I've been reading back through several big discussions on this site - ones about articulation, dots vs. ear, fiddle and piping ornaments, etc. And it got me to thinking about the nebulous definition of something that is bantered around quite a bit on this site. People will say things like "that's not traditional" or "that fits within the tradition".
But as far as I can tell, there is no way to draw a line. Banjos and guitars can't articulate the music the same way that fiddles and wind instruments can, because they can't provide the sustained tone that is then interrupted in rhythmical ways. Does that mean that since they came later that they're not traditional? There seems to be a fairly well established tradition of playing those instruments in Irish music, they just articulate it differently, and it still sounds like Irish music (to me, at least).
So where would you draw the line? If something has been done consistently for more than 100 years, then it automatically becomes traditional? (This might preclude things like playing sessions in pubs, playing guitars, bouzoukis, banjos, and bodhrans in dance music, etc). That would be a pretty ludicrous way to try to define it, but can you think of anything better?
For me, there is a big distinction between "being traditional" and "fitting within the tradition". I think the concept of "being traditional" is impossible to define exactly, whereas "fitting in" is somewhat easier to define. The difference is that things that might not be strictly traditional *can* fit within the tradition, and might eventually become traditional (ukulele? heh, not that I'm advocating that...) The biggest thing is for it to *sound* like Irish music. If the music is played with the right rhythm, lift, swing, lilt, nyah, etc, then it could be considered to "fit within the tradition".
Banjos and boxes? I love 'em. I enjoy listening to them play together, just the two of them. A lovely sound. I'm also a frustrated banjo player and I dream often of playing the box, but I don't dare try it in reality.
Tunes played in rounds? Feh, not so much.
To me personally, a box and banjo playing Irish tunes together sounds just as traditional as a flute and fiddle. What does it all mean? I don't know. It's all opinion of individuals, and then a consensus opinion of the folks that play and love the music. Perhaps supernatural divination will assist? Examine some entrails? Consult the shamans?
"The biggest thing is for it to *sound* like Irish music"
Bingo. What else matters? This is music for recreation, not ethnomusicology. If it sounds right, then who cares how long it's been done that way. It's a living, evolving tradition, not a dead corpse to be dissected.
If it sounds right it's fun. If it sounds wrong it's painful to hear. How do you know if it sounds right or wrong? By having listened to lots of "right" trad and having developed an ear and a heart for it.
This music was created, perfect, in the sound-image of the ITM god's voice at some ill defined date in the past. That might have been 1880, 1946 or 1965 no-one is sure.
Any notion of evolution of this form is a blasphemous sin in the eyes of the ITM god and his creationalist devotees. They are the Purist ones, and only they, can judge if what you are playing is traditional.
"This is music for recreation, not ethnomusicology. If it sounds right, then who cares how long it's been done that way. It's a living, evolving tradition, not a dead corpse to be dissected."
that's actually an important point to make. That the music still exists within a living tradition.
as a contrast, I regard the bebop jazz I play as beign a "dead language". You can't just go around playing bebop any old way. it stops sounding like bop. The style is fixed, and while jazz as a whole progressed, bop remains as its own subset of the tradition
I asked last week about how the piano ended up in the traditional session and how the common "dance hall" style of bangy-bangy piano from New York made its way back to Ireland via early recordings. That is an example of an instrument working its way into the tradition
One question that is of interest to me is how has the Internet changed the music? In a living tradition, has the exchanges across greater distances lead to more "cross-pollination" between regional styles or anything?
"Any notion of evolution of this form is a blasphemous sin in the eyes of the ITM god and his creationalist devotees. They are the Purist ones, and only they, can judge if what you are playing is traditional."
now we have something!
so which is it? a living tradition where today's players are still expanding the style, or a dead language fixed and immutable?
I'd suggest that ideas from the philosophy of science like finitism and "bootstrapping" (used implicitly in other disciplines like history as well) are useful tools for working out how we know something is traditional. In a nutshell, these ideas differentiate between N-kinds and S-kinds. An N-kind (natural kind) is something like a tree or a rock that exists in nature, independent of human beings (yes, I'm operating from the ontological position that there is a thing called "nature" that exists whether we're there or not). An S-kind (social kind) is something that humans have constructed and doesn't exist in nature. Marriage and money are classic examples. Traditional music of any sort is an S-kind -- it is something entirely socially constructed, a social institution basically, and doesn't have any a priori existence in nature . This is unlike an N-kind... we have labels for "trees" and have constructed categories that say certain things are trees and others bushes, but those objects would exist regardless of what we named them.
The analytical tools I am describing then ask, well, how do you define an S-kind and more importantly, how does the community of practitioners construct the boundaries of their S-kinds. The word community is key, as these ideas hold that these social constructions are community driven. Bootstrapping, a word used by Barry Barnes, a sociology of science prof from Edinburgh (although he's at Essex these days, I think), is at the foundation of this -- it means essentially that an S-kind is whatever the community agrees is an S-kind. It's self-referential. On a less abstract level, that's saying that Irish traditional music is whatever the community of people who play it say is Irish traditional music. The community consensus then establishes normativity.
That doesn't mean that anyone who picks up a fiddle and plays a tune off the dots on this website then gets to say what is or isn't ITM. Communities of practitioners, say ones who do theoretical physics or play specific styles of music, have practices, formal and informal, of establishing authority and of training new members to recognise patterns as traditional or not based on information from authority figures. You only know what something is in the context of your epistemic community.
The last thing addressing Pete's question is finitism. It means that both S and N kinds are not recognized by rigid rules, but that rather pattern recognition occurs on a case by case basis. For example, if your rigid rule is that all swans are white and then you go to Australia and encounter a black swan, your immovable criteria then fails. But Barnes and others say that is not really how people categorize things. Martin Kusch, who also came out Edinburgh desribes it more succinctly than I can:
"Meaning finitsm rejects the idea that meanings determine use; instead it sees meaning as the continuously created product of verbal behaviour. Meanings are the continuously created outcomes of use of words, not the determinants of that use. Since meanings are continuously made (and re-made) by language users, these meanings are never sufficiently stable and fixed for them to be able to determine extensions." (Kusch, Meaning Finitism and Truth; Truth, Rationality, Cognition, and Music: Proceedings of the Seventh International Colloquium on Cognitive Science, 2004).
So the meaning of traditional is under continuous revision by the epistemic community -- people who have a passion for it, who play it, who are members of this community. As it is not fixed, the meaning of tradition can of course expand to accept banjos and guitars and so on, as long as the community agrees on normative standards which allow them into the tradition.
Um, that last was a facetious response to Nate Ryan.
I especially like TheSilverSpear's last para, I've seen that expressed before - a self regulating, constantly revising system. there is no "line" to draw. But there are boundaries.
One thing most people seem to agree upon is that this is a continually evolving tradition.
If it wasn't then it'd be frozen in time somewhere and everyone would be playing exactly like they did in that period of time.
While certain standards techniques, instruments, tunes have probably remained the same for hundreds of years the evolution of the music has allowed for various new instruments, tunes, tune types, individual styles etc., to become part of the tradition. How did they become part of the tradition?
They became generally accepted by the majority of musicians.
There is a general consensus now that accompaniment has a place in the tradition when done well, some people don't like it at all which is their right but they're deluded if they say it is not traditional.
Back in the 1850's or so when pipe regulators were developed they were quite controversial to some. There's a book written in the early 1900's by Richard Henebry in which he seriously gives out about the use of regulators, claiming they had nothing to do with the tradition.
How many people nowadays would say the regulators are not 'traditional', very few I'd say, that's part of the evolution of the music.
Accordions, banjos, concertinas, guitars, bouzoukis, pianos etc have all been widely used in the tradition for a long time at this stage and thus are acceptable to most people, therefore they are traditional when played by people who understand the music.
Tubas, xylophones, oboes and French Horns are not widely used so the use of those instruments would probably not be considered traditional. However someone could come along and develop a brilliant oboe style that will blend perfectly with the pipes and the flute, therefore it could catch on and become traditional, you never can tell really.
So in summary, something becomes part of the tradition and thus 'traditional' if it is generally accepted by those who participate in the tradition.
It's nothing to do with there being one perfect point in time where the music stopped evolving.
Once it stops evolving the tradition will be dead..........
>> If you find yourself making allowances for it, it's being done wrong somehow.
I'm not sure I would agree with that blanket statement. Much of the tradition is social, and it is difficult to be social without making allowances of some sort.
And thanks for the dissertation, Em, I agree with most of that, and it bolsters my point that it's easier for us, as the epistemic community, to determine whether something "fits within the tradition" than it is for anyone to point at a line and say "that's where the tradition ends".
SilverSpear, if that's a parody of academic philosophical writing, it's a good one. Otherwise you kinda went the hard way to say that it's traditional when the trad community accepts it.
>> it is not important,what is important is that people enjoy the music they make.
That may be where you and I would differ, Dick. For me, it's important that people enjoy the music that they make, but only up to a point. That point is where it infringes upon other people's enjoyment. It's not a free-for-all, do whatever you like kind of tradition. Whether people like it or not, it's more exclusive than inclusive.
I honestly wasn't sure how much the tradition is still in evolution and how much is cast in stone
So does the fact that people play the music outside of Ireland say in America and Austrailia have any effect on the traditions? I guess I'm wondering if all the banjo and guitar stuff isn't more prevailent over here. Especially banjo. Appalachian folk music (the local style where I live ) is very derivitive of Irish and Scottish folk music, and they use banjo alot. Its banjo and fiddle based really.
I think outside forces certainly affect the living, breathing tradition. I hear anecdotes of Michael Coleman returning to Sligo, and local fiddlers giving up the fiddle because they were never going to sound like that. But how much of Coleman's style was cultivated in New York? So is the "Sligo style" from Sligo, or from Michael Coleman?
I think that the idea of regional styles is kind of moot these days, Reverend, exactly because of the point you bring up.
Before recordings, trad musicians mostly heard the people that lived close to them, and those are the people that they learned from. So each geographical region had a distinct sound because each group of people learned from, listened to, and influenced each other.
But with the distribution of recordings geographical barriers were broken. Once that happened the people that you listened to and learned from weren't necessarily the ones that lived close to you.
Don't get me wrong, I know that regional styles are still alive and well in those regions, but describing style in terms of geographical region isn't as relevant as it used to be.
