I was watching a video on the comhaltas website of what was obviously a talented musician playing on stage. By all accounts it was a fabulous performance. But it left me cold. It seemed to me that the musician wasn't playing the tune for the tunes sake. it was almost as if the tune was merely a way to show that every note could be perfectly pitched, bowed, phrased.... blah blah blah. These are all very important things (obviously) but, am i correct in saying that we shouldnt be playing tunes to show these things off? shouldnt these things be secondary to the tune? And, is this the effect that "the organisation" of our music has had on our music?
I admit I'm not actually a big fan of comhaltas - I hate how its encourages players to be so strict and unbending in their playing, almost like everything is equally measured...here comes a roll..... Now a triplet..etc I have no doubt that most of my favourite musicians would not be winning fleadh titles.
I know the ever expanding sterilization of this music is an often discussed situation here, however, I find examples like the ones provided on the Comhaltas site to be useful from a learner's viewpoint. A tune, a musician's take on it, and the symbiotic relationship that occurs between the two is a curious and difficult thing to capture. Sometimes it's great and sometimes it's falls bit flat. I don't think we need to indite the whole process over one video, however.
I tend to view the Comhaltas thing in pretty much the same way as bb, it does encourage sterilization of the music. I know plenty of people who are Comhaltas students and guess what? Most of them play in nearly the same exact style. Not to say they are bad musicians, on the contrary, but they focus too much on the technical aspect of the music and thus their playing tends to be a bit life-less.
On another note I find the whole idea of competing in music idiotic, the music isn't about who's better at it its about heart and expressing yourself.
Last week, I downloaded all of the audio files from the videos and burned them to an mp3 disc. 310 tracks, 17.5 hours. (Some of the earlier videos are not available as audio only, some of the files are missing or mislabeled, but that's what I could locate.) I've been listening for a few hours at a time since then and enjoying it tremendously.
Of course the musicianship - as opposed to the technical skill - varies from player to player, but overall I'm very impressed. I think the weakest tracks musically are frequently ones that were made during competition. Fortunately, that's a small fraction of what's on the site.
It's important to keep in mind that many of the players are not accustomed to being recorded and may not have been completely at ease. I think it's a remarkable collection of recordings, considering the circumstances.
One disappointment is the almost total lack of representation of music of Donegal, Cork and Kerry.
"I was watching a video on the comhaltas website of what was obviously a talented musician playing on stage"
ok. forget i said that it was on the comhaltas website and then respond. i dont want this to turn into a thread arguing about comhaltas and its ilk. comhaltas has done and is doing great work in raising peoples levels of awareness of trad. granted, some of their techniques and ideals may be flawed but nothing and certainly nobody is perfect.
what i really wanted to discuss (but didnt really verbalise in my original post) is how we think about our playing, and whether its to prove a point that we play, or whether its just purely for the music, and how these two mindsets can significanty 'tinge' or leave the music with a certain taste, if u know what i mean.
aww galway, we wanted to take the p out of those videos - how can those kids be so dang good? and now you've turned it into another talk about your feelings thread. Is there anyone here who thinks sheer technical brilliance sounds better than playing with soul? maybe we can take the p out of them then...
Sorry Galway Fiddle - I can't seem to grasp your overall point - people play music for a variety of reasons. Have you really run across folks that play this music to make some sort of point or to validate themselves somehow with other players? That seems tragic to me. One of many reasons I play music because I enjoy connecting with other musicians and this particular style, Irish, is a great vehicle for that.
I've been thinking about that statement for quite a while now and yes indeed it has much more depth than the comhaltas debate.
My viewpoint is that the music in this genre most often plays a secondary role.
Sessions and festivals for example are more so social occasions, and most gigs seem to be for the money. I'm not saying that these things are bad but they do tend to overtake something much more potentially profound. I'm expecting some controversy here because it depends on ones viewpoint on what a musical experience actually is.
My idea of a musically fulfilling experience is one in which tunes are played not just three times and move on, but many many times until we've extracted all we can find. Then, a discussion on the tune, set or arrangement talking about what we're trying to achieve through the tune, let's try another angle, how can we make this piece a work of art for ourselves, how are we communicating and to what extent are we working off each other. I find that so rare in sessions that I very seldom play in them anymore.
I've just organised that myself and two other friends spend two days next week alone in the middle of the Donegal mountains to try and achieve a musical experience. I'm hoping that no audience shouting requests and no signal for cell phones might create the appropriate environment.
Martin, that's an interesting approach to the music. But it leaves me pondering the longer-term aspects of playing in a session week after week for years, for a lifetime, even.
I don't know many musicians who would be able to "extract all they can find" from a tune all in one sitting. Yes, it helps to play a tune more than three times, but even 20 times will leave phrases unturned. And doing it all at once like that would feel "pressured," to me at least.
To my tastes, a tune can be explored more fully and at a nice easy pace over the long haul of playing it month after month for years at a session with your mates. The tune changes and matures as you do. Similarly, discussing tunes and sets with your mates can unfold over years of playing together, rather than all in one night.
Sure, your approach works over the long term, too. But don't discount that a good session can do the same. Of course, it helps to be in a small, local, cozy pub, with no blaring telly or cell phones going off, and no "audience" to play for.
After many many years of playing and thinking about playing, I've come to the conclusion that thinking about it is not really the way to do it. I disagree with you martin, I think verbal discussions on tunes are counter productive. I take the view that playing the tune IS all the discussing it needs.
There's an odd question hidden in the original post:
"It seemed to me that the musician wasn't playing the tune for the tunes sake. it was almost as if the tune was merely a way to show that every note could be perfectly phrased"
This doesn't make sense.
A phrase is a collection of notes.
Collections of notes are tunes.
The bottom line in this music is to phrase notes into tunes. To create music out of phrases.
But this music is not like poetry. It is not crafted and perfected phrases ordered for aesthetic effect. It is more analogous to conversation.
You can choose to play a tune to "show it off" as you put it... or you can choose not to. The moment you take that choice away a person ceases to be a musician and becomes a robot.
Surely its alright to showcase the tune as opposed to showcasing yourself.
How can there ever be such a thing as "perfectly phrased". Surely one person's ideal rendition of a tune may not be so appealing to another.
I think there's a bit of wisdom credited to Cathal McConnell, saying that the listener's response should be "what a great tune," rather than "what a great player."
Greg, all the good pitch, phrasing, and fundamentals in the world don't necessarily amount to music that moves me. Music is expression, not perfection (or even well-honed fundamentals).
As Michael says, it's a conversation, not poetry or oratory. Warts and all gabbing among friends.
Oh, ya know - I don't see anything wrong with people showing off
if they can deliver the goods. It's inspiring to hear someone
really good. As long as it's an appropriate context.
You wouldn't want somebody destroying a session that way or using
it as some kind of interpersonal weapon.
... yep, but maybe there is a bargain to be struck here. A sort of middle ground ... from one who has copped it (fairly copped, yet unfairly singled out) on this board fer failing the basics on which the whole thing hangs (timing, phrasing and intonation) ... but also eons ago being told here that I'm not worth the conversation because of the warts (pop up like they are spread by a bluudy virus or something in yer playing)! Its circular ... if people do not converse with you musically, then needs be you must converse solo with the tunes. Yikes, I think I'm talking through me hat!!! ... but anyway, what is one to do? ... except what one can ... and don't get too hung up about it, hey? Love the tunes, be respectful of them and do the best you can. Nobody HAS to compete in order to play the music. To each his/her own. Some of the music that comes each day through me email is just beautiful ... and I'm not about to knock it.
Hi. When I originally wrote that post, I had writen something along the lines of "all that one can extract on that occasion", (should have left that in! sorry.) I do agree that it's a different buzz eachtime and that a complete transformation doesn't happen in one night, but I think alot can. It depends on your view of a good session really.
The other point since raised rises a point that I dislike the most about this genre, that we're all God given talents, that it's just natural and therefore no need to think about it.
Everything that I can do has come about because I've thought about it in some way, - there are many types of thought, and I really don't see how we're not all the same if it were really admitted. Isn't feeling a form of thinking? Audiences like to percieve us as supernatural beings whilst on stage or even in sessions but in reality, I at least learned everything from scratch. Nothing amazing and there was a point (some would argue still is!) that I couldn't play a note.
This is with all due respect to everyone elses opinion and approach by the way... I'm only stating what's right for me. It's just that when I have a musical experience, I like to dive right in. For a social occasion, I get more out of it when I'm not playing tunes in the middle of conversation.
It's interesting Martin. It's interesting to think about how you get to making music from mere technique.
You can listen to the ways your favourite players play, take mental notes and reproduce it. I've done a lot of that in my time and still do occasionally, especially with tunes new to me. Emulation is a very important part of the learning process. And then you can think about different ways to turn tunes, you can think about making them your own. You can even use your experience and make up new tunes.
But no amount of this is going to automatically help you play music. Ultimately you have to let go of the conscious thought process and just let it happen.
Often, in the pub, we can play for an hour or so of just going through the motions. Perfectly competent but it's just not there. Then we have a phrase, "time to lose the head". It doesn't necessarily mean crank it up and go mental (though it often does), it specifically means "stop thinking about it".
I don't subscribe to the, "We're all God given talents and that it's just natural and therefore no need to think about it." Thinking about it still has an important roll play. However, the more natural you can make yourself feel when you play the music, the better the music. And if that means sacrificing some of the more complicated stuff you would otherwise have to think about, that's a good thing.
bb>
>I admit I'm not actually a big fan of comhaltas - I hate how its >encourages players to be so strict and unbending in their >playing, almost like everything is equally measured...here >comes a roll..... Now a triplet..etc I have no doubt that most of >my favourite musicians would not be winning fleadh titles.
Heh.
Spoken like someone who has never heard the folks playing at my comhaltas branch. The idea that everyone would be playing in robotic unison is so far from the reality that it makes me laugh. Pleasantly chaotic. And give me that every time.
In bb's defense, I have seen both camps represented at comhaltas gatherings - rigid and more free-stylin'.
As regards the initial point: Perhaps genuine emotional content (not to be confused wih mimicry) can come through in our music, whatever the style or genre.
I listen to a youngster trying to sing the blues, and nine times out of ten I am thinking, perhaps unfairly, "Yeah, tell me about hard times and broken hearts."
Maybe not the best parallel drawn, but feeling a connection and emotional investment in the tune may not be something that can be mechanically, mathematically, calculatedly recreated for a competition performance.
(Dramatic sigh, gazes toward ceiling, touches finger to chin in silent contemplation)
thats a good point rook. there is only so much that one can gain from sitting down and thinking about each tune individually, learning technique and so on. feeling a connection to the tune is something that is acquired by osmosis over the years, whether it be a recording that reminds you of a time many years ago or a tune that reminds you of a certain player. but some tunes can connect to all (good) musicians, i dare someone to listen to tommy potts playing the parting glass (totally different from the song) and not be touched somehow.
as regards the cce style playing, i think that evolved for the competitions. the idea of aboslutely everything perfected, technically, is something that has emerged unconciously in peoples minds. people feel that this is what is required in the comps. and the sad thing is that it is. spirited playing just doesnt win, depending on the adjudicator but its more often than not! i was at the all ireland fiddle last year and in my opinion if john carty and frankie gavin got up and played they would not have been placed! there were also people who weren't placed who should have clearly, the majority of ones who wer in the running though could have been anyone, no stand outs, just same old ye know. compare the competitions to over thirty years ago when martin byrnes won over tommy peoples. something tells me neither of these would win these days which is sad. not all people involved in comhaltas plays like the stale style of course but that is what comhaltas nowadays seems to prefer, just look at some of the tours. maybe this is because of thr lack of musicians(or good ones) in the running of the organisation, maybe the heads are to blame not the musicians.
as far as musical 'feelings' go, i find that when you are good enough it becomes more unconscious than you might think. you can't honestly think about a certain roll in a mathematical way in the split second it takes to perform it? in a case like this you just do it maybe because it sounds nice in that part of the tune. obviously learning and practising rolls takes some sort of thought but you cant compare this to when you have achieved some sort of standard for it. it could be said for most types of ornamentation. but of course thats just technique. the emotional nature of tunes can often be found within sessions of the conditions are right, ie: with close friends just in that moment. but that doesn't come about with thinking, it either happens or it doesn't. you cant play with the same amount of feeling everytime you play a tune. it is entirely subjective, depends on your mood. for me playing in a session in the pub with friends with a small crowd listening, not a noisy pub is great. the music incorporates a host of social ideas. if im sitting in a session with my mates who i know and feel comfortable playing with because i understand the way they play then i play better. it would be different if im sitting in a session where i didnt know one person and sat there and not had the craic in between sets like i would with my own friends.
i think the point about what cthal mcconnell said is probably true, but in my eyes if i hear someone playing and i say thats a great tune then it is the player being good also. someone else playing the tune mite not give it the same justice so, again subjective
It's all about friends. The emotion for me comes from the fact that tunes are inseperable from friends, in my mind: people I've learned them from, people I've taught them to, people I play them with regularly, etc.
Tunes, to me, always evoke a person (or several) connected to them and me personally. Along with this comes the emotion. They are all a part of the same thing.
Often times, if I 'perform' I think "Boy, I can't wait to get this tune back into the pub with my buddy ____ where it belongs..."
Re. Competitons and standardized performance pieces:
If we set a standard for judging art, the winning stuff must, by necessity, be some form of "this" (the right way to interpret) and therefore not "that" (the other ways). If not, how do you score it? There must be the approved way which will win, and then the heathen masses scratching away (like me!).
Emphasizing competetive standards and methods will always tend to squeeze out individual styles so long as winning is most important for the ego and ambitious side of human nature, and in some cases a good thing to have on your resume, or in the ad for your next concert tour. Here enters real "competetiveness" and all that comes with it.
I am not damning competetions or the valuable stimulus they have given (and give) to the preservation of many traditions.
My point is only that I do not understand how I could set myself as a standard for right and wrong, or good and bad, when the subject is art, especially music. Obviously, many do take on this role, and can easily get others to accept their position as final authority. Myself, I could not judge someone else's art in the first place, as it is merely my opinion, perhaps even of the moment only.
Once again folks, let us ease the tension by referring to the infamous Peter Sellers' "Paddy & Mike dukeout skit", so fondly referred to in previous discussions.
i'm interested in this line of discussion so here's my ha'p'orth:
one of my favourite session memories ever is of a night spent playing with some very heavy musicianers in the town of Killybegs. there was this man there, sitting close, listening, eyes gleaming, drinking in every note. after a few trips back to the bar , i ventured to engage him in conversation. he was a fisherman. he played no music, and didn't aspire to. he told me himself that one of his greatest joys in life was "to hear the old music played"Let's not forget that the "musical experience" of the listener is an inextricable part of the "musical experience" of the player...
perhaps i didn't express myself succinctly- oh wait here's what i was trying to say:"Let's not forget that the "musical experience" of the listener is an inextricable part of the "musical experience" of the player...And Vice Versa
i think an appreciative audience would recognise and value the integrity,confidence,dedication,and achievement it takes to be a musician who is not merely performing but ,rather communing with himself and the music. A less appreciative audience can hinder that process. If a piper plays a beautiful air and the audience loses interest and starts talking over him, is the air any less beautiful? certainly not. Is the musician's performance any less heartfelt,and meaningful? It shouldn't be! But it somehow, completes the circle to provide some really mighty music to people who dearly love to hear it. That said,my own most powerful "musical experiences" have occured when playing alone in my kitchen with no one but the flies listening, and i feel these moments to be the most meaningful. Do you agree? As for the fisherman, the nice folks at the Sail Inn called him specifically because the night in question was an impromptu session. Martin himself was in town. other musicians were called. they knew this fisherman would want to be there, and as far as i could tell he loved every minute of it...
yes, the contradiction is inherent in the original idea behind this thread: "what i really wanted to discuss (but didnt really verbalise in my original post) is how we think about our playing, and whether its to prove a point that we play, or whether its just purely for the music, and how these two mindsets can significanty 'tinge' or leave the music with a certain taste, if u know what i mean" if i"m following this correctly. Of course it's about the music. my whole point has been to say that nothing can "tinge" the music. it's egos that are "tinged" by "performances". try to imagine Van Gogh painting for dancers. the caller saying"ok vinnie, paint another sunflower; only this time, a little faster" performing is what actors do, and as a great musical friend of mine said long ago"that's a dirty business" is Nature trying to prove a point when it finally rains after a long drought? No. But there will be some very grateful farmers.
Is it actually about the music????
Is it actually about the music????
I was watching a video on the comhaltas website of what was obviously a talented musician playing on stage. By all accounts it was a fabulous performance. But it left me cold. It seemed to me that the musician wasn't playing the tune for the tunes sake. it was almost as if the tune was merely a way to show that every note could be perfectly pitched, bowed, phrased.... blah blah blah. These are all very important things (obviously) but, am i correct in saying that we shouldnt be playing tunes to show these things off? shouldnt these things be secondary to the tune? And, is this the effect that "the organisation" of our music has had on our music?
i apologise, its late, and im rambling...
# Posted on August 19th 2008 by galway-fiddle
Re: Is it actually about the music????
I admit I'm not actually a big fan of comhaltas - I hate how its encourages players to be so strict and unbending in their playing, almost like everything is equally measured...here comes a roll..... Now a triplet..etc I have no doubt that most of my favourite musicians would not be winning fleadh titles.
# Posted on August 19th 2008 by bb
Re: Is it actually about the music????
I know the ever expanding sterilization of this music is an often discussed situation here, however, I find examples like the ones provided on the Comhaltas site to be useful from a learner's viewpoint. A tune, a musician's take on it, and the symbiotic relationship that occurs between the two is a curious and difficult thing to capture. Sometimes it's great and sometimes it's falls bit flat. I don't think we need to indite the whole process over one video, however.
# Posted on August 19th 2008 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: Is it actually about the music????
"I don't think we need to indite the whole process over one video, however."
Bit of a straw man there. Obviously the reasons to indict the whole process go far beyond one video...
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by timmy!
Re: Is it actually about the music????
I tend to view the Comhaltas thing in pretty much the same way as bb, it does encourage sterilization of the music. I know plenty of people who are Comhaltas students and guess what? Most of them play in nearly the same exact style. Not to say they are bad musicians, on the contrary, but they focus too much on the technical aspect of the music and thus their playing tends to be a bit life-less.
On another note I find the whole idea of competing in music idiotic, the music isn't about who's better at it its about heart and expressing yourself.
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by Why Bother?
Re: Is it actually about the music????
Last week, I downloaded all of the audio files from the videos and burned them to an mp3 disc. 310 tracks, 17.5 hours. (Some of the earlier videos are not available as audio only, some of the files are missing or mislabeled, but that's what I could locate.) I've been listening for a few hours at a time since then and enjoying it tremendously.
Of course the musicianship - as opposed to the technical skill - varies from player to player, but overall I'm very impressed. I think the weakest tracks musically are frequently ones that were made during competition. Fortunately, that's a small fraction of what's on the site.
It's important to keep in mind that many of the players are not accustomed to being recorded and may not have been completely at ease. I think it's a remarkable collection of recordings, considering the circumstances.
One disappointment is the almost total lack of representation of music of Donegal, Cork and Kerry.
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by GaryAMartin
Re: Is it actually about the music????
"I was watching a video on the comhaltas website of what was obviously a talented musician playing on stage"
ok. forget i said that it was on the comhaltas website and then respond. i dont want this to turn into a thread arguing about comhaltas and its ilk. comhaltas has done and is doing great work in raising peoples levels of awareness of trad. granted, some of their techniques and ideals may be flawed but nothing and certainly nobody is perfect.
what i really wanted to discuss (but didnt really verbalise in my original post) is how we think about our playing, and whether its to prove a point that we play, or whether its just purely for the music, and how these two mindsets can significanty 'tinge' or leave the music with a certain taste, if u know what i mean.
yet again, apologies for my latenight rambles..
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by galway-fiddle
Re: Is it actually about the music????
aww galway, we wanted to take the p out of those videos - how can those kids be so dang good? and now you've turned it into another talk about your feelings thread. Is there anyone here who thinks sheer technical brilliance sounds better than playing with soul? maybe we can take the p out of them then...
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by airport
Re: Is it actually about the music????
Sorry Galway Fiddle - I can't seem to grasp your overall point - people play music for a variety of reasons. Have you really run across folks that play this music to make some sort of point or to validate themselves somehow with other players? That seems tragic to me. One of many reasons I play music because I enjoy connecting with other musicians and this particular style, Irish, is a great vehicle for that.
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: Is it actually about the music????
I've been thinking about that statement for quite a while now and yes indeed it has much more depth than the comhaltas debate.
My viewpoint is that the music in this genre most often plays a secondary role.
Sessions and festivals for example are more so social occasions, and most gigs seem to be for the money. I'm not saying that these things are bad but they do tend to overtake something much more potentially profound. I'm expecting some controversy here because it depends on ones viewpoint on what a musical experience actually is.
My idea of a musically fulfilling experience is one in which tunes are played not just three times and move on, but many many times until we've extracted all we can find. Then, a discussion on the tune, set or arrangement talking about what we're trying to achieve through the tune, let's try another angle, how can we make this piece a work of art for ourselves, how are we communicating and to what extent are we working off each other. I find that so rare in sessions that I very seldom play in them anymore.
I've just organised that myself and two other friends spend two days next week alone in the middle of the Donegal mountains to try and achieve a musical experience. I'm hoping that no audience shouting requests and no signal for cell phones might create the appropriate environment.
That's my pennys worth,
Martin.
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by martin t
Re: Is it actually about the music????
Martin, that's an interesting approach to the music. But it leaves me pondering the longer-term aspects of playing in a session week after week for years, for a lifetime, even.
I don't know many musicians who would be able to "extract all they can find" from a tune all in one sitting. Yes, it helps to play a tune more than three times, but even 20 times will leave phrases unturned. And doing it all at once like that would feel "pressured," to me at least.
To my tastes, a tune can be explored more fully and at a nice easy pace over the long haul of playing it month after month for years at a session with your mates. The tune changes and matures as you do. Similarly, discussing tunes and sets with your mates can unfold over years of playing together, rather than all in one night.
Sure, your approach works over the long term, too. But don't discount that a good session can do the same. Of course, it helps to be in a small, local, cozy pub, with no blaring telly or cell phones going off, and no "audience" to play for.
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by Will Harmon
Re: Is it actually about the music????
After many many years of playing and thinking about playing, I've come to the conclusion that thinking about it is not really the way to do it. I disagree with you martin, I think verbal discussions on tunes are counter productive. I take the view that playing the tune IS all the discussing it needs.
There's an odd question hidden in the original post:
"It seemed to me that the musician wasn't playing the tune for the tunes sake. it was almost as if the tune was merely a way to show that every note could be perfectly phrased"
This doesn't make sense.
A phrase is a collection of notes.
Collections of notes are tunes.
The bottom line in this music is to phrase notes into tunes. To create music out of phrases.
But this music is not like poetry. It is not crafted and perfected phrases ordered for aesthetic effect. It is more analogous to conversation.
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by ...
Re: Is it actually about the music????
I think it's mostly about choice...
You can choose to play a tune to "show it off" as you put it... or you can choose not to. The moment you take that choice away a person ceases to be a musician and becomes a robot.
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by davydd
Re: Is it actually about the music????
Surely its alright to showcase the tune as opposed to showcasing yourself.
How can there ever be such a thing as "perfectly phrased". Surely one person's ideal rendition of a tune may not be so appealing to another.
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by Donough
Re: Is it actually about the music????
Good pitch...good phrasing...good fundamentals...what am I missing? Isn't that what good playing is all about? Isn't that what we strive for?
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by Greg the Piano Tuner
Re: Is it actually about the music????
I think there's a bit of wisdom credited to Cathal McConnell, saying that the listener's response should be "what a great tune," rather than "what a great player."
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by mcswiss
Re: Is it actually about the music????
Greg, all the good pitch, phrasing, and fundamentals in the world don't necessarily amount to music that moves me. Music is expression, not perfection (or even well-honed fundamentals).
As Michael says, it's a conversation, not poetry or oratory. Warts and all gabbing among friends.
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by Will Harmon
Re: Is it actually about the music????
Oh, ya know - I don't see anything wrong with people showing off
if they can deliver the goods. It's inspiring to hear someone
really good. As long as it's an appropriate context.
You wouldn't want somebody destroying a session that way or using
it as some kind of interpersonal weapon.
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by Hup
Re: Is it actually about the music????
... yep, but maybe there is a bargain to be struck here. A sort of middle ground ... from one who has copped it (fairly copped, yet unfairly singled out) on this board fer failing the basics on which the whole thing hangs (timing, phrasing and intonation) ... but also eons ago being told here that I'm not worth the conversation because of the warts (pop up like they are spread by a bluudy virus or something in yer playing)! Its circular ... if people do not converse with you musically, then needs be you must converse solo with the tunes. Yikes, I think I'm talking through me hat!!! ... but anyway, what is one to do? ... except what one can ... and don't get too hung up about it, hey? Love the tunes, be respectful of them and do the best you can. Nobody HAS to compete in order to play the music. To each his/her own. Some of the music that comes each day through me email is just beautiful ... and I'm not about to knock it.
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by Clear Drops
Re: Is it actually about the music????
... especially when assailled by A---- R--- in the PO
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by Clear Drops
Re: Is it actually about the music????
Hi. When I originally wrote that post, I had writen something along the lines of "all that one can extract on that occasion", (should have left that in! sorry.) I do agree that it's a different buzz eachtime and that a complete transformation doesn't happen in one night, but I think alot can. It depends on your view of a good session really.
The other point since raised rises a point that I dislike the most about this genre, that we're all God given talents, that it's just natural and therefore no need to think about it.
Everything that I can do has come about because I've thought about it in some way, - there are many types of thought, and I really don't see how we're not all the same if it were really admitted. Isn't feeling a form of thinking? Audiences like to percieve us as supernatural beings whilst on stage or even in sessions but in reality, I at least learned everything from scratch. Nothing amazing and there was a point (some would argue still is!) that I couldn't play a note.
This is with all due respect to everyone elses opinion and approach by the way... I'm only stating what's right for me. It's just that when I have a musical experience, I like to dive right in. For a social occasion, I get more out of it when I'm not playing tunes in the middle of conversation.
Le meas,
Martin.
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by martin t
Re: Is it actually about the music????
It's interesting Martin. It's interesting to think about how you get to making music from mere technique.
You can listen to the ways your favourite players play, take mental notes and reproduce it. I've done a lot of that in my time and still do occasionally, especially with tunes new to me. Emulation is a very important part of the learning process. And then you can think about different ways to turn tunes, you can think about making them your own. You can even use your experience and make up new tunes.
But no amount of this is going to automatically help you play music. Ultimately you have to let go of the conscious thought process and just let it happen.
Often, in the pub, we can play for an hour or so of just going through the motions. Perfectly competent but it's just not there. Then we have a phrase, "time to lose the head". It doesn't necessarily mean crank it up and go mental (though it often does), it specifically means "stop thinking about it".
I don't subscribe to the, "We're all God given talents and that it's just natural and therefore no need to think about it." Thinking about it still has an important roll play. However, the more natural you can make yourself feel when you play the music, the better the music. And if that means sacrificing some of the more complicated stuff you would otherwise have to think about, that's a good thing.
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by ...
Re: Is it actually about the music????
Ah musi,. More insubstantial than the wind that carries it, but substantial enough to fill lives with joy.
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by AlBrown
Re: Is it actually about the music????
bb>
>I admit I'm not actually a big fan of comhaltas - I hate how its >encourages players to be so strict and unbending in their >playing, almost like everything is equally measured...here >comes a roll..... Now a triplet..etc I have no doubt that most of >my favourite musicians would not be winning fleadh titles.
Heh.
Spoken like someone who has never heard the folks playing at my comhaltas branch. The idea that everyone would be playing in robotic unison is so far from the reality that it makes me laugh. Pleasantly chaotic. And give me that every time.
- Chris
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by ramblingpitchfork
Re: Is it actually about the music????
In bb's defense, I have seen both camps represented at comhaltas gatherings - rigid and more free-stylin'.
As regards the initial point: Perhaps genuine emotional content (not to be confused wih mimicry) can come through in our music, whatever the style or genre.
I listen to a youngster trying to sing the blues, and nine times out of ten I am thinking, perhaps unfairly, "Yeah, tell me about hard times and broken hearts."
Maybe not the best parallel drawn, but feeling a connection and emotional investment in the tune may not be something that can be mechanically, mathematically, calculatedly recreated for a competition performance.
(Dramatic sigh, gazes toward ceiling, touches finger to chin in silent contemplation)
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by Piece
Re: Is it actually about the music????
thats a good point rook. there is only so much that one can gain from sitting down and thinking about each tune individually, learning technique and so on. feeling a connection to the tune is something that is acquired by osmosis over the years, whether it be a recording that reminds you of a time many years ago or a tune that reminds you of a certain player. but some tunes can connect to all (good) musicians, i dare someone to listen to tommy potts playing the parting glass (totally different from the song) and not be touched somehow.
as regards the cce style playing, i think that evolved for the competitions. the idea of aboslutely everything perfected, technically, is something that has emerged unconciously in peoples minds. people feel that this is what is required in the comps. and the sad thing is that it is. spirited playing just doesnt win, depending on the adjudicator but its more often than not! i was at the all ireland fiddle last year and in my opinion if john carty and frankie gavin got up and played they would not have been placed! there were also people who weren't placed who should have clearly, the majority of ones who wer in the running though could have been anyone, no stand outs, just same old ye know. compare the competitions to over thirty years ago when martin byrnes won over tommy peoples. something tells me neither of these would win these days which is sad. not all people involved in comhaltas plays like the stale style of course but that is what comhaltas nowadays seems to prefer, just look at some of the tours. maybe this is because of thr lack of musicians(or good ones) in the running of the organisation, maybe the heads are to blame not the musicians.
as far as musical 'feelings' go, i find that when you are good enough it becomes more unconscious than you might think. you can't honestly think about a certain roll in a mathematical way in the split second it takes to perform it? in a case like this you just do it maybe because it sounds nice in that part of the tune. obviously learning and practising rolls takes some sort of thought but you cant compare this to when you have achieved some sort of standard for it. it could be said for most types of ornamentation. but of course thats just technique. the emotional nature of tunes can often be found within sessions of the conditions are right, ie: with close friends just in that moment. but that doesn't come about with thinking, it either happens or it doesn't. you cant play with the same amount of feeling everytime you play a tune. it is entirely subjective, depends on your mood. for me playing in a session in the pub with friends with a small crowd listening, not a noisy pub is great. the music incorporates a host of social ideas. if im sitting in a session with my mates who i know and feel comfortable playing with because i understand the way they play then i play better. it would be different if im sitting in a session where i didnt know one person and sat there and not had the craic in between sets like i would with my own friends.
i think the point about what cthal mcconnell said is probably true, but in my eyes if i hear someone playing and i say thats a great tune then it is the player being good also. someone else playing the tune mite not give it the same justice so, again subjective
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by tradmoosic
Re: Is it actually about the music????
"That's a lovely tune, and well played."
It's all about friends. The emotion for me comes from the fact that tunes are inseperable from friends, in my mind: people I've learned them from, people I've taught them to, people I play them with regularly, etc.
Tunes, to me, always evoke a person (or several) connected to them and me personally. Along with this comes the emotion. They are all a part of the same thing.
Often times, if I 'perform' I think "Boy, I can't wait to get this tune back into the pub with my buddy ____ where it belongs..."
# Posted on August 20th 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Is it actually about the music????
Re. Competitons and standardized performance pieces:
If we set a standard for judging art, the winning stuff must, by necessity, be some form of "this" (the right way to interpret) and therefore not "that" (the other ways). If not, how do you score it? There must be the approved way which will win, and then the heathen masses scratching away (like me!).
Emphasizing competetive standards and methods will always tend to squeeze out individual styles so long as winning is most important for the ego and ambitious side of human nature, and in some cases a good thing to have on your resume, or in the ad for your next concert tour. Here enters real "competetiveness" and all that comes with it.
I am not damning competetions or the valuable stimulus they have given (and give) to the preservation of many traditions.
My point is only that I do not understand how I could set myself as a standard for right and wrong, or good and bad, when the subject is art, especially music. Obviously, many do take on this role, and can easily get others to accept their position as final authority. Myself, I could not judge someone else's art in the first place, as it is merely my opinion, perhaps even of the moment only.
My two cent rant.
Cheers.
# Posted on August 21st 2008 by Piece
Re: Is it actually about the music????
Once again folks, let us ease the tension by referring to the infamous Peter Sellers' "Paddy & Mike dukeout skit", so fondly referred to in previous discussions.
# Posted on August 24th 2008 by hauke
Re: Is it actually about the music????
i'm interested in this line of discussion so here's my ha'p'orth:
one of my favourite session memories ever is of a night spent playing with some very heavy musicianers in the town of Killybegs. there was this man there, sitting close, listening, eyes gleaming, drinking in every note. after a few trips back to the bar , i ventured to engage him in conversation. he was a fisherman. he played no music, and didn't aspire to. he told me himself that one of his greatest joys in life was "to hear the old music played"Let's not forget that the "musical experience" of the listener is an inextricable part of the "musical experience" of the player...
# Posted on August 27th 2008 by pipewatcher
Re: Is it actually about the music????
Peter Sellers "liked to watch" and the fisherman liked to listen
# Posted on August 27th 2008 by Donough
Re: Is it actually about the music????
perhaps i didn't express myself succinctly- oh wait here's what i was trying to say:"Let's not forget that the "musical experience" of the listener is an inextricable part of the "musical experience" of the player...And Vice Versa
# Posted on August 28th 2008 by pipewatcher
Re: Is it actually about the music????
no it isn't.
(is that succinct enough)
# Posted on August 28th 2008 by ...
Re: Is it actually about the music????
why not?
# Posted on August 28th 2008 by pipewatcher
Re: Is it actually about the music????
what if you simply play for yourself?
# Posted on August 28th 2008 by ...
Re: Is it actually about the music????
i think an appreciative audience would recognise and value the integrity,confidence,dedication,and achievement it takes to be a musician who is not merely performing but ,rather communing with himself and the music. A less appreciative audience can hinder that process. If a piper plays a beautiful air and the audience loses interest and starts talking over him, is the air any less beautiful? certainly not. Is the musician's performance any less heartfelt,and meaningful? It shouldn't be! But it somehow, completes the circle to provide some really mighty music to people who dearly love to hear it. That said,my own most powerful "musical experiences" have occured when playing alone in my kitchen with no one but the flies listening, and i feel these moments to be the most meaningful. Do you agree? As for the fisherman, the nice folks at the Sail Inn called him specifically because the night in question was an impromptu session. Martin himself was in town. other musicians were called. they knew this fisherman would want to be there, and as far as i could tell he loved every minute of it...
# Posted on August 28th 2008 by pipewatcher
Re: Is it actually about the music????
Yes, I agree. And you've kind of contradicted your self there. Which is fine. All the best art is riddled with contradiction.
# Posted on August 28th 2008 by ...
Re: Is it actually about the music????
yes, the contradiction is inherent in the original idea behind this thread: "what i really wanted to discuss (but didnt really verbalise in my original post) is how we think about our playing, and whether its to prove a point that we play, or whether its just purely for the music, and how these two mindsets can significanty 'tinge' or leave the music with a certain taste, if u know what i mean" if i"m following this correctly. Of course it's about the music. my whole point has been to say that nothing can "tinge" the music. it's egos that are "tinged" by "performances". try to imagine Van Gogh painting for dancers. the caller saying"ok vinnie, paint another sunflower; only this time, a little faster" performing is what actors do, and as a great musical friend of mine said long ago"that's a dirty business" is Nature trying to prove a point when it finally rains after a long drought? No. But there will be some very grateful farmers.
# Posted on August 29th 2008 by pipewatcher