lennon, Carroll, O'Brien, Peoples etc.?
I don't mean in the same style mind you, each of these composers have their own voice and they built on the tradition of the music before them, adding new innovations. Ed Reavy once said he wanted to get out of the limited range of most traditional tunes he knew and so used the full range of the fiddle in first position for many of his tunes. The other composers I mention there have followed suit and really explored a lot of interesting melodic avenues.
Seems to me the main 'innovative' thing a lot of younger tune composers are doing is rhythmic, not melodic. They're writing tunes that will fit in with a 'cool' syncopated beat or an interesting chord sequence. This is often at the expense of a good melody.
As a result there aren't many tunes being written now that will stand the test of time. I think a lot of these newly-composed tunes will sound horribly dated soon and many of them are just bland. They're missing the nyah.
Of course there are bound to be some very talented young tune composers out there but perhaps they haven't come to the fore yet because they aren't in supergroups!
Oh and of course one of the reasons band members record their own tunes is because it is
(a) an ego boost and
(b) it generates more royalties for them.
Why is it that old people so love to talk about young people and what they are doing? And why does it always seem so negative? Are we young folks really so bad?
Of course I can't speak for all young folks, but for myself (as a young folk) I like old tunes, it gives me a little thrill to play the same music that people played 150 years ago. I don't wright my own tunes, because I would rather learn an old tune that is probably better anyway, and has the added benefit of being known by other people (this allows me to play it with them, something I enjoy), And often time I shy away from newly composed tunes for the same reasons.
My advice... find some young folks, play some music with them, you will most likely find that they are decent, music loving people that just want to have a good time playing some tunes, (hopefully) just like you.
Arlo
Fellenbaum, if you're referring to me I should say that I'm not exactly ancient, I'm 31 and many of the younger tune composers I'm talking about are people around my own age.
I play music with people of all ages and like you say I find younger musicians are often 'decent, music loving people that just want to have a good time playing some tunes'. There are a few really arrogant little sods who need a good kicking mind you
I'm just commenting on what I've heard from tune composers of this younger generation which ranges from teenagers to people in their 40's. I'm interested in finding out who will be the next Liz Carroll or Charlie Lennon in terms of composing tunes that will be distinctive yet be played by people of all ages for generations to come, I haven't heard many who have this potential and I blame the supergroup/riverdance/celtic tiger effect for this.
Then again maybe I am just a grumpy old sod........
Enough Already?
Enough Already?
So I was listening to a CD of a contemporary, highly succesful, highly praised ITM group of youngish guys. ( I won't say who they were to avoid the derailing of the thread, but the album was recorded in a castle..
)
So 25% of the tunes are old faithfuls, the other 75% are new tunes composed by the group, or members thereof.
But heres the thing...ALL the "new" tunes sound like top and tails of OLD tunes...as i was listening to each one i was like "thats such-and-such mixed with such-and-such with that one run from such-and-such thrown in".
So my question is: are there enough tunes already? Do we really need any more?
But actually to me the more interesting question is this: are we at a stage in the evolution and/or commercialisation of ITM, where to get kudos and critical praise (and, consequently, album and ticket sales), young groups feel the necessity to record more and more NEW tunes (regardless of their artistic and creative merit), to somehow separate them from the "herd" of non-household name players who are content playing and recording the old classics. And does this then create an environment where the ability to "compose" a "new" tune from cut-and-paste of old ones is, even subliminally, more highly regarded (and commercially rewarded) than the ability to make the old tunes forever young?
Is this a good, a cynical, or just a natural progression?
# Posted on June 8th 2008 by hakanozel
Re: Enough Already?
Fat Boy Slim made a living out of doing it in the Pop world so it was bound to cross over to ITM, Classical, Rock and so on. Any way this was going on way back when think of all the tunes that sound the same as each other eg. "Siege Of Ennis" and "Salmon Tails Up In The Water" to name two.
# Posted on June 8th 2008 by upmine3
Re: Enough Already?
I'm pretty sure that at several points in history, composers have made statements to the effect that it's impossible to come up with new music, and that everything that could be written has already been written. But if we think of our spoken or written language, we have a limited alphabet, grammar and vocabulary and we wouldn't ever suggest that we don't need more, or that we've reached any sort of limit about what can be expressed.
# Posted on June 8th 2008 by Mark Harmer
Re: Enough Already?
Members of such a band (but I can't remember which) are on record as saying they couldn't be bothered to find the good tunes when it was so much easier to come up with their own.
# Posted on June 8th 2008 by TomB-R
Re: Enough Already?
A good tune's a good tune. It can be so even if it's a cobble-up of two or more widely known ones, with or without some original input also, provided the cobbling-up's good enough.
I think tune composition is a sign of life. I also think a lot of the self-composed tunes are undistinguished, or not very viable outside some tight scheme (such as some of Flook!'s), though every so often a really marvellous new tune goes into circulation. I believe that the best tunes float to the top and continue in circulation, and the weaker ones get forgotten. It seems to have been ever thus. In NE England where I live, old tunebooks contain a lot of dull stuff and some goodies - and it's the latter that stayed in circulation into modern times. Contemporary tunebooks collect their share of contemporary spaff, old ones in their time did the same.
# Posted on June 8th 2008 by nicholas
Re: Enough Already?
I think there may be a band solidarity thing at work as well. When one member comes up with a tune it's a lot easier for other members to say "fantastic, we must play it," particularly if they're got their own tunes that they're trying to push.
The great deflator when someone claims to have written a tune is "reminds me of" or "sounds like a version of," but the likelihood of that happening depends on how many tunes people can name.
# Posted on June 8th 2008 by TomB-R
Re: Enough Already?
I agree - it seems like the best tunes will survive if they're adopted by session players, as well as other recording artists, "cobbled" or not. That seems like the ultimate test, or judgement.
Some Liz Carroll tunes, for example, have moved into those areas rather quickly. Others may be great tunes, but too virtuosic for wide spread playing by us more pedestrian musicians. I think I read, or maybe heard, Liz Carroll in an interview say that she once attended a session where one of her tunes was played, but that no one there knew it was hers, and made no remark about it. She said that really pleased her; that it was being played not because she was there, but because it had "entered the tradition" (not her words).
# Posted on June 8th 2008 by Keith Dubinsky
Re: Enough Already?
I've brought this topic up loads. Yes, there are way way too many tunes.
One of the main modern day problems is that kids make a CD of their cobbled together unoriginal tunes and their fans learn these tunes not only merely instead of the original tunes, but don't even get to learn of the existence of the original tunes.
On the one hand, I've nothing against trying to maximise your profit from a recording by "written by..." instead of "arranged by....". But how much extra are they really making? If it's just ego, then it's obviously not good enough.
And as I've said before, and this is very important, the very very worst reason to learn a tune is merely because your mate wrote it.
I just get so cynical and depressed with all this irreverent churning out of dross. It's just so blindingly obvious that there are way way too many tunes. My advice too anyone wishing to pen their own tune is just to sit down and think of all the best tunes they know and humble your self at their feet. And after that, if you really really do believe that you have something worthy to offer, it's probable (to a degree of winning the lottery style astronomical odds) that you are a feckin arrogant t w a t.
(... however, I'm sure glad that Liz Carroll would never pay any attention to the above...)
# Posted on June 8th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Enough Already?
Thre may be a lot of similar tunes in circulation at any given time, but I'll bet there are places all around the globe where real musicians are composing real tunes simply because they must. The copycats will come and go, but the real new tunes will suddenly appear, fresh and unlike anything else, and you'll get charged up again over the music. it's like that with art and with dance. everybody does the same thing forever and then suddenly there's a new voice that astounds the world. it's the nature of art. all the copycat stuff may have its day and may replace one or two pieces, but people will always rediscover the original source music and the cycle begins again.
actually, no one person can learn every single piece and variation out there. To listen to some of our players, it takes years to master a single piece to perfection -- so any more than four or five pieces is redundant... most of the people i Iknow play the same 100 tunes anyway, so it doesn't matter how many there are out there, they'll still play the 100 they like and enjoy. So why limit someone else's 100?
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by Mandogal
Re: Enough Already?
This could really turn into a big debate as to the possible creativity of the ones and others, but I think it would undoubtedly be a sterile one in the end.
A friend of Brahms' was saying to him one day on the shores of the north sea that all the "good" music had been written. Brahms answered "look, here comes the last wave". I tend to subscribe to this sardonic philosophy.
However, having composed a couple tunes myself, humility has yet forbidden me to even dream of posting them on such a website as this, despite their commercialisation.
Attitude in the face of tradition, or the respect or dismissal of it make the difference between a cut-and-paste job of two-bit originality and the inspiration (good or bad) behind a tune.
I don't regard my own compositions with half the respect the other members of my ensemble have shown them (to my surprise), and I explained to them that I felt I might have been re-invenitng the wheel when I wrote them.
When a piece comes, uninvited, raw and utterly unexpected, is it not at least worth giving it a chance at being played? If the good pieces float to the top, and the "bad" ones sink, is that not a good enough form of natural selection?
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by Fanning
Re: Enough Already?
Except there is nothing natural in the selection if it's your mates selecting them.
Try the double blind test on them. Say you have three old tunes, but one of them is yours, and see which they like the best. And try not to choose old boring ones against yours. Make your mates compare the best of the old ones
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Enough Already?
The question is whether they will still be played in 50 years time. Then, like Liz Carroll's tune, they will have been accepted into the tradition.
But there is also a financial incentive for the bands doing this, they get royalties for each tune,and once it's published and out it brings in some cash each year. Don't knock it, for these professional musicians, every little helps !
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by Guernsey Pete
Re: Enough Already?
I have to say I think most new tunes are rubbish... but everyone said that about the Skinner tunes when they arrived here 1oo years ago., and now they're played widely. It's a generational thing... most people in their fifties insist that Oasis just reworked songs by the Beatles. There comes a time when we all just don't 'get' what the kids are into.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by ambassadorfish
Re: Enough Already?
There's a financial side to this as well. The more self composed tunes there are on a cd the more chance of making royalties back as a result. The estates of many of the great composers from the 40's onwards realise this and are after their fair share of the pie. So, why record a Paddy O'Brien or Junior Crehan tune with all the issues about accreditation when you can fill an album with your own or your buddy's from down the road. The composer of "Kelsey's wee reel" is a regular punter at one of our sessions and is very candid about how that tune has made a financial difference in his life. By the same token Brian Pickell did a google search of his tunes and realised that everyone was recording them with little or no personal return. It becomes cynical when you see the results of the various degree courses out of LImerick, Glasgow etc where the really nasty side of music publication becomes the basis on which long term careers are built. It's all predicated on the pop music industry standard and bears little or no resemblance to the tradition. There are very valid points made about this especially given the financial returns that some artists are realising but ultimately a lot of commercial trad has it's head up it's arse and is going the same way as rap and pop, vacuous, irrelevant and hyper inflated. Best bet ? Don't buy it.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by Patkiwi
Re: Enough Already?
Jerry Holland, Phil Cunningham, Paddy Fahey, Liz Carroll, Tommy Peoples, Jennifer Wrigley---all living composers---shall we tell them not to bother, there are enough tunes already?
And I suppose Ed Reavy and Junior Crehan should have just stuck to playing the old standards as well. No sense in letting personal creativity contaminate our traditional ways.
Sarcasm aside, you have to allow for a few clunkers from any one composer. Not every tune will be a gem, but the good ones might be wonderful, and there can never be enough of those.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by kennedy
Re: Enough Already?
There's nothing particularly wrong to write new tunes. However, it's not desirable to keep learning recently composed ear-catching tunes blindly.
There are many great musicians who keep composing attractive tunes. But do they really compose tunes, expecting others will learn and play? Probably not. Most of the players, both famous and lesser-known, basically play this music just for themselves, so all those composers mentioned above wouldn't care whether others like or learn to play their tunes.
So, the composers are almost innocent. People just should look for and learn more good old tunes.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by slainte
Re: Enough Already?
By the way, thanks for posting this topic. I'd like to read through more comments.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by slainte
Re: Enough Already?
"most people in their fifties insist that Oasis just reworked songs by the Beatles."
What a daft thing. Actually it's Noel Gallaher who admits his songs are reworkings of the Beatles.
I'm not convinced that the test of time thing is infallable. It would be fine if the good tunes were learned as well as the dross, but this just doesn't happen. People, especially youngsters, learn tunes on a basis of their trendiness, not their quality.
Of course we are all glad that the likes of Liz Carroll write tunes. But the question is, why is there a culture of every little wannabe writing tunes?
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Enough Already?
It's just like everything else in the realm of creative activity. Art and music schools everywhere are filled with dreamers. fortunately they will always be with us.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by leoj
Re: Enough Already?
It used to be that we had the tunes, and we played them. We didn't care much where they came from. Sure, sometimes it was interesting, but the composer was not important. The proof of this is the ratio of tunes without a link to a composer to the ratio with.
One of the thinks that makes - or should make - this music stand out from "everything else in the realm of creative activity" is the natural humbling of the process. You play the music how it should be played, you play the music how it was played. Once in a while a truly great player leaves his/her mark on it, but never in the history of the music has anyone ever made a lasting mark before playing the music how it should be played and playing the music how it was played.
The strength of the music lies in the collective contribution, not the individual contribution. Yeah yeah, I know that it's individual contributions that make up the collective, but it's ego-less contributions that really matter.
Art and music schools (and teenagers' bedrooms of course) are indeed filled with dreamers wishing separate themselves from the "herd" of non-household name players. I'd just like to know why the feck so many of them are trying to do it with diddley music? Let them go and play pop or whatever, where that kind of thing is encouraged.
One of the really sad things about fashion, is that a lot of youngsters (and beardy old gits of course) get into "folk" music because they like the tag "alternative".
eeaaurrrggghhh ..... give me a big stick.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Enough Already?
I like the natural selection idea, and what Llig says also supports this. After all, even Mozart wrote the occasional crappy tune - and those tunes survive because they were written down. Traditional tunes pass through many hands so what you end up with is a collective contribution - and the crappy ones sink into the murk!
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by Mark Harmer
Re: Enough Already?
so what happens to the 98% of crappie tunes immortalised for ever on this web site?
And what happens when the good tunes get all their lovely spiky bits and unusual turns rounded off them after they've passed through those so many hands that didn't learn them quite properly?
Devil's advocate, of course.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Enough Already?
Learning a tune 'properly'? There isn't a correct way to play a tune. Like it or lump it Gill, it's an interpretive genre of music.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by Penfold
Re: Enough Already?
It's a qualitative game. I was having a conversation with someone the other day and he said, "If John Carty and Tommy Peoples play some notes differently to the standard version of the tune, it's a variation. If you or I do it, it's wrong notes." I said that this was not necessarily the case. Ours my well be wrong notes but it might also be an acceptable, even cool, variation. Depends on how well it fits with the tune and that's not something you can quantitatively judge.
Or Zina used to put it much more succinctly. I think she said at one point, "There are a million wrong ways to play a tune. There are also a million right ways."
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by TheSilverSpear
Re: Enough Already?
Nope, if there are very very much fewer ways to play a tune right than wrong.
And the point about learning tunes properly is you should be learning to play them exactly the same as the person you are learning them from before you do anything with them. That's the difference between variation and wrong.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Enough Already?
Sorry:
Nope, there are very very much fewer ways to play a tune right than wrong.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Enough Already?
"you should be learning to play them...."
I "shouldn't" be doing anything that I don't want to be doing. It's my music as much as it yours. If I want to change a piece of a bar, or insert triplets and runs wherever I please, then I will. Again, it's interpretive. And I most certainly, don't have to learn tunes "exactly the same as the person I'm learning from". That would mean that playing a tune becomes a pointless exercise of regurgitation rather than interpretation and performance.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by Penfold
Re: Enough Already?
If you've got that attitude, your music will merely be forever yours and your alone. If that's your bag, then fair enough.
I'd never refer to it as my music.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Enough Already?
I don't want to get into an argument about this. If I want to, I too will vary a piece of a bar, or insert triplets and runs wherever I please. But I won't begin this process until I have it the way the other fella has it first. What I'm complaining about, is people who change bits of tunes because they didn't hear them right in the first place. It happens all the time. It's sloppy and there's no excuse for it.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Enough Already?
Hey, llig - what do you do if the fella you learn the tune from has it "wrong" ?
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by Kenny
Re: Enough Already?
Not a lot you can do. Except of course not to make matters worse by compounding the error.
I'm always open to hearing other "versions" and there's nothing I like more than someone saying to me after I've played a tune, "I think you've got a little bit wrong there, I have it like this....." Usually, the correct version is easy to spot and is the best.
I'm constantly ammending tunes. Especially the ones I learned decades ago when I was poorer at picking them up.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Enough Already?
"One of the really sad things about fashion, is that a lot of youngsters (and beardy old gits of course) get into "folk" music because they like the tag "alternative"."
Ouch. Ouch. That stung.
I really wanna meet you one day llig. You seem to accept no compromise, ever, and while this can be good I can seriously appreciate how annoying it becomes when you simply label creativity "wannabe". I mean - WHAT!?
If a little kid's drawing a picture, it would be like taking the crayons away, saying that "there are alerady enough good pictures and artists in the world anyway, you little wannabe".
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by mehitabel23
Re: Enough Already?
*already*. I'm such a failure.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by mehitabel23
Re: Enough Already?
Hey, I'm as guilty as any. I got into it 'cause I thought Donal Lunny's hair on the back of my Dad's Planxty album was cool.
This isn't the actual picture, but you get the idea:
http://www.chinatogalway.com/andy%20Irvine%20and%20Donal%20Lunny%202.jpg
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Enough Already?
If the hair was the only reason, you could got into metal as well:
http://www.webironmaiden.com/webironmaiden/images/002Bruce1.jpg
So maybe you liked the music?
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by Ramiro
Re: Enough Already?
The question here really is are there any younger tune composers writing anything of the quality of Fahey, Reavy, Dwyer, Lennon, Carroll, O'Brien, Peoples etc.?
I don't mean in the same style mind you, each of these composers have their own voice and they built on the tradition of the music before them, adding new innovations. Ed Reavy once said he wanted to get out of the limited range of most traditional tunes he knew and so used the full range of the fiddle in first position for many of his tunes. The other composers I mention there have followed suit and really explored a lot of interesting melodic avenues.
Seems to me the main 'innovative' thing a lot of younger tune composers are doing is rhythmic, not melodic. They're writing tunes that will fit in with a 'cool' syncopated beat or an interesting chord sequence. This is often at the expense of a good melody.
As a result there aren't many tunes being written now that will stand the test of time. I think a lot of these newly-composed tunes will sound horribly dated soon and many of them are just bland. They're missing the nyah.
Of course there are bound to be some very talented young tune composers out there but perhaps they haven't come to the fore yet because they aren't in supergroups!
Oh and of course one of the reasons band members record their own tunes is because it is
(a) an ego boost and
(b) it generates more royalties for them.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by Worldwide Pants
Re: Enough Already?
Blimey, bruce dickinson and nigel tuffnell separated at birth. I knew they were relatives, but flippin heck
http://www.webironmaiden.com/webironmaiden/images/002Bruce1.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b99/hudson_lowboy/top%20100%20characters/nigeltufnell1.jpg
Of course I was into metal as well.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Enough Already?
Why is it that old people so love to talk about young people and what they are doing? And why does it always seem so negative? Are we young folks really so bad?
Of course I can't speak for all young folks, but for myself (as a young folk) I like old tunes, it gives me a little thrill to play the same music that people played 150 years ago. I don't wright my own tunes, because I would rather learn an old tune that is probably better anyway, and has the added benefit of being known by other people (this allows me to play it with them, something I enjoy), And often time I shy away from newly composed tunes for the same reasons.
My advice... find some young folks, play some music with them, you will most likely find that they are decent, music loving people that just want to have a good time playing some tunes, (hopefully) just like you.
Arlo
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by Fellenbaum
Re: Enough Already?
Why is it that young people get so paranoid sometimes?
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by benhall.1
Re: Enough Already?
Fellenbaum, you're a good lad and a fine mando picker. I still owe you one decent session that is not hijacked into a performance.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Enough Already?
Thanks SWFL, By the way, if musicians preform and the drunks are so loud that no one can hear them, do they still make a sound
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by Fellenbaum
Re: Enough Already?
Fellenbaum, if you're referring to me I should say that I'm not exactly ancient, I'm 31 and many of the younger tune composers I'm talking about are people around my own age.
I play music with people of all ages and like you say I find younger musicians are often 'decent, music loving people that just want to have a good time playing some tunes'. There are a few really arrogant little sods who need a good kicking mind you
I'm just commenting on what I've heard from tune composers of this younger generation which ranges from teenagers to people in their 40's. I'm interested in finding out who will be the next Liz Carroll or Charlie Lennon in terms of composing tunes that will be distinctive yet be played by people of all ages for generations to come, I haven't heard many who have this potential and I blame the supergroup/riverdance/celtic tiger effect for this.
Then again maybe I am just a grumpy old sod........
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by Worldwide Pants
Re: Enough Already?
Excellent question! I'd say they normally do make a sound, unless it's St. P's night.
Normally when I perform I bring the PA, what a goofy night that was.
Anyway, peace to you Fellenbaum, say hello to your bro & Ma for us.
...and to stay on topic, I like old tunes everyone knows. I'm of the "let's play some old ones all-together" camp.
# Posted on June 9th 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Enough Already?
There's only one compser consistently writing tunes worth a jot that are in the Tradition, and that's Fahey.
# Posted on June 10th 2008 by ambassadorfish