So were people in Sligo screaming about how Coleman's playing wasn't traditional, or did it fit within the tradition? Or did they not worry about these things back then?
Today, the part of 'consulting the shaman' will be played by TheSilverSpear...
I enjoyed it SS, but I'm a wordy nerd.
"...Communities of practitioners, say ones who do theoretical physics or play specific styles of music, have practices, formal and informal, of establishing authority and of training new members to recognise patterns as traditional or not based on information from authority figures..."
In the case of Irish traditional music, it is quite simply that, the music, or the tunes and airs. It is not the instruments.
When I was aged 7 -10 the "folk revival" was in full swing. Groups like the McPeakes and The Clancy's were part of that, the McPeake's being more into traditional tunes than the Clancy's.
As the youngest I was soon introduced to two major influences on this revival, The Dubliner's and The Chieftain's as my elder siblings bought their LPs.
Now the Dubliner's were a "folk" group, they did songs but also played traditional tunes. The dominant instrument was the banjo, played by Barney McKenna, allegedly not a trad instrument, but the tunes certainly were.
The Chieftains were more traditional, all tunes, yet they had revived the bodhran to a bigger audience.
From the above you can see that even then the word traditional was associated with tunes and airs, if you played these and did songs you were a "folk" group, or maybe even a "Traditional folk group".
So we now know what it means for ITM. And the tunes and airs are not necessarily Irish any more as the genre mixed and mingled with other sources.
To answer the question in general, you could do worse than consult a dictionary. I personally am saying nothing as I live in a country where marching bands want to march on their "traditional" route, a source of much trouble.
So if that's hoohah, airport, how would you try to define it? There's no governing agency, there's no "authority" to consult to determine where to draw the line, there are people within the tradition that disagree upon what's traditional.
So the idea of the people within the tradition determining what the boundaries are by a broad consensus is about all we have. And it's never going to be a full consensus, so the fuzziness of the boundaries is part of the tradition.
One can only hope all the people playing it and loving it are doing it with those that came before in mind. I think their opnions may hold even more weight than our current ones. It's the basis of what makes it traditional.
'The word tradition comes from the Latin word "traditio" which means "to hand down" or "to hand over."'
I agree - look to the traditioneers. I'll bring the uke on a pilgrimage to Jackie Daly, and if he frowns at me, I'll know it's no good. It's a good question though Reverend, and one that could probably be answered by someone specializing in musicoethnomathmaticophysics or something. At my sessions I just hope for the occasional "lovely" or whoop to know I'm on the right track.
Bliss, Is it the marching season already? Your point about the pathological side of tradition was a beauty. Grim, but a beaut. The world has a few behavioral problems which, for some reason, get dignified by being called customs.
It can be an interesting exercise to try to think and talk about this (or any) tradition without using the word, “tradition,” or any synonyms. Avoid using any words or concepts that are highly abstract. Separate fact from opinion. For guidance, it might be useful to refer to werner erhard’s favorite slogan, “What is, is. What ain’t, ain’t.” Or not.
I used to be involved in producing a live radio show with “traditional” music, skits, live advertisements and a live audience. It was a semi-democratic operation involving scores of volunteers, musicians and actors. Even though I was the “producer,” trying to exert any creative control over the show was a frustrating, tail-wagging-the-dog battle. When my old Buddhist friend heard me griping and whinging about it – “That stuff is not traditional! It oughta be … could be … should be … yadda yadda” – he just said, “It is what it is.”
He didn’t mean I had to agree with “what it is,” but that I needed to back off my grousing and take a fresh, unemotional, non-judgmental look at objective reality before allowing my own desires back into the discussion. It was irritating to have my folly so simply exposed, but I eventually (like, a year later) realized the wisdom of those words. I still struggle with variations on that same folly, but I hope I’m gradually getting less stubborn and boneheaded about it.
I certainly don’t mean to imply that opinions about what’s traditional or valuable are boneheaded. I just think it’s important to set aside the big abstractions and the shoulds and shouldn’ts and start the examination with facts. Like, there’s a bunch of people around the world who play these tunes. A lot of them play fiddles. Some play banjos. Some like accompaniment. Some don’t. Some like to harmonize the tunes, etc…
When I think about it this way, I come to the question – Is “tradition” what people do, or what they *should* do?
I’ve been writing this in between bits of real work and, when I read it, I think it might be a load of krap. But, whatever…
No one's going to lock up Caoimhín Ó Raghallaigh in a tower for playing hardanger and 5-string viola, although I think he'd be an excellent tower-dweller.
rofl--a bit of the educational, a bit of the irrational--this thread has something for everybody! I guess sometimes sh*t-stirring can be a Good Thing.
But then, the "sun passed the yardarm" for me a couple of hours ago--a small special occasion--so I am probably not a good judge of things right now, in general... probably best to ignore me. Carry on, mateys! (Slumps face-first into a plate of nachos.)
the question about whether the sligo fiddle style came from michael coleman or from sligo is a no brainer really. michael coleman was taught by lad o'beirnes father so that is where he gained some of his influence. there was also the presence of james morrison in new york near about the same time, who had a similar but still distinctly different style. there was also michael colemans brother who was suppose to be a superior player but he never left the farm and never recorded. obviously coleman had a big impact on the style when he first started recording but to say it began with him would be wrong. the style would still have had the same tempo, swing and melodic sound it before coleman, however what coleman brought was a new understanding of that style, ornamentation and phrasing and sheer guts. while the style didnt start with him, he certainly brought is to the next level.
'I'm pleased to see that 15/8 is still traditional in the above "what it's not" taxonomy.'
In case you're being sarcastic 15/8 is actually a very traditional rhythm, many singers would sing in 15/8 perhaps without knowing it.
You know the way singers often hold on an extra beat before going to the next line? Well when they do it to a song in a Slide rhythm (12/8), that makes phrases in 15/8 time -
di de di de didely didely (12/8)
di de di de didely didely dah (15/8).
I really don't care whether anything in the music is traditional. If you base any of your musical choices on that criteria you'll kill the music stone dead. What matters is to respect the way it goes, understand the way it goes. Understand and respect the worth of generations of craft and artistry.
A good example is Matt Molloy. He's not a traditional flute player at all. But all his (now ubiquitous) innovations came from the music.
"Understand and respect the worth of generations of craft and artistry."
I like that. They sound like words to live by, if you want to support a tradition, and keep it alive.
And this music includes a tradition of innovation--by people who "understand and respect" what earlier supporters of it contributed... right? Not just throwing stuff into it, willy-nilly.
But--if Matt Molloy's flute playing is not "traditional"... then whose playing would be considered "traditional"? I'm not trying to argue, I really would like to know. Just trying to learn more about it.
I suppose it's the dichotomy of innovation and tradition that confuses. The best players are never the most traditional, but it takes the legions of not so good players to ground the best ones.
It's the substantial drop in the population of pirates since the 19th century that is causing global warming. Don't believe me? Check out this website: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/. It even has a graph!
Michael's point about Matt Molloy supports my statements above (not the ones about the pirates). Matt was not playing the flute *exactly* like people who came before him played the flute, but pushing boundaries and doing different things with it. But (1) he is a very well respected "expert" with an inarguable background in and connection to styles regarded as more traditional and (2) his innovations have been so well accepted that lots of flute players learn them early in their careers. Same goes for pipes (though I can make the point better, as I know bugger-all about specific flute styles). Seamus Ennis and Willie Clancy were masters of innovation in their styles and the ornamentations they used but now those are so well accepted into the paradigm of uilleann piping that you learn that stuff as just a part of your basic repertoire of ornamentation.
I think a mistake I tend to make is in assuming there’s only one tradition. There are many threads that make make the yarn that make the cloth that make the tapestry. There is a tradition of experimentation alongside a tradition of cautious conservatism, a tradition of innovation beside one of preservation. Even, I suppose, a tradition of pipes, flutes and fiddles playing The Bucks of Oranmore alongside (gulp) a tradition of ukuleles and 5 string banjos playing Barnacle Bill the Sailor* as a round, from sheet music, just because it’s fun. I even like to think I’m a small part of these traditions, even though I’m an American with no real roots in The Music, and there are certain traditions I find more satsifying, and some I have no interest in at all.
>> "Understand and respect the worth of generations of craft and artistry."
That's maybe one of the most profound things I've seen you type, llig. It's the understanding that helps you decide if something fits within the tradition, and it's the respect that helps keep you from straying beyond the fuzzy boundaries.
So it's "fitting within the tradition" that keeps the tradition alive, not "being traditional", which, if that is your only criteria, makes it like trying to preserve a museum piece... (In effect, killing the music stone dead, as llig would say).
Wasn't it only the other day the Navy was boasting how they'd eradicated piracy in these waters? This forces one to re-evaluate their claims of having put a stop to the practice of canibalism in the ranks. Sorry Reverand, I wanted to say something about the Sligo style, but the daring-do music in the background is so loud I can't think.
I'm sorry I haven't got into this discussion earlier, but the impending weather wasn't forecast to be dry, so I was seizing the opportunity to do some woodwork in the back garden, making my next electric guitar...........oops, I think I've blown my traditional cool !
I always go back to Cecil Sharp on this matter, who defined the tradition as relying on continuity, selectivity, and variation.
Does that help, or do you need further explanation?
That's a fabulous clip, Agnes, thanks! Makes me wish that I had started playing at that age.
And it has been brought up that the "tradition" is passing on what you've learned, with which I wholeheartedly agree. But that clip aside, what about bad Irish music being passed on? Does just passing something on make it "traditional"? I think that's where the "fitting within the tradition" (defined by the majority consensus of the people in the tradition) comes in...
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
It's fun being a pre-Vatican 2 trained organist....had to learn enough of that 'lingua morta' so that now I can throw it around like an intellectual sort.....
Guernsey Pete, you can't say faires than C. Sharp. It may be pointles to add anything but here goes. Continuity belongs to the lucky ones who got their music "with their mother's milk" so to speak. These people have direct links to this tradition. The rest of us don't. Does the tradition want or need the contribution of those who have grafted themselves on to it. This question makes many of us nervous, so we take in-apropriate moments to play at pirates, or do other obstreperous behavior.
Ah, blessed are the obstreperous! Right you are so! Make your way aft men! You'll have to hold the ruffians off without me. My cutlas work is no better than my spelling. Take heart, for HMS Reindeer is in sight. [ Falls to the deck ]
Yes, scary stuff indeed, eh? However, these things have a way of weeding themselves out, I think? For example, no one plays like Michael Coleman's piano player anymore.
jaysus SWFL - you had me laughing pretty hard with the kippered poop deck bit. And Quigley , your patience is breathtaking - you must a teacher or an inventor, or maybe a shepherd...
A common misunderstanding of evolution is "the survival of the fittest". This is not how evolution works. It is actually the survival of the most adept at adapting to the ever-changing environment.
The banjo is with us because it is easier to play than a fiddle and it's louder ... alas.
Are any of you familiar with the "Song Of The Folk Nazi" by Bob Kanefsky? If not , I recommend that you look it up and read the lyrics.
As for whether or not a particular instrument is "traditional" does that depend on when the instrument was invented? For example, I play the piano and this instrument supposedly was invented in 1698 in Florence, Italy. When the piano was invented, there had already been keyboard instruments such as the harpsichord, the clavichord, the virginal, and the organ for hundreds of years. The ancient Romans had organs which supposedly sounded like steam calliopes and were powered by slaves pushing the air pumps to produce the sound.
To continue with this same idea, when was the violin, the harp, the banjo, the flute, and the button accordion invented? And when did someone decide that each of these instruments fits "within the tradition"?
As for the "obligatory semi-piratical reference", I have tried rum and I don't like it. Instead, I prefer to drink beer such as Shiner Bock and I am trying to type this after drinking two bottles of it.
And. last but not least, zippydw and Silver Spear really ought to stop trying to be intellectuals and/or sound like intellectuals because we are musicians on this web site instead of intellectuals.
I agreed with Silver Spears understanding and found it helpful, fauxcelt.
If someone is genuinely intellectual, what are they supposed to do, fauxcelt ? dumb themselves down and pretend they are ignorant ? Are you saying that musicians must be uneducated ? Or that being a musician and an intellectual is unacceptable ?
The concept 'traditional' is central to the music discussed here and I'm always pleased when someone has an intelligent take on how it's best understood.
I think that comment was about being intellectuals was meant to be obligatorially piratical. But that's something that hasn't been named though touched upon in this thread - academic traditional musicians versus the rabble. man (or woman) yer cannons....
I dunno, Michael. I find the banjo (or any plectrum instrument) harder to play than the fiddle. Actually, I find everything harder to play than it used to be.
Being an intellectual pirate, I don't like stereotyping people into classes. There's good people, and the opposite, in all classes and walks of life. The great Paddy Canny, who has just left us, was a fantastic musician. And a farmer. The Raineys were great musicians. And travellers. Joe Ryan was a joiner. Martin Hayes is a professional musician. Nobody has to be highly educated or scholarly or socially or financially elevated to be an excellent musician. But I object to the sort of reverse snobbery that implies that an educated, intelligent, scholarly person can't also be a great musician. And when it comes to taking an overview of the sociological, historical, cultural, aspects of music, well, IMO, that's why people go and study, so they can get a better, deeper, broader insight into what's going on. Personally, I'd welcome more input from ethno-musicologists and similar folks. I enjoy learning and thinking about stuff. For example, I was under the impression that there was a slow drift of fiddle tunes across Europe and then to North America, as immigration happened. But I read somewhere, that when cheap fiddles became abundant and easily available, they spread, (presumably with the tunes), really very fast, like over a couple of decades. I don't know for sure if that's correct, but it's the sort of area that scholars can research and explain and tell us about.
Yes, and another misunderstanding of evolution is that things evolve gradually over time. This is not how it works, new species evolve very quickly when environmental niches occur, and then stay stable for very long periods. Sharks for example.
And it's also worth noting that evolution often appears to run backwards - flightless birds are the obvious example. In an environment populated by banjos, mandolins, guitars, pianos and bazoukis etc, much of the articulations that evolved with the playing of fiddles, pipes and flutes are being lost.
I hardly think that you could make the case that the pluckies are taking over Irish music and are forcing out the fiddles, pipes, and flutes.
The articulations on the plucked instruments are different, but the whole goal is for them to create the same rhythms and feel of the music, and in some cases, add texture and punctuation. So in a relatively short while, they have helped evolve the music into something better
Wolfbird, when I made my comment about being intellectuals and/or sounding like intellectuals, I was trying to be sarcastic, silly, and ridiculous--and I succeeded better than I intended to. I wasn't trying to offend you or anyone else and I apologize for doing so.
In 1990, I took the entrance exam for Mensa and made a high score on it and I was completely unimpressed by this fact. I have always known that I am too smart for my own good. While it was nice to have "official" proof that I am too smart for my own good, playing music is still more important to me and still more enjoyable than Mensa meetings.
I am still checking this web site everyday because I do enjoy reading the comments on it whether or not I agree with what other people say.
It's fine to play music to just play music and not think about it. Lots of people do it. Lots of the best musicians in the world just play. Nothing wrong with that. Others enjoy studying it academically. Two of my favorite uilleann pipers have PhDs in piping.
At any rate I find the psychological, philosophical, anthropological, sociological, and historical questions about why and how we play the stuff are interesting. The methods developed by scholars in all those fields are useful tools for answering questions like the one Pete started this thread with. If you don't give a rats a*rse about the philosophy, sociology, history, or anthropology of it, that's great, but wolfy is right in saying that being categorically dismissive towards looking at the music empirically is just a form of reverse snobbery.
I'm quite fond of the odd bit of mind gymnastics, it's just that to give weight to a musical descision because it is traditional is not the way to play music
I don't see any evidence that the articulations of fiddles, pipes, and flutes are being lost. In fact, more people nowadays are playing pipes than in the early 20th century, when the instrument was almost dead, or even in the 1970s and 1980s. I also think fiddles are by far the most common instrument at sessions. Flutes are also by no means uncommon. Banjos add a percussive element to it but not to the loss of the sounds from fiddles, flutes, and pipes, which as far as I can see still dominate sessions, recordings, etc.
I am not anti-intellectual and I hope that I am not coming across like that. But I have had to deal with too many people who just seem to want to hide in their ivory tower or office or classroom and tell everyone else what to do and how to do it without actually being brave enough to get their hands dirty doing some real work. Fools like these try my patience.
I have been playing music for approximately forty years now and I do enjoy studying music and reading about it besides playing it. When I was a music major in college, I looked forward to finding information and doing research for research papers and other essays. The only part which I didn't like was having to organize the information which I had discovered during my research into a coherent form which made sense to the professor who was going to read and grade my work.
>> to give weight to a musical descision because it is traditional is not the way to play music
I might agree with that statement. But maybe the yardstick that I would use in analyzing music that I am listening to (the Newfoundland brother and sister playing jigs on YouTube, for instance) would be whether it "fits within the tradition". And I might use that same yardstick for being self-critical while I'm playing.
(and in the case of the YouTube clip, I learned that while I felt like it was struggling to fit within the Irish tradition, it was fitting fairly well inside a different tradition that I'm not very familiar with...)
"have had to deal with too many people who just seem to want to hide in their ivory tower or office or classroom and tell everyone else what to do and how to do it without actually being brave enough to get their hands dirty doing some real work."
Ouch. I'm sure most graduate students believe they are working their a*ses off, often for no or very little money or recognition. It's not manual labour, sure (well, it might be depending on what sort of fieldwork you're doing), but it is no mean feat to complete an original research project and write it up in a thesis of 80,000 to 100,000 words that make enough sense to the people reading it to pass you. They don't give away PhDs. Then you have to do more research, writing, and publishing in order to get a post doc and then teach, write and publish even more stuff to get a lectureship. I guess my point is that academia is not easier than anything else. Being a ski bum and working in a coffee shop would, in fact, be much easier.
Pete and Michael -- There is no definitive way to know whether something "fits within the tradition." If you're around trad music, you pretty much learn by ostension what fits and what doesn't. I ran into a whistle player at a session the other night, a tourist visiting from the States, who had an interesting style that didn't fit at all with the way we were playing the tunes. He was very good at what he did but he had clearly not learned his phrasing and ornamentations the way most traditional whistle players learn them. That is evidence that if you're not able to learn or just don't learn from the community and from experts accepted by the community, you end up playing in a way that does not fit into the community's norms.
Anyway I am off to Ireland. My week of not working!! Woohoo!
I reread that and realized it didn't make as much sense as I wanted and I seemingly contradict myself.
I meant that it is hard to characterize and describe what fits and what doesn't but, provided you have learned what the community regards as more or less correct or at least acceptable playing style, you know it when you hear it.
While at a literacy conference, we were given evidence that if a student struggles with reading, one of the "easiest" places for that student to fit in after high school is college, not the "real world," because of the technical writing/reading that goes on in real jobs.
You're right, they don't give PhD's away, they cost a lot of money...
I should have made it clear that I wasn't referring to graduate students. I know how hard they have to work to earn their degrees--either a master's or a PHD or both.
I was thinking more of some of the professors and other instructors whom I had in college. The ones whom I got along best with were the ones who occasionally performed in front of an audience instead of hiding in their office or a classroom all of the time.
Yes, I do have a bachelor's degree in music and I did have to work hard to earn it. They didn't just hand it to me and if they had just handed it to me, I would have given it right back to them and told them to keep it until I had done all of the necessary work to earn it.
I must mention that one of these professors who didn't like to perform in front of an audience was one of the best piano instructors I have ever studied with. In one semester, I learned more about playing the piano from this man than I did from anyone else whom I took piano lessons with.
I was also thinking of some of the administrators at the hospital where I work now. They seem to spend most of their time in their offices telling us what to do without even coming close to getting their precious hands dirty by helping us take care of the patients.
There is nothing wrong with doing a lot of research (especially if that research saves the life of one of our patients) and then presenting it in a paper at a conference.
I guess my problem is with people who just want to theorize without bothering to try to actually apply their theories to a real-life situation.
Also, I have had to deal with too many wannabe intellectuals who seem to think they know better than I do how I should run my life or do my job.
"I guess my problem is with people who just want to theorize without bothering to try to actually apply their theories to a real-life situation"
Where would engineers be without physicists? Where would physicians be without biologists? Where would medical ethicists be without philosophers?
You can't apply theory without first having the theory. To imply that scholars and researchers engaged in theory are worth less than those who go out and apply the theories is misguided.
Screetch, you need to lighten up and develop a sense of humor because I was merely trying to be sarcastic, silly, and ridiculous (as I told Wolfbird). You took my comment about intellectuals too seriously. Have you ever considered getting psychiatric help so you won't be so easily offended by other people's jokes?
On my way through life, I have met many people who could probably be classified as intellectuals such as the piano instructor whom I mentioned above.
Another such person would be a friend who has PHD's in both Psychiatry and Psychology. Although he prefers to do research instead of seeing patients, we are still friends after forty years. He is one of the smartest and most intellectual persons whom I have had the pleasure of being acquainted with. One of the reasons we are still friends is probably because he doesn't take himself too seriously but he does take his research very seriously.
Whenever I hear politicians (or anyone else) talk about not funding or cutting off funding to researchers who are doing pure research and just research without a particular or specific goal in mind, I feel like telling those politicians to shut up and mind their own business as well as taking away control of the money from the politicians. Some of the best scientific discoveries have been made by accident by someone who was either looking for something else or someone who was experimenting with no specific goal in mind. Cutting off funding to people like this is almost as bad as cutting off your nose to spite your face which will only hurt you.
I may be coming across as anti-intellectual; however, on the other hand, I am very much aware of the value of an education and am glad that I was stubborn enough to stay in school long enough to earn a bachelor's degree.
I did have to take a physics course called Music Acoustics and an introductory biology course for my degree and I did enjoy both courses and thought they were fascinating. I had no trouble paying attention and staying awake in both classes. However, when I took Introduction to Philosophy, I thought it was boring and a waste of time for me.
All music majors were required to take a foreign language and I took French. Yes, I did enjoy my French classes although I never was able to become very good at speaking French. Also, since French sometimes resembles a distorted mirror image of English, studying French actually helped me become a better speaker of my native language which is English.
I think it would be beneficial for all college students to study a foreign language even though they may never become proficient in this other language because it will help expand and change their thinking.
I did take quite a few music theory classes also but I have never tried to apply any of the music theory which I learned to any of the Irish or Scottish music which I have been playing and enjoying for so many years. There seem to be enough people who are already trying to do that and these people are supposed to be smarter and better educated than I am.
I have become more aware of the value of an education since I got married two years ago because my wife dropped out of school after the eighth grade and never finished. When she finally got tired of working dead-end, low-paying jobs and decided that she wanted to go college, she took the GED and got admitted to UALR (University of Arkansas at Little Rock).
Since she didn't have anyone to help her, she didn't do very well and ended up on academic probation which meant no one would loan her any more money and she couldn't obtain any more grants so she had to quit.
After we got married, I persuaded her to go back to college and try again (we are paying for it out of our own pockets).
Her grades have improved dramatically since we got married because I have been trying to be a good husband and spend a lot of my free time helping my wife with her homework.
Since Screetch lives here in Arkansas also (according to his profile), I wonder if he would be willing to actually spend time at Pulaski Tech tutoring undereducated people with an educational background as poor as my wife's instead of just pontificating on this web site accusing intelligent, well-educated people of being anti-intellectual.
Peace, fauxcelt. I probably didn't pick up on either your sarcasm or sense of humour. I didn't take offence. There was no need for any apology (to me). Personally, I don't judge anybody by how well educated or intellectual they are, or the opposite. Some people suffer because they are mentally impaired or handicapped, but they can still have happy, rich lives. Some people suffer because they are extra-ordinarily smart and can't fit in with ordinary folks, but they too can find ways to deal with it, and be happy, no ?
You are welcome, Wolfbird and Atahualpa Quigley. Wolfbird, you aren't the first person I have met on my way through life who hasn't understood my sarcasm and/or my sense of humor because it was too subtle and flew either above or below their radar.
I have been married for two years now and sometimes my wife still doesn't understand my jokes but she is catching on slowly but surely. She has a learning disability and learns more slowly than most other people. However, with my help, this semester my wife (who is mathematically challenged) earned a final grade of "A" in a Pre-Algebra Skills course and she has never done that well in a math class before.
At the hospital where I work, there is a mentally impaired man in the supply department who is a mechanical genius and understands better than anyone else at the hospital how to fix beds when they malfunction.
If I am upset with anyone, it is Screetch because he is coming across as condescending and superior towards me because I am not an intellectual.
fauxcelt - I am not an intellectual either - I embrace it, drink loads and kill off any remaining brain cells, then you see - I start not to care that I am not an intellectual
What is an intellectual ? I'd say that is itself an intellectual's question. As I understood the word, it means someone who finds ideas interesting.... Ideas are interesting, in themselves, because they can have great power, they define the nature of our culture and behaviour and politics and values and so forth, but nobody really know what they are, although there is enormous quantities of philosophical speculation....
I am glad to read that I am not the only self-confessed non-intellectual on this web site. It is nice to have the company. However, since I am curious and interested in the ideas as suggested by wolfbird, does that disqualify me for membership in the non-intellectual club?
As for drinking, if you will look at my comments above, you might notice that I typed one of them after I had drunk two bottles of Shiner Bock. Sometimes I drink more than two and sometimes I don't--it usually depends on whether or not I have to go to work the next day. My wife doesn't object to me drinking alcoholic beverages so long as I do it at home. She doesn't want me to drink something alcoholic and then try to drive. Since my brain still functions halfway normally, I guess I must not have drunk enough beer yet to destroy all of my brain cells.
And. last but not least, have any of you taken a look at "Song Of The Folk Nazi" by Bob Kanefsky yet?
What makes something "traditional"
What makes something "traditional"
I've been reading back through several big discussions on this site - ones about articulation, dots vs. ear, fiddle and piping ornaments, etc. And it got me to thinking about the nebulous definition of something that is bantered around quite a bit on this site. People will say things like "that's not traditional" or "that fits within the tradition".
But as far as I can tell, there is no way to draw a line. Banjos and guitars can't articulate the music the same way that fiddles and wind instruments can, because they can't provide the sustained tone that is then interrupted in rhythmical ways. Does that mean that since they came later that they're not traditional? There seems to be a fairly well established tradition of playing those instruments in Irish music, they just articulate it differently, and it still sounds like Irish music (to me, at least).
So where would you draw the line? If something has been done consistently for more than 100 years, then it automatically becomes traditional? (This might preclude things like playing sessions in pubs, playing guitars, bouzoukis, banjos, and bodhrans in dance music, etc). That would be a pretty ludicrous way to try to define it, but can you think of anything better?
For me, there is a big distinction between "being traditional" and "fitting within the tradition". I think the concept of "being traditional" is impossible to define exactly, whereas "fitting in" is somewhat easier to define. The difference is that things that might not be strictly traditional *can* fit within the tradition, and might eventually become traditional (ukulele? heh, not that I'm advocating that...) The biggest thing is for it to *sound* like Irish music. If the music is played with the right rhythm, lift, swing, lilt, nyah, etc, then it could be considered to "fit within the tradition".
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Reverend
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Banjos and boxes? I love 'em. I enjoy listening to them play together, just the two of them. A lovely sound. I'm also a frustrated banjo player and I dream often of playing the box, but I don't dare try it in reality.
Tunes played in rounds? Feh, not so much.
To me personally, a box and banjo playing Irish tunes together sounds just as traditional as a flute and fiddle. What does it all mean? I don't know. It's all opinion of individuals, and then a consensus opinion of the folks that play and love the music. Perhaps supernatural divination will assist? Examine some entrails? Consult the shamans?
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: What makes something "traditional"
"The biggest thing is for it to *sound* like Irish music"
Bingo. What else matters? This is music for recreation, not ethnomusicology. If it sounds right, then who cares how long it's been done that way. It's a living, evolving tradition, not a dead corpse to be dissected.
If it sounds right it's fun. If it sounds wrong it's painful to hear. How do you know if it sounds right or wrong? By having listened to lots of "right" trad and having developed an ear and a heart for it.
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Marklar
Re: What makes something "traditional"
If you find yourself making allowances for it, it's being done wrong somehow.
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by nicholas
Re: What makes something "traditional"
This music was created, perfect, in the sound-image of the ITM god's voice at some ill defined date in the past. That might have been 1880, 1946 or 1965 no-one is sure.
Any notion of evolution of this form is a blasphemous sin in the eyes of the ITM god and his creationalist devotees. They are the Purist ones, and only they, can judge if what you are playing is traditional.
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by yhaalhouse
Re: What makes something "traditional"
This is all way too complicated. I'm going to stick with examining the entrails.
Eh, skip that too, I'm just going to go get some lunch.
Wait a second...multi tasking! I'll do both!
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: What makes something "traditional"
"This is music for recreation, not ethnomusicology. If it sounds right, then who cares how long it's been done that way. It's a living, evolving tradition, not a dead corpse to be dissected."
that's actually an important point to make. That the music still exists within a living tradition.
as a contrast, I regard the bebop jazz I play as beign a "dead language". You can't just go around playing bebop any old way. it stops sounding like bop. The style is fixed, and while jazz as a whole progressed, bop remains as its own subset of the tradition
I asked last week about how the piano ended up in the traditional session and how the common "dance hall" style of bangy-bangy piano from New York made its way back to Ireland via early recordings. That is an example of an instrument working its way into the tradition
One question that is of interest to me is how has the Internet changed the music? In a living tradition, has the exchanges across greater distances lead to more "cross-pollination" between regional styles or anything?
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Nate Ryan
Re: What makes something "traditional"
"Any notion of evolution of this form is a blasphemous sin in the eyes of the ITM god and his creationalist devotees. They are the Purist ones, and only they, can judge if what you are playing is traditional."
now we have something!
so which is it? a living tradition where today's players are still expanding the style, or a dead language fixed and immutable?
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Nate Ryan
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Wake me when this gets interesting. ZZZZZzzzzz
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Seosamh Ui Sinan
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I'd suggest that ideas from the philosophy of science like finitism and "bootstrapping" (used implicitly in other disciplines like history as well) are useful tools for working out how we know something is traditional. In a nutshell, these ideas differentiate between N-kinds and S-kinds. An N-kind (natural kind) is something like a tree or a rock that exists in nature, independent of human beings (yes, I'm operating from the ontological position that there is a thing called "nature" that exists whether we're there or not). An S-kind (social kind) is something that humans have constructed and doesn't exist in nature. Marriage and money are classic examples. Traditional music of any sort is an S-kind -- it is something entirely socially constructed, a social institution basically, and doesn't have any a priori existence in nature . This is unlike an N-kind... we have labels for "trees" and have constructed categories that say certain things are trees and others bushes, but those objects would exist regardless of what we named them.
The analytical tools I am describing then ask, well, how do you define an S-kind and more importantly, how does the community of practitioners construct the boundaries of their S-kinds. The word community is key, as these ideas hold that these social constructions are community driven. Bootstrapping, a word used by Barry Barnes, a sociology of science prof from Edinburgh (although he's at Essex these days, I think), is at the foundation of this -- it means essentially that an S-kind is whatever the community agrees is an S-kind. It's self-referential. On a less abstract level, that's saying that Irish traditional music is whatever the community of people who play it say is Irish traditional music. The community consensus then establishes normativity.
That doesn't mean that anyone who picks up a fiddle and plays a tune off the dots on this website then gets to say what is or isn't ITM. Communities of practitioners, say ones who do theoretical physics or play specific styles of music, have practices, formal and informal, of establishing authority and of training new members to recognise patterns as traditional or not based on information from authority figures. You only know what something is in the context of your epistemic community.
The last thing addressing Pete's question is finitism. It means that both S and N kinds are not recognized by rigid rules, but that rather pattern recognition occurs on a case by case basis. For example, if your rigid rule is that all swans are white and then you go to Australia and encounter a black swan, your immovable criteria then fails. But Barnes and others say that is not really how people categorize things. Martin Kusch, who also came out Edinburgh desribes it more succinctly than I can:
"Meaning finitsm rejects the idea that meanings determine use; instead it sees meaning as the continuously created product of verbal behaviour. Meanings are the continuously created outcomes of use of words, not the determinants of that use. Since meanings are continuously made (and re-made) by language users, these meanings are never sufficiently stable and fixed for them to be able to determine extensions." (Kusch, Meaning Finitism and Truth; Truth, Rationality, Cognition, and Music: Proceedings of the Seventh International Colloquium on Cognitive Science, 2004).
So the meaning of traditional is under continuous revision by the epistemic community -- people who have a passion for it, who play it, who are members of this community. As it is not fixed, the meaning of tradition can of course expand to accept banjos and guitars and so on, as long as the community agrees on normative standards which allow them into the tradition.
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by TheSilverSpear
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Lingua mortua sola lingua bona est.
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by fidkid
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Um, that last was a facetious response to Nate Ryan.
I especially like TheSilverSpear's last para, I've seen that expressed before - a self regulating, constantly revising system. there is no "line" to draw. But there are boundaries.
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by fidkid
Re: What makes something "traditional"
it is not important,what is important is that people enjoy the music they make.
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by anon
Re: What makes something "traditional"
One thing most people seem to agree upon is that this is a continually evolving tradition.
If it wasn't then it'd be frozen in time somewhere and everyone would be playing exactly like they did in that period of time.
While certain standards techniques, instruments, tunes have probably remained the same for hundreds of years the evolution of the music has allowed for various new instruments, tunes, tune types, individual styles etc., to become part of the tradition. How did they become part of the tradition?
They became generally accepted by the majority of musicians.
There is a general consensus now that accompaniment has a place in the tradition when done well, some people don't like it at all which is their right but they're deluded if they say it is not traditional.
Back in the 1850's or so when pipe regulators were developed they were quite controversial to some. There's a book written in the early 1900's by Richard Henebry in which he seriously gives out about the use of regulators, claiming they had nothing to do with the tradition.
How many people nowadays would say the regulators are not 'traditional', very few I'd say, that's part of the evolution of the music.
Accordions, banjos, concertinas, guitars, bouzoukis, pianos etc have all been widely used in the tradition for a long time at this stage and thus are acceptable to most people, therefore they are traditional when played by people who understand the music.
Tubas, xylophones, oboes and French Horns are not widely used so the use of those instruments would probably not be considered traditional. However someone could come along and develop a brilliant oboe style that will blend perfectly with the pipes and the flute, therefore it could catch on and become traditional, you never can tell really.
So in summary, something becomes part of the tradition and thus 'traditional' if it is generally accepted by those who participate in the tradition.
It's nothing to do with there being one perfect point in time where the music stopped evolving.
Once it stops evolving the tradition will be dead..........
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Fartknocker
Re: What makes something "traditional"
"Lingua mortua sola lingua bona est."
"the only good language is a dead language?"
is that what that says? not even sure what language that is
is it a dead one by any chance?
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Nate Ryan
Re: What makes something "traditional"
>> If you find yourself making allowances for it, it's being done wrong somehow.
I'm not sure I would agree with that blanket statement. Much of the tradition is social, and it is difficult to be social without making allowances of some sort.
And thanks for the dissertation, Em, I agree with most of that, and it bolsters my point that it's easier for us, as the epistemic community, to determine whether something "fits within the tradition" than it is for anyone to point at a line and say "that's where the tradition ends".
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Reverend
Re: What makes something "traditional"
SilverSpear, if that's a parody of academic philosophical writing, it's a good one. Otherwise you kinda went the hard way to say that it's traditional when the trad community accepts it.
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Marklar
Re: What makes something "traditional"
anything not in 5/8, 7/8, 10/8 or 11/8
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by geoffwright
Re: What makes something "traditional"
>> it is not important,what is important is that people enjoy the music they make.
That may be where you and I would differ, Dick. For me, it's important that people enjoy the music that they make, but only up to a point. That point is where it infringes upon other people's enjoyment. It's not a free-for-all, do whatever you like kind of tradition. Whether people like it or not, it's more exclusive than inclusive.
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Reverend
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Floccinau........cation,
that's a pretty good response there
I honestly wasn't sure how much the tradition is still in evolution and how much is cast in stone
So does the fact that people play the music outside of Ireland say in America and Austrailia have any effect on the traditions? I guess I'm wondering if all the banjo and guitar stuff isn't more prevailent over here. Especially banjo. Appalachian folk music (the local style where I live ) is very derivitive of Irish and Scottish folk music, and they use banjo alot. Its banjo and fiddle based really.
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Nate Ryan
Re: What makes something "traditional"
LOL Screetch. Give the gal a break, she's a "professional student"
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Reverend
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Poor girl, I've been there. Then I realized that money is a good thing and came to my senses.
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Marklar
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Part of the tradition is debating what the tradition is.
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by timmy!
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I think outside forces certainly affect the living, breathing tradition. I hear anecdotes of Michael Coleman returning to Sligo, and local fiddlers giving up the fiddle because they were never going to sound like that. But how much of Coleman's style was cultivated in New York? So is the "Sligo style" from Sligo, or from Michael Coleman?
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Reverend
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I think that the idea of regional styles is kind of moot these days, Reverend, exactly because of the point you bring up.
Before recordings, trad musicians mostly heard the people that lived close to them, and those are the people that they learned from. So each geographical region had a distinct sound because each group of people learned from, listened to, and influenced each other.
But with the distribution of recordings geographical barriers were broken. Once that happened the people that you listened to and learned from weren't necessarily the ones that lived close to you.
Don't get me wrong, I know that regional styles are still alive and well in those regions, but describing style in terms of geographical region isn't as relevant as it used to be.
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Marklar
Re: What makes something "traditional"
They must be some mighty fine anecdotes, Reverend, because Coleman never returned home to Sligo after he'd emigrated!
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Floss the Tethers
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Interesting... Maybe it was just people hearing his recordings then, FtT
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Reverend
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Yes, it was his recordings that made it back to Ireland and influenced the fiddlers back home. At least, that's the story that I've read.
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Marklar
Re: What makes something "traditional"
So were people in Sligo screaming about how Coleman's playing wasn't traditional, or did it fit within the tradition? Or did they not worry about these things back then?
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Reverend
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Today, the part of 'consulting the shaman' will be played by TheSilverSpear...
I enjoyed it SS, but I'm a wordy nerd.
"...Communities of practitioners, say ones who do theoretical physics or play specific styles of music, have practices, formal and informal, of establishing authority and of training new members to recognise patterns as traditional or not based on information from authority figures..."
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Notice seen in an Oxbridge college quadrangle:
"As from next term it will be the tradition that only Fellows of the College will be permitted to walk on the grass."
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by lazyhound
Re: What makes something "traditional"
sounds like a lot of self-referential hoohah to me - it's traditional cuz the traditional community says so? now hand me my uke...
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by airport
Re: What makes something "traditional"
In the case of Irish traditional music, it is quite simply that, the music, or the tunes and airs. It is not the instruments.
When I was aged 7 -10 the "folk revival" was in full swing. Groups like the McPeakes and The Clancy's were part of that, the McPeake's being more into traditional tunes than the Clancy's.
As the youngest I was soon introduced to two major influences on this revival, The Dubliner's and The Chieftain's as my elder siblings bought their LPs.
Now the Dubliner's were a "folk" group, they did songs but also played traditional tunes. The dominant instrument was the banjo, played by Barney McKenna, allegedly not a trad instrument, but the tunes certainly were.
The Chieftains were more traditional, all tunes, yet they had revived the bodhran to a bigger audience.
From the above you can see that even then the word traditional was associated with tunes and airs, if you played these and did songs you were a "folk" group, or maybe even a "Traditional folk group".
So we now know what it means for ITM. And the tunes and airs are not necessarily Irish any more as the genre mixed and mingled with other sources.
To answer the question in general, you could do worse than consult a dictionary. I personally am saying nothing as I live in a country where marching bands want to march on their "traditional" route, a source of much trouble.
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by bodhran bliss
Re: What makes something "traditional"
So if that's hoohah, airport, how would you try to define it? There's no governing agency, there's no "authority" to consult to determine where to draw the line, there are people within the tradition that disagree upon what's traditional.
So the idea of the people within the tradition determining what the boundaries are by a broad consensus is about all we have. And it's never going to be a full consensus, so the fuzziness of the boundaries is part of the tradition.
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Reverend
Re: What makes something "traditional"
OK airport, you hear Mr. Bliss, break out that uke and get a pickin' and a grinnin'!
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: What makes something "traditional"
One can only hope all the people playing it and loving it are doing it with those that came before in mind. I think their opnions may hold even more weight than our current ones. It's the basis of what makes it traditional.
'The word tradition comes from the Latin word "traditio" which means "to hand down" or "to hand over."'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I agree - look to the traditioneers. I'll bring the uke on a pilgrimage to Jackie Daly, and if he frowns at me, I'll know it's no good. It's a good question though Reverend, and one that could probably be answered by someone specializing in musicoethnomathmaticophysics or something. At my sessions I just hope for the occasional "lovely" or whoop to know I'm on the right track.
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by airport
Re: What makes something "traditional"
airport -- Is it this kind of hoohah?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6MhvjUy3DQ&NR=1
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by timmy!
Re: What makes something "traditional"
he makes it sound more like "hoo-aww," but I think that's just his Bronx accent
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by airport
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Bliss, Is it the marching season already? Your point about the pathological side of tradition was a beauty. Grim, but a beaut. The world has a few behavioral problems which, for some reason, get dignified by being called customs.
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Atahualpa Quigley
Re: What makes something "traditional"
It can be an interesting exercise to try to think and talk about this (or any) tradition without using the word, “tradition,” or any synonyms. Avoid using any words or concepts that are highly abstract. Separate fact from opinion. For guidance, it might be useful to refer to werner erhard’s favorite slogan, “What is, is. What ain’t, ain’t.” Or not.
I used to be involved in producing a live radio show with “traditional” music, skits, live advertisements and a live audience. It was a semi-democratic operation involving scores of volunteers, musicians and actors. Even though I was the “producer,” trying to exert any creative control over the show was a frustrating, tail-wagging-the-dog battle. When my old Buddhist friend heard me griping and whinging about it – “That stuff is not traditional! It oughta be … could be … should be … yadda yadda” – he just said, “It is what it is.”
He didn’t mean I had to agree with “what it is,” but that I needed to back off my grousing and take a fresh, unemotional, non-judgmental look at objective reality before allowing my own desires back into the discussion. It was irritating to have my folly so simply exposed, but I eventually (like, a year later) realized the wisdom of those words. I still struggle with variations on that same folly, but I hope I’m gradually getting less stubborn and boneheaded about it.
I certainly don’t mean to imply that opinions about what’s traditional or valuable are boneheaded. I just think it’s important to set aside the big abstractions and the shoulds and shouldn’ts and start the examination with facts. Like, there’s a bunch of people around the world who play these tunes. A lot of them play fiddles. Some play banjos. Some like accompaniment. Some don’t. Some like to harmonize the tunes, etc…
When I think about it this way, I come to the question – Is “tradition” what people do, or what they *should* do?
I’ve been writing this in between bits of real work and, when I read it, I think it might be a load of krap. But, whatever…
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Bob himself
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Bob, the tradition "is" what people do, but it *should be* what they *should* do
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Reverend
Re: What makes something "traditional"
No one's going to lock up Caoimhín Ó Raghallaigh in a tower for playing hardanger and 5-string viola, although I think he'd be an excellent tower-dweller.
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by airport
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Why, I oughta...!
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Bob himself
Re: What makes something "traditional"
"Quickly, to the tower!"
"The tower, the tower! Rapunzel, Rapunzel!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd9oTKwRyIk
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Now *there's* a thread hijack for ya!
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by Reverend
Re: What makes something "traditional"
hoo ha hah!
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by airport
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I'm pleased to see that 15/8 is still traditional in the above "what it's not" taxonomy.
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by pavlf
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Speaking of thread hijacks, who like pirates?
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by timmy!
Re: What makes something "traditional"
bait accepted
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hdkrqBWwE7M
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by airport
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Argh!
Sorry Rev, after the hoo hah I couldn't resist. Now avast ye scurvy dogs and prepare for your thread to be boarded!
http://www.gasparillapiratefest.com/
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Yar - we have a pirate festival too, cool. By the way, that link I posted was purely for crazy_fingers' benefit. He thinks that's a children's band...
# Posted on July 1st 2008 by airport
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Hey Bob, I'm pretty certain that "it is what it is" is double secret self-reference. Good story though
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by airport
Re: What makes something "traditional"
You'll swing from the Port Royal gibbet for this! You sir, hand me back my wig this instant!
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by Atahualpa Quigley
Re: What makes something "traditional"
rofl--a bit of the educational, a bit of the irrational--this thread has something for everybody! I guess sometimes sh*t-stirring can be a Good Thing.
But then, the "sun passed the yardarm" for me a couple of hours ago--a small special occasion--so I am probably not a good judge of things right now, in general... probably best to ignore me. Carry on, mateys! (Slumps face-first into a plate of nachos.)
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by tuckered out
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I'd rather swig from the royal port goblet instead, if I may.
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by GaryAMartin
Re: What makes something "traditional"
the question about whether the sligo fiddle style came from michael coleman or from sligo is a no brainer really. michael coleman was taught by lad o'beirnes father so that is where he gained some of his influence. there was also the presence of james morrison in new york near about the same time, who had a similar but still distinctly different style. there was also michael colemans brother who was suppose to be a superior player but he never left the farm and never recorded. obviously coleman had a big impact on the style when he first started recording but to say it began with him would be wrong. the style would still have had the same tempo, swing and melodic sound it before coleman, however what coleman brought was a new understanding of that style, ornamentation and phrasing and sheer guts. while the style didnt start with him, he certainly brought is to the next level.
some more thread hijacking!! lol.
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by tradmoosic
Re: What makes something "traditional"
'I'm pleased to see that 15/8 is still traditional in the above "what it's not" taxonomy.'
In case you're being sarcastic 15/8 is actually a very traditional rhythm, many singers would sing in 15/8 perhaps without knowing it.
You know the way singers often hold on an extra beat before going to the next line? Well when they do it to a song in a Slide rhythm (12/8), that makes phrases in 15/8 time -
di de di de didely didely (12/8)
di de di de didely didely dah (15/8).
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by Fartknocker
Re: What makes something "traditional"
superficial ideas make it tra — ditional
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by Lint - upon - Tweed
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I really don't care whether anything in the music is traditional. If you base any of your musical choices on that criteria you'll kill the music stone dead. What matters is to respect the way it goes, understand the way it goes. Understand and respect the worth of generations of craft and artistry.
A good example is Matt Molloy. He's not a traditional flute player at all. But all his (now ubiquitous) innovations came from the music.
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: What makes something "traditional"
i wasn't being sarcastic in that way. I know what 15/8 is
so I certainly was being slightly sarcastic in another
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by pavlf
Re: What makes something "traditional"
"Understand and respect the worth of generations of craft and artistry."
I like that. They sound like words to live by, if you want to support a tradition, and keep it alive.
And this music includes a tradition of innovation--by people who "understand and respect" what earlier supporters of it contributed... right? Not just throwing stuff into it, willy-nilly.
But--if Matt Molloy's flute playing is not "traditional"... then whose playing would be considered "traditional"? I'm not trying to argue, I really would like to know. Just trying to learn more about it.
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by tuckered out
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I suppose it's the dichotomy of innovation and tradition that confuses. The best players are never the most traditional, but it takes the legions of not so good players to ground the best ones.
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: What makes something "traditional"
It's the substantial drop in the population of pirates since the 19th century that is causing global warming. Don't believe me? Check out this website: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/. It even has a graph!
Michael's point about Matt Molloy supports my statements above (not the ones about the pirates). Matt was not playing the flute *exactly* like people who came before him played the flute, but pushing boundaries and doing different things with it. But (1) he is a very well respected "expert" with an inarguable background in and connection to styles regarded as more traditional and (2) his innovations have been so well accepted that lots of flute players learn them early in their careers. Same goes for pipes (though I can make the point better, as I know bugger-all about specific flute styles). Seamus Ennis and Willie Clancy were masters of innovation in their styles and the ornamentations they used but now those are so well accepted into the paradigm of uilleann piping that you learn that stuff as just a part of your basic repertoire of ornamentation.
Now back to pirates. Argh!
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by TheSilverSpear
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Haha. Or maybe I should have used the word "articulations." Don't want to get into that argument again.
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by TheSilverSpear
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I think a mistake I tend to make is in assuming there’s only one tradition. There are many threads that make make the yarn that make the cloth that make the tapestry. There is a tradition of experimentation alongside a tradition of cautious conservatism, a tradition of innovation beside one of preservation. Even, I suppose, a tradition of pipes, flutes and fiddles playing The Bucks of Oranmore alongside (gulp) a tradition of ukuleles and 5 string banjos playing Barnacle Bill the Sailor* as a round, from sheet music, just because it’s fun. I even like to think I’m a small part of these traditions, even though I’m an American with no real roots in The Music, and there are certain traditions I find more satsifying, and some I have no interest in at all.
*obligatory quasi-piratical reference
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by fidkid
Re: What makes something "traditional"
>> "Understand and respect the worth of generations of craft and artistry."
That's maybe one of the most profound things I've seen you type, llig. It's the understanding that helps you decide if something fits within the tradition, and it's the respect that helps keep you from straying beyond the fuzzy boundaries.
So it's "fitting within the tradition" that keeps the tradition alive, not "being traditional", which, if that is your only criteria, makes it like trying to preserve a museum piece... (In effect, killing the music stone dead, as llig would say).
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by Reverend
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Wasn't it only the other day the Navy was boasting how they'd eradicated piracy in these waters? This forces one to re-evaluate their claims of having put a stop to the practice of canibalism in the ranks. Sorry Reverand, I wanted to say something about the Sligo style, but the daring-do music in the background is so loud I can't think.
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by Atahualpa Quigley
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Also, were running out of powder and shot. Any Ideas?
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by Atahualpa Quigley
Re: What makes something "traditional"
You guys are just itching for September 19th to be here already, aren't you? <throws up hands in disgust>
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by Reverend
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I'm sorry I haven't got into this discussion earlier, but the impending weather wasn't forecast to be dry, so I was seizing the opportunity to do some woodwork in the back garden, making my next electric guitar...........oops, I think I've blown my traditional cool !
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by Guernsey Pete
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I always go back to Cecil Sharp on this matter, who defined the tradition as relying on continuity, selectivity, and variation.
Does that help, or do you need further explanation?
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by Guernsey Pete
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Here's a good example of the tradition, words not necessary:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WWd75XUfz8U
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by Agnes Nutter
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Further explanation would be interesting, Guernsey. How's the hand, by the way? Be careful (as if you need the admonition)!
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by fidkid
Re: What makes something "traditional"
That's a fabulous clip, Agnes, thanks! Makes me wish that I had started playing at that age.
And it has been brought up that the "tradition" is passing on what you've learned, with which I wholeheartedly agree. But that clip aside, what about bad Irish music being passed on?
Does just passing something on make it "traditional"? I think that's where the "fitting within the tradition" (defined by the majority consensus of the people in the tradition) comes in...
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by Reverend
Re: What makes something "traditional"
fidkid and Nate
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
It's fun being a pre-Vatican 2 trained organist....had to learn enough of that 'lingua morta' so that now I can throw it around like an intellectual sort.....
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by zippydw
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Guernsey Pete, you can't say faires than C. Sharp. It may be pointles to add anything but here goes. Continuity belongs to the lucky ones who got their music "with their mother's milk" so to speak. These people have direct links to this tradition. The rest of us don't. Does the tradition want or need the contribution of those who have grafted themselves on to it. This question makes many of us nervous, so we take in-apropriate moments to play at pirates, or do other obstreperous behavior.
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by Atahualpa Quigley
Re: What makes something "traditional"
But, you knew that already.
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by Atahualpa Quigley
Re: What makes something "traditional"
that's about as useless as a kipper on the poop deck. yar.
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by airport
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Ah, blessed are the obstreperous! Right you are so! Make your way aft men! You'll have to hold the ruffians off without me. My cutlas work is no better than my spelling. Take heart, for HMS Reindeer is in sight. [ Falls to the deck ]
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by Atahualpa Quigley
Re: What makes something "traditional"
OK, who kippered on the poop deck? I am not cleaning that up.
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: What makes something "traditional"
...and back on topic...
Rev: passing on bad music as a tradition
Yes, scary stuff indeed, eh? However, these things have a way of weeding themselves out, I think? For example, no one plays like Michael Coleman's piano player anymore.
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: What makes something "traditional"
So it's Darwinian again? The survival of the fittest aspects of the tradition?
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by Reverend
Re: What makes something "traditional"
("Danger: Can of worms approaching, take evasive action!")
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Rev, that is probably a valid statement. Example? Banjos? A good idea, so it stuck. Didgeridoos? Well...
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: What makes something "traditional"
See? At least *somebody* else realizes that banjos are cool
# Posted on July 2nd 2008 by Reverend
Re: What makes something "traditional"
jaysus SWFL - you had me laughing pretty hard with the kippered poop deck bit. And Quigley , your patience is breathtaking - you must a teacher or an inventor, or maybe a shepherd...
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by airport
Re: What makes something "traditional"
A common misunderstanding of evolution is "the survival of the fittest". This is not how evolution works. It is actually the survival of the most adept at adapting to the ever-changing environment.
The banjo is with us because it is easier to play than a fiddle and it's louder ... alas.
People are lazy, and eager for volume.
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Are any of you familiar with the "Song Of The Folk Nazi" by Bob Kanefsky? If not , I recommend that you look it up and read the lyrics.
As for whether or not a particular instrument is "traditional" does that depend on when the instrument was invented? For example, I play the piano and this instrument supposedly was invented in 1698 in Florence, Italy. When the piano was invented, there had already been keyboard instruments such as the harpsichord, the clavichord, the virginal, and the organ for hundreds of years. The ancient Romans had organs which supposedly sounded like steam calliopes and were powered by slaves pushing the air pumps to produce the sound.
To continue with this same idea, when was the violin, the harp, the banjo, the flute, and the button accordion invented? And when did someone decide that each of these instruments fits "within the tradition"?
As for the "obligatory semi-piratical reference", I have tried rum and I don't like it. Instead, I prefer to drink beer such as Shiner Bock and I am trying to type this after drinking two bottles of it.
And. last but not least, zippydw and Silver Spear really ought to stop trying to be intellectuals and/or sound like intellectuals because we are musicians on this web site instead of intellectuals.
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by fauxcelt
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I agreed with Silver Spears understanding and found it helpful, fauxcelt.
If someone is genuinely intellectual, what are they supposed to do, fauxcelt ? dumb themselves down and pretend they are ignorant ? Are you saying that musicians must be uneducated ? Or that being a musician and an intellectual is unacceptable ?
The concept 'traditional' is central to the music discussed here and I'm always pleased when someone has an intelligent take on how it's best understood.
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by wolfbird
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I think that comment was about being intellectuals was meant to be obligatorially piratical. But that's something that hasn't been named though touched upon in this thread - academic traditional musicians versus the rabble. man (or woman) yer cannons....
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by airport
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I dunno, Michael. I find the banjo (or any plectrum instrument) harder to play than the fiddle. Actually, I find everything harder to play than it used to be.
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by Bob himself
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Being an intellectual pirate, I don't like stereotyping people into classes. There's good people, and the opposite, in all classes and walks of life. The great Paddy Canny, who has just left us, was a fantastic musician. And a farmer. The Raineys were great musicians. And travellers. Joe Ryan was a joiner. Martin Hayes is a professional musician. Nobody has to be highly educated or scholarly or socially or financially elevated to be an excellent musician. But I object to the sort of reverse snobbery that implies that an educated, intelligent, scholarly person can't also be a great musician. And when it comes to taking an overview of the sociological, historical, cultural, aspects of music, well, IMO, that's why people go and study, so they can get a better, deeper, broader insight into what's going on. Personally, I'd welcome more input from ethno-musicologists and similar folks. I enjoy learning and thinking about stuff. For example, I was under the impression that there was a slow drift of fiddle tunes across Europe and then to North America, as immigration happened. But I read somewhere, that when cheap fiddles became abundant and easily available, they spread, (presumably with the tunes), really very fast, like over a couple of decades. I don't know for sure if that's correct, but it's the sort of area that scholars can research and explain and tell us about.
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by wolfbird
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Yes, and another misunderstanding of evolution is that things evolve gradually over time. This is not how it works, new species evolve very quickly when environmental niches occur, and then stay stable for very long periods. Sharks for example.
And it's also worth noting that evolution often appears to run backwards - flightless birds are the obvious example. In an environment populated by banjos, mandolins, guitars, pianos and bazoukis etc, much of the articulations that evolved with the playing of fiddles, pipes and flutes are being lost.
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I hardly think that you could make the case that the pluckies are taking over Irish music and are forcing out the fiddles, pipes, and flutes.
The articulations on the plucked instruments are different, but the whole goal is for them to create the same rhythms and feel of the music, and in some cases, add texture and punctuation. So in a relatively short while, they have helped evolve the music into something better
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by Reverend
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Wolfbird, when I made my comment about being intellectuals and/or sounding like intellectuals, I was trying to be sarcastic, silly, and ridiculous--and I succeeded better than I intended to. I wasn't trying to offend you or anyone else and I apologize for doing so.
In 1990, I took the entrance exam for Mensa and made a high score on it and I was completely unimpressed by this fact. I have always known that I am too smart for my own good. While it was nice to have "official" proof that I am too smart for my own good, playing music is still more important to me and still more enjoyable than Mensa meetings.
I am still checking this web site everyday because I do enjoy reading the comments on it whether or not I agree with what other people say.
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by fauxcelt
Re: What makes something "traditional"
It's fine to play music to just play music and not think about it. Lots of people do it. Lots of the best musicians in the world just play. Nothing wrong with that. Others enjoy studying it academically. Two of my favorite uilleann pipers have PhDs in piping.
At any rate I find the psychological, philosophical, anthropological, sociological, and historical questions about why and how we play the stuff are interesting. The methods developed by scholars in all those fields are useful tools for answering questions like the one Pete started this thread with. If you don't give a rats a*rse about the philosophy, sociology, history, or anthropology of it, that's great, but wolfy is right in saying that being categorically dismissive towards looking at the music empirically is just a form of reverse snobbery.
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by TheSilverSpear
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I'm quite fond of the odd bit of mind gymnastics, it's just that to give weight to a musical descision because it is traditional is not the way to play music
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I don't see any evidence that the articulations of fiddles, pipes, and flutes are being lost. In fact, more people nowadays are playing pipes than in the early 20th century, when the instrument was almost dead, or even in the 1970s and 1980s. I also think fiddles are by far the most common instrument at sessions. Flutes are also by no means uncommon. Banjos add a percussive element to it but not to the loss of the sounds from fiddles, flutes, and pipes, which as far as I can see still dominate sessions, recordings, etc.
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by TheSilverSpear
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I never said it was.
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by TheSilverSpear
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I am not anti-intellectual and I hope that I am not coming across like that. But I have had to deal with too many people who just seem to want to hide in their ivory tower or office or classroom and tell everyone else what to do and how to do it without actually being brave enough to get their hands dirty doing some real work. Fools like these try my patience.
I have been playing music for approximately forty years now and I do enjoy studying music and reading about it besides playing it. When I was a music major in college, I looked forward to finding information and doing research for research papers and other essays. The only part which I didn't like was having to organize the information which I had discovered during my research into a coherent form which made sense to the professor who was going to read and grade my work.
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by fauxcelt
Re: What makes something "traditional"
>> to give weight to a musical descision because it is traditional is not the way to play music
I might agree with that statement. But maybe the yardstick that I would use in analyzing music that I am listening to (the Newfoundland brother and sister playing jigs on YouTube, for instance) would be whether it "fits within the tradition". And I might use that same yardstick for being self-critical while I'm playing.
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by Reverend
Re: What makes something "traditional"
(and in the case of the YouTube clip, I learned that while I felt like it was struggling to fit within the Irish tradition, it was fitting fairly well inside a different tradition that I'm not very familiar with...)
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by Reverend
Re: What makes something "traditional"
then that different tradition is not very good
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Yeah, either that, or I'm just not familiar enough with it to know what's good about it
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by Reverend
Re: What makes something "traditional"
"have had to deal with too many people who just seem to want to hide in their ivory tower or office or classroom and tell everyone else what to do and how to do it without actually being brave enough to get their hands dirty doing some real work."
Ouch. I'm sure most graduate students believe they are working their a*ses off, often for no or very little money or recognition. It's not manual labour, sure (well, it might be depending on what sort of fieldwork you're doing), but it is no mean feat to complete an original research project and write it up in a thesis of 80,000 to 100,000 words that make enough sense to the people reading it to pass you. They don't give away PhDs. Then you have to do more research, writing, and publishing in order to get a post doc and then teach, write and publish even more stuff to get a lectureship. I guess my point is that academia is not easier than anything else. Being a ski bum and working in a coffee shop would, in fact, be much easier.
Pete and Michael -- There is no definitive way to know whether something "fits within the tradition." If you're around trad music, you pretty much learn by ostension what fits and what doesn't. I ran into a whistle player at a session the other night, a tourist visiting from the States, who had an interesting style that didn't fit at all with the way we were playing the tunes. He was very good at what he did but he had clearly not learned his phrasing and ornamentations the way most traditional whistle players learn them. That is evidence that if you're not able to learn or just don't learn from the community and from experts accepted by the community, you end up playing in a way that does not fit into the community's norms.
Anyway I am off to Ireland. My week of not working!! Woohoo!
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by TheSilverSpear
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I reread that and realized it didn't make as much sense as I wanted and I seemingly contradict myself.
I meant that it is hard to characterize and describe what fits and what doesn't but, provided you have learned what the community regards as more or less correct or at least acceptable playing style, you know it when you hear it.
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by TheSilverSpear
Re: What makes something "traditional"
While at a literacy conference, we were given evidence that if a student struggles with reading, one of the "easiest" places for that student to fit in after high school is college, not the "real world," because of the technical writing/reading that goes on in real jobs.
You're right, they don't give PhD's away, they cost a lot of money...
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by wyogal
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I was thinking back to my nonsense here:
"However, these things have a way of weeding themselves out, I think? For example, no one plays like Michael Coleman's piano player anymore."
...and I realized there's a good opportunity here to invalidate my idea and make a bodhran joke at the same time.
So, why haven't they been weeded out yet? ...and shaky eggs! What's the deal with that?
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I'm kidding, for those who don't know. I do not hate bodhrans and shaky eggs. I'm no bigot. It's not their fault, they were born that way.
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: What makes something "traditional"
"I am not anti-intellectual and I hope that I am not coming across like that...."
And then everything that you say after that confirms that you are, in fact, anti-intellectual.
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by Marklar
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I should have made it clear that I wasn't referring to graduate students. I know how hard they have to work to earn their degrees--either a master's or a PHD or both.
I was thinking more of some of the professors and other instructors whom I had in college. The ones whom I got along best with were the ones who occasionally performed in front of an audience instead of hiding in their office or a classroom all of the time.
Yes, I do have a bachelor's degree in music and I did have to work hard to earn it. They didn't just hand it to me and if they had just handed it to me, I would have given it right back to them and told them to keep it until I had done all of the necessary work to earn it.
I must mention that one of these professors who didn't like to perform in front of an audience was one of the best piano instructors I have ever studied with. In one semester, I learned more about playing the piano from this man than I did from anyone else whom I took piano lessons with.
I was also thinking of some of the administrators at the hospital where I work now. They seem to spend most of their time in their offices telling us what to do without even coming close to getting their precious hands dirty by helping us take care of the patients.
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by fauxcelt
Re: What makes something "traditional"
There is nothing wrong with doing a lot of research (especially if that research saves the life of one of our patients) and then presenting it in a paper at a conference.
I guess my problem is with people who just want to theorize without bothering to try to actually apply their theories to a real-life situation.
Also, I have had to deal with too many wannabe intellectuals who seem to think they know better than I do how I should run my life or do my job.
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by fauxcelt
Re: What makes something "traditional"
"I guess my problem is with people who just want to theorize without bothering to try to actually apply their theories to a real-life situation"
Where would engineers be without physicists? Where would physicians be without biologists? Where would medical ethicists be without philosophers?
You can't apply theory without first having the theory. To imply that scholars and researchers engaged in theory are worth less than those who go out and apply the theories is misguided.
# Posted on July 3rd 2008 by Marklar
Re: What makes something "traditional"
where would diddley music be without the ethnomusicologists. Where would diddley music be without music theory?
# Posted on July 4th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Screetch, you need to lighten up and develop a sense of humor because I was merely trying to be sarcastic, silly, and ridiculous (as I told Wolfbird). You took my comment about intellectuals too seriously. Have you ever considered getting psychiatric help so you won't be so easily offended by other people's jokes?
On my way through life, I have met many people who could probably be classified as intellectuals such as the piano instructor whom I mentioned above.
Another such person would be a friend who has PHD's in both Psychiatry and Psychology. Although he prefers to do research instead of seeing patients, we are still friends after forty years. He is one of the smartest and most intellectual persons whom I have had the pleasure of being acquainted with. One of the reasons we are still friends is probably because he doesn't take himself too seriously but he does take his research very seriously.
Whenever I hear politicians (or anyone else) talk about not funding or cutting off funding to researchers who are doing pure research and just research without a particular or specific goal in mind, I feel like telling those politicians to shut up and mind their own business as well as taking away control of the money from the politicians. Some of the best scientific discoveries have been made by accident by someone who was either looking for something else or someone who was experimenting with no specific goal in mind. Cutting off funding to people like this is almost as bad as cutting off your nose to spite your face which will only hurt you.
I may be coming across as anti-intellectual; however, on the other hand, I am very much aware of the value of an education and am glad that I was stubborn enough to stay in school long enough to earn a bachelor's degree.
I did have to take a physics course called Music Acoustics and an introductory biology course for my degree and I did enjoy both courses and thought they were fascinating. I had no trouble paying attention and staying awake in both classes. However, when I took Introduction to Philosophy, I thought it was boring and a waste of time for me.
All music majors were required to take a foreign language and I took French. Yes, I did enjoy my French classes although I never was able to become very good at speaking French. Also, since French sometimes resembles a distorted mirror image of English, studying French actually helped me become a better speaker of my native language which is English.
I think it would be beneficial for all college students to study a foreign language even though they may never become proficient in this other language because it will help expand and change their thinking.
I did take quite a few music theory classes also but I have never tried to apply any of the music theory which I learned to any of the Irish or Scottish music which I have been playing and enjoying for so many years. There seem to be enough people who are already trying to do that and these people are supposed to be smarter and better educated than I am.
I have become more aware of the value of an education since I got married two years ago because my wife dropped out of school after the eighth grade and never finished. When she finally got tired of working dead-end, low-paying jobs and decided that she wanted to go college, she took the GED and got admitted to UALR (University of Arkansas at Little Rock).
Since she didn't have anyone to help her, she didn't do very well and ended up on academic probation which meant no one would loan her any more money and she couldn't obtain any more grants so she had to quit.
After we got married, I persuaded her to go back to college and try again (we are paying for it out of our own pockets).
Her grades have improved dramatically since we got married because I have been trying to be a good husband and spend a lot of my free time helping my wife with her homework.
Since Screetch lives here in Arkansas also (according to his profile), I wonder if he would be willing to actually spend time at Pulaski Tech tutoring undereducated people with an educational background as poor as my wife's instead of just pontificating on this web site accusing intelligent, well-educated people of being anti-intellectual.
# Posted on July 4th 2008 by fauxcelt
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Peace, fauxcelt. I probably didn't pick up on either your sarcasm or sense of humour. I didn't take offence. There was no need for any apology (to me). Personally, I don't judge anybody by how well educated or intellectual they are, or the opposite. Some people suffer because they are mentally impaired or handicapped, but they can still have happy, rich lives. Some people suffer because they are extra-ordinarily smart and can't fit in with ordinary folks, but they too can find ways to deal with it, and be happy, no ?
# Posted on July 4th 2008 by wolfbird
Re: What makes something "traditional"
Fauxcelt, thank you for that post.
# Posted on July 4th 2008 by Atahualpa Quigley
Re: What makes something "traditional"
You are welcome, Wolfbird and Atahualpa Quigley. Wolfbird, you aren't the first person I have met on my way through life who hasn't understood my sarcasm and/or my sense of humor because it was too subtle and flew either above or below their radar.
I have been married for two years now and sometimes my wife still doesn't understand my jokes but she is catching on slowly but surely. She has a learning disability and learns more slowly than most other people. However, with my help, this semester my wife (who is mathematically challenged) earned a final grade of "A" in a Pre-Algebra Skills course and she has never done that well in a math class before.
At the hospital where I work, there is a mentally impaired man in the supply department who is a mechanical genius and understands better than anyone else at the hospital how to fix beds when they malfunction.
If I am upset with anyone, it is Screetch because he is coming across as condescending and superior towards me because I am not an intellectual.
# Posted on July 5th 2008 by fauxcelt
Re: What makes something "traditional"
fauxcelt - I am not an intellectual either - I embrace it, drink loads and kill off any remaining brain cells, then you see - I start not to care that I am not an intellectual
# Posted on July 5th 2008 by shoddy fiddle player
Re: What makes something "traditional"
What is an intellectual ? I'd say that is itself an intellectual's question. As I understood the word, it means someone who finds ideas interesting.... Ideas are interesting, in themselves, because they can have great power, they define the nature of our culture and behaviour and politics and values and so forth, but nobody really know what they are, although there is enormous quantities of philosophical speculation....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual
# Posted on July 5th 2008 by wolfbird
Re: What makes something "traditional"
I am glad to read that I am not the only self-confessed non-intellectual on this web site. It is nice to have the company. However, since I am curious and interested in the ideas as suggested by wolfbird, does that disqualify me for membership in the non-intellectual club?
As for drinking, if you will look at my comments above, you might notice that I typed one of them after I had drunk two bottles of Shiner Bock. Sometimes I drink more than two and sometimes I don't--it usually depends on whether or not I have to go to work the next day. My wife doesn't object to me drinking alcoholic beverages so long as I do it at home. She doesn't want me to drink something alcoholic and then try to drive. Since my brain still functions halfway normally, I guess I must not have drunk enough beer yet to destroy all of my brain cells.
And. last but not least, have any of you taken a look at "Song Of The Folk Nazi" by Bob Kanefsky yet?
# Posted on July 5th 2008 by fauxcelt