The Session >> Discussions >> If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Comments
If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
This is one of those things were I THOUGHT I understood something, until I tried to explain it to someone else! ;)
As a backer, I was trying to explain how I worked out appropriate chords to a fellow backer. I was explaining how for a given key signature, there are only six triad chords (1,3,5 triads that is) that are in "key" (I realise that this is only from a classical "Western" harmony theory point of view, and that ITM is a melody-based, not harmony-based music, but please bear with me!).
Eg., in the key of D (and Edor, Amix, Bmin), the only 1,3,5 triad chords that don't have a clash are:
D, Em, F#m, G, A and Bm.
whereas, in the key of G (and Ador, Dmix, Emin), the only ones that don't clash are:
G, Am, Bm, C, D and Em.
I then was explaining that actually most of the "minor" tunes in ITM, are actually dorian (I'd heard this a couple of times, and it seemed true to me, at the time).
I was explaining that there wasn't much difference between Edorian and Eminor (for instance), BUT in E dorian, the C's are sharpened, while in E minor, the C's are natural. This means that playing a C chord in Edorian COULD cause a clash, while playing in Eminor, you could cause a clash with F#m.
Unfortunately, then I tried to back up this explanation with some examples!!!
The first two "E dorian" tunes I looked at (Killavil Jig & Contentment Is Wealth) didn't have either a C# OR C (in the versions I had)!
Then I finally found two "E dorian tunes" that had a C# (Joe Cooley's Reel & The Leitrim), but they only had ONE each!
An "E minor" tune (Kid on the Mountain) that only had ONE C, and then the version of The Tap Room I found on thesession which has both C & C#'s.
If there's only one occurrence of a sharp or natural in a tune (especially when it's a passing note), is it realistic to call it "dorian" instead of "minor" or vice versa, especially when there are so many variations on most tunes? If so, should you keep ornamentation in that "key" because of that one occurrence? Or if you're backing/harmonising, should you emphasise that distinguishing note (C# or C), or avoid emphasising it to keep a bit of ambiguity?
To be honest, I don't really use C and F#m chords much when backing the given tunes, and ITM isn't a harmonic music anyway, so perhaps it's a moot point, but from a theory point of view, it's gotten me a bit confused. :(
Sorry about the long, rambling question! ;)
By the way, Merry Christmas! (or Happy Holidays, if you're in one of those PC countries that can't say "Christmas"! ;) ),
Ronan
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Some melodies are pentatonic.
Backers, & many melody players, have an urge fill in harmonies.
In one sense you add something (chromatic harmony).
In another sense you may obscure the simplicity of the tune.
On the other hand many tunes, or different versions, modulate.
Just try the melody 1st;
I like this but it probably is not typically played in session;
"The Irish waltz" http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display/561February 23rd 2002 by Redbird.
I'd say it is ambiguous, or modulates. But listen to the tune & then try your harmony. Just don't put all your stock in theory . . . or securitization.
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Oh, I actually agree about power chords. In fact when I'm backing, I probably play D5 chords more frequently than Dmaj (or Dmin) chords, cause they have a nice droning and ambiguous sound.
And for most dorian tunes (particularly the "pentatonic" melodies you refer to), I find my backing mostly revolves around 2 chords (Em & D for E dorian/minor, and Am & G for A dorian/minor).
But, the triad chords often give a fuller sound than diad chords.
As you say, many backers & melody players (myself included) have an urge to fill in the harmonies. I'm not saying this is a bad OR a good thing. I understand that sometimes it's nice, but sometimes it can clutter things.
What, I'm asking is, should we use terms like "dorian" or "minor" to describe the "pentatonic" (or "hexatonic") melodies?
And should we restrict ourselves to those penta/hexatonic scales when embellishing or harmonising?
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
ronan. It's good that you are confused. Keep that feeling. Don't think you can "solve" the music. The terms you are trying to shoehorn the music into do not have relevance.
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Thanks for mentioning "Kid on the Mountain"
Ceolachan had some good comments. Including a 6th part I hadn't heard. For that matter the 5th part is different from how I play. & he gives a link to an Andy McGann recording.
Mad Baloney describes his take on Joe Cooley's in the comments.
If I understood your post it is more about sussing out the chords than anything. Just listen to the tune.
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
@llig: Well, if they don't have relevance, how come loads of people seem to use them, even on this site? ;)
Seriously, I'm not trying to "solve" the music - just trying to figure out a way to balance keeping the traditional feel of a tune, with adding some harmony that can sometimes give a nice lift.
@Random_notes: that is a nice tune. I see what you mean about the ambiguous modulation. The juxtaposition of F and F# in part B is quite powerful. In this case, it seems that my initial attempt at backing avoids the issue by playing G (GBD triad) during the F bar, and a D5 (DA) during the F# bar in part B. For what it's worth, here's my initial attempt at backing
A: |Am|C|G|D|
|Am|C|G|Am|
B:|Am|G|D5|G|
|Am|C|G|Am|
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
I don't always feel that I can agree with llig, but I think I do in this case. You are trying to categorise something that was not originally written and tabulated, but felt and enjoyed. Unless you feel strongly that a particular phrase cries out for a major or a minor, there's a lot to be said for a power chord. On the other hand the occasional stating by chord of the progression you feel can be very powerful.
Tread carefully with your chords in this melodic tradition.
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Fair enough. How about the following question;
On another note, for the last few days I've had the beginning of a very happy reel in D singing in my head. Can't for the life of me find the name or the second part. Any ideas? The first part is something like...
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
@Guernsey Pete: It's precisely because I'm trying to tread carefully (or "thread carefully", as Gary might say ;), that I asked you guys if you had any suggestions.
I know a lot of you guys don't like the idea of harmonising in ITM, but in my experience, if it's done right, it can sometimes give a nice lift. For some reason, I tend to be drawn to the melancholic minor & dorian tunes, and I want to better harmonise with them, WHEN backing, but WITHOUT losing the traditional feel that draws me to it in the first place.
@sts: that's why I posted here! ;)
@llig: well, aside from taking up the fiddle (which is not a bad idea!), have you any specific advice for those of us who "fret"? ;)
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
llig: "The terms you are trying to shoehorn the music into do not have relevance."
ronan: "Well, if they don't have relevance, how come loads of people seem to use them, even on this site?"
I would question the assertion that they have *no relevance' to this music. For those that need (or want) things explained in words, the mode system, conveniently, accommodates *some* of Irish trad and be used to 'explain' it. But the thing to remember is that the mode system and Irish traditional music evolved independently from one another, and their compatibilities are merely incidental.
I am of the belief (don't ask for proof or justification - it's just a hunch) that music existed first, then people started to invent theories to explain it, not the other way round. Thus, the modes were conceived for the purpose of explaining the music of the Mediaeval Church. Whilst I do not know much about the relationship between early Christian music and Irish trad, I do know that if, indeed, they do have common origins, they have diverged to such a degree that whatever theory applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
I’m surprised no one has answered the original question. I’m certainly not the best qualified, but I’ll give it a shot.
You’re right to be confused, because it’s ambiguous and basically open to your interpretation. – sort of a “tree falls in the woods” question. Because I have background in Western classical music, if I hear something that sounds minor and there’s no 6th scale degree (no evidence of Dorian), I tend to assume it’s in minor because that’s more usual in the music I’m used to hearing. Someone with different training might assume differently, and we have no way of knowing who’s right (and might as well say we both are).
If the only 6th scale degree you have is one ornament, then likewise it’s very open to interpretation – it could just be a non-chord tone that doesn’t mean anything. Still, if the raised 6th keeps coming back, even as just an ornament, I would think probably Dorian. Also, if you have the raised 7th (harmonic minor), it’s probably not Dorian and is harmonic minor instead, based on my (admittedly limited) experience.
Analysis aside, your ears are probably the best indicator if you're unsure. Joe Cooley's, for example, doesn't really sound minor to me, which makes me think Dorian even though it's only got the one C#.
To your other question, I think pentatonic and hexatonic can’t “really” be said to have a mode, but they can sound minor or major depending on what pitches they contain. You can harmonize them as what they sound like.
Basically: if it’s not clear, you get to pick what to call it, and it doesn’t matter much anyway.
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
I like to know these things, so I hum or play triplets or runs of notes that bridge the C or C# area of the tune. If I instinctively include a C#, its a Dorian tune; if a C natural, it's an Aeolian ("Minor") one. I trust my instincts and taste in this, fondly believing them to be inerrant and impeccable.
The idea that the structure of Irish tunes is actually a quaking jelly of ambiguity and flux is rather too advanced and disturbing for me to embrace, at least for the time being. My musical universe rests upon the Four Modes Of Trad even as the Discworld rests securely on the Four Giant Elephants that stand on Great A'Tuin the Turtle. To deconstruct them would lead to cosmic ruin and my discomfiture.
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
They did; they overran the Mycenaeans (whose life and times may well be reflected in the epics of Homer) and begat the Spartans, as well as other populations in Greece. They seem to have left Athens alone, as well as existing Greek centres in the Aegean islands and Asia Minor. These were accordingly snooty about the Dorians, and made reasonable claims to be more civilised as well as longer in the land.
I read that *our* Dorian Mode is not the same as what the Greeks called the Dorian Mode; I have forgotten the characteristics of the latter, if I ever knew them.
(Mycenaeans, Dorians and Ionians - Athenian / Aegean / Asia Minor Greeks - all count as Greeks, btw.)
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
I wish I could answer the original question, but play by ear, I do know it is a serious question and don't mean to make light of it, but also wonder when something is technically "right" but can sound oh so wrong somehow. You may do well to ask a good piano backer this question too, one with technical training who has studied theory.
The real question is does it sound right for the tune? Maybe I am a backwards unschooled ear player, and don't have time while playing to think about these things, modes etc. and what may or may not belong there technically... but rather, does what you are doing suit the particular tune you are playing along with?
G.Pete.... you got it.... backup/accompaniment is not written or tabulated, thus can be confusing for those wanting a formula to back tunes. It is why it is so hard to teach someone good accompaniment. I could teach someone a complex fingerstyle guitar tune a whole lot easier than teaching good backing. Really, the best way to learn to back a tune is to learn to play the melody first for that reason. That way one can work their chording or noting around the parts of the melody and hear what fits. A backer should know the tunes as well as the melody player ideally, or at least get familiar with the structure of all the types of tunes and listen really hard to where the tune goes. That's not your question though....!
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Thanks to the last few posters for actually trying to answer my question!
Iris, I suppose I'm one of those musicians who actually finds the theoretical aspects quicker to grasp than the (probably more important!) aspect of "playing by ear", which for me requires a LOT more time (practising & listening). :( It's an enjoyable struggle though!!
IMHO, it seems that they are both useful skills - though the latter is the essential one! ;)
Unfortunately, the problem with asking "one with technical training..." about this, is that modal music doesn't seem to be well-known outside of specialist circles! Most musicologists I've talked to, have been trained in terms of "Western classical" music, and consider modes to be a specialist obscure subject.
I remember hearing about an English musicologist who started studying the "native Irish music" (I think it was late 19th century), and was completely stumped that these "uneducated" locals were using modal music, when he didn't start studying modes until his final years of study!
Ragaman, from my own understanding of music history (please correct me if you've heard differently), I get the feeling that the modal feel of ITM actually MAY be more than coincidental.
It's possible that the ancestor of ITM was around at the same time as the early monastic music (which was definitely modal). Considering the importance of the Irish monastries (before Henry VIII), it's even possible that the monastries took their music from the local "folk" music as a basis or vice versa.
Unfortunately, because ITM is an oral tradition, it may be impossible to know how close that music was to today's ITM.
But we do know that on the continent, popular musicians started abandoning all bar two of the modes, and developing them into the major & minor keys, perhaps introducing harmonic concepts to replace the loss of these modes (???)
My hunch is that, if musicologists were inventing theories to explain ITM, they'd have picked a less "obscure" form than modes! I think it's more likely that there is still (at least) part of ITM that is much older than the attempts to "write it down" of e.g., O'Neill! Which is pretty cool, I think!
Also, the fact that these people who transcribe ITM using key signatures that indicate modes like Dorian & Mixylodian, rather than just including a couple of accidentals, suggests to me that they felt it was a more "appropriate" mode. That's what prompted my question. Why did/do they feel it is more appropriate (particularly the ones who were around pre-20th century)?
When I'm backing, I can (& do) try, of course, to make sure that my backing "sounds right". But, I've grown up exposed to "Western" pop music, etc, so there is the danger that I may accidentally "westernise" the music, which would be a shame. :( That's why I want to try & understand this theoretical aspect...
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Ok, that was a LONG (& probably very boring!) reply! ;) Sorry - I have a tendency to ramble!!! :(
P.S. Why do we still call it "Western" music, when surely Ireland is to the west of Europe! ;)
P.P.S. On a different note, I've been reading a bit of ancient history the last few years, and recently found out that the word "barbarian" was coined by the ancient Greeks to describe those "foreign people that nobody can understand cause they just seemed to be saying 'bar bar bar' all the time"!
Hence "bar bar-ian", as opposed to Athenian, Dorian, etc.!
P.P.P.S. If a tree falls in the woods, but there's nobody there to hear it,
... do the other trees laugh at him? ;)
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
-ronan- you have a bit of catching up if you think that's rambling.
I had some thoughts to add. But fortunately I found a related thread. It rambles. Dow deserves credit for his endless posting of (pentatonic) tune links .
Will has an interesting take on Martin & Dennis' playing.
Cheers;
This is of vital interest to me ... anyone else? Or I am just sad ... ?
June 4th 2007 by benhall.1
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Random_notes, thanks. there's some interesting comments in that thread (& indeed one or two pentatonic tunes!!!).
Some ideas to consider... and again the realisation that ITM seems to be one of those things were you can be both wrong & right at the exact same time! I suppose the trick is to make sure, whether you're "wrong" or "right", that the music you're playing should at least sound good!
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
"you're playing should at least sound good!" I think that's a pretty meaningless thing to say. Sound good to who? Yourself? The Glyndebourne Opera society? The Comhaltas judging committees? Your dad?
There's a thing about modes that often comes up where people express a preference for tunes in what they refer to as the darker, more mysterious sounding modes. These are merely people who are unfamiliar with the music.
You have to get yourself away from hearing the music as unfamiliar in order to appreciate it for what it is
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
There are several good points here;
1) modes are a system of classification invented so that 'trained' musicians could explain how people sing and play naturally.
2) classically trained musicians have had this natural ability taught out of them, which is why they don't understand modes.
3) The more you play, the less you'll realize you understand, and the better you'll sound.
PS I can't remember what happened to the 5th elephant. Somebody remind me, please ?
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
So you're saying, I should listen to the darker tunes enough so that I become "familiar" with them and then I can "not prefer them"? Yay!!! :(
...Nah, I think I'll stick to actually "liking" tunes for now, but thanks for the suggestion, llig! ;)
As to your question, well, I would be quite happy if all your suggestions felt my playing sounded good (especially "myself"). But, I was going more along the lines of, if you're playing in a session, that the music shouldn't begin to sound better once you STOP playing! ;)
That's one of the reasons I practice, at any rate... The other main reason is for my own enjoyment...
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
-ronan- there have been some discussions with people saying they are attracted to the haunting, or alien, or mysterious sound of traditional music. But it's all right there for in the tune(s). Some of that "mystery" gets imposed on Irish music.
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Sorry Ronan, I meant an Irish piano backup player who is really good. I have learned so much more about accompaniment by listening to great piano players than by listening to most guitar players. May be personal preference, but I am fascinated by them, and all of the really good ones know the melody too, or can pick it up in a flash. That's what I was getting at. Think Charlie Lennon, Felix Dolan. Patsy Broderick (Arcady) floored me in the Catskills last summer, I had to stop playing and just listen and absorb. They understand the tune from two different angles at the same time, melody and backing.
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
My suggestion is merely not to like tunes just because they sound exotic. If the music sounds exotic to you, you won't be able to play it. You will only be able to play it when it is not alien to you. For example, there are many tunes that float about with an A root that specifically use notes in between C and C# and notes in between E, F and F#. If this sounds "out of tune" to you, or your instrument is incapable of these notes, you're best hope is to either "westernise" them, or avoid them all together.
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
"...there are many tunes that float about with an A root that specifically use notes in between C and C# and notes in between E, F and F#. If this sounds "out of tune" to you, or your instrument is incapable of these notes, you're best hope is to either "westernise" them, or avoid them all together."
I more or less agree with llig here. Instruments that are capable of subtle shifts of intonation in both directions are difficult for a guitar to back if one is concerned with "perfect" pitch. But, being a guitar player, I think being able to go along with a more "wet" intonation overall can often make the sound more interesting. "Westernising" or "avoiding" is just gibberish.
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
GW if I understand properly what you are saying, I'd have to politely debate the point....A guitar, used for backing, can certainly and quite easily adapt to these subtle changes from notes like C to C# or F to F# etc. And also one can subtly change intonation if need be. A really good guitar also can be capable of great sustain and can hold notes along with the melody as well. One can also slide into a note, along with the melody player if done right... not with the same impact or effect or volume as fiddle or flute, but it can be there with them when needed, right in time, held, then jump back onto the tune whether with a chord or note, right with the melody player.
What most guitar backers don't seem to grasp is that it doesn't have to be all chords all the time. Think piano again. They do chords AND notes, and partial melody, which includes these subtle shifts. Alec Finn does it on bouzouki. There are notes on guitar, not only chords and they can easily fit into the backing with a little work. What the pianists do can be adapted to guitar. They keep the backing closer to the melody, not just hitting chords and changing them every handful of notes in the melody, and tend to catch way more of these beautiful subtle shifts.
Shall try to convey this in words, easier to show someone though. For example, you are backing a tune in D major, basically, if one were to consider the three basic chords, D, G and A... many tunes in this key, I can hear them do a subtle shift from the G to F# back and forth in the melody line, where most backers will just keep strumming the G chord. Or the notes may progress down from G to F# and then you hit the A chord. You can note that F# subtly and quickly en route from the G chord down to the A chord. Sort of "walk" it as some say. This is different from a walking baseline though, we're taking subtle and fleeting shifts. When I am on that place where a G chord usually is in the key of D major, I will just shift the notes back and forth, G to F# rocking back and forth between them, when the melody does it for a few moments, rather than just chord a G all through the part. It's real subtle, barely noticeable, but changes the effect. Maybe I suffer from focusing on too much detail and get a bit obsessive, but it really brings the music right into my heart on a deep level somehow.
I fingerpick, but a flatpicker or crosspicker like Donal Clancy, can also momentarily step out of the strumming of the G chord and do this little subtle noting thing. It's just this little undercurrent wave thing that is incredibly beautiful when it momentarily joins with the melody, and can change the dynamic of the backing, It makes things a little more fluid and graceful to my ear anyway. Point is, it can be done and it's not so difficult once someone practices it a bit.
In playing with Alan Morrisroe (Old style melodeon player) he does a lot in the key of D (or in the D configurations on a differently tuned box), and there is a lot of C sharping en route to where the G chord should be. I really had never heard much of that, but the way he plays, a very archaic style, which could also be dictated by the way the melodeon is laid out, it happens very often. That C# is just so beautiful coming up from the D to the G that I feel compelled to catch it and merge with it for a second. And it is really pretty easy once you get the knack of doing it. Just like anything else, takes some practice, but how I would hate to cover up that C# ...it just should have attention drawn to it, it is beyond beautiful to my ear, and if one steps out of the chord box to hit it en route, it can really bring it out.
OK...sorry... wrote too much as usual. Help! need an editor, likely said the same thing in 10 different ways! Just hope it makes sense in words rather than visual example.
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
"A guitar, used for backing, can certainly and quite easily adapt to these subtle changes from notes like C to C# or F to F# etc."
Yes, but that's assuming everyone is always playing precise pitches throughout a tune. I play in a band with 4 horns. The horns key off each other. If the lead horn plays a slightly flat note in a stack the other horn are going to intonate accordingly. If the stack or melody line is even slightly flat, the chord I'm playing will sound out of tune, even though I'm not. That's what I meant by getting used to a "wet" sound. In a session, if the melody players are listening to each other they are going to play to the consensus pitch, which might not be a precise C or C# or whatever. When that happens the guitar will sound out. Subtle shades of sharpening a chord can be fairly easily done on guitar by slight bends, but flattening is tough--especially when playing "on the fly."
But maybe we have a different take the "exotic" sound
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
That's why box players can have an urge to dominate - it's to bring these arty strings types back into line, before the music completely unravels...innit?!
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
First of all, thanks to the people contributing to the discussion. I'm trying to learn more, otherwise I wouldn't have posted the thread, so even if I may disagree with some of the comments, I still appreciate them!
With that in mind, as to liking the dark sounds of the minor & dorian modes, I'm not actually sure what's wrong with that. Ok, I think you're suggesting something along the lines of "the other stuff is good too...". I never said it wasn't. In fact, I said I was drawn to dorian AND minor sounding tunes. If the reason I like these was because I'm "unfamiliar" with the modal sound, and so find it "exotic", and THAT's why I like it, then surely I would find the minor sound rubbish?
Frankly, if I was only interested in the dorian mode, then I don't think I would have become interested in ITM. Come to think of it, if what you suggest is true, surely I would only prefer dorian and mixylodian tunes! As it happens, I love tunes from all 4 modes.
But, are you saying you don't have any favourite tunes yourself? 'Cos if so, I actually find that kind of sad...
Iris, to be honest, personally I never really liked pianos backing ITM (it sounded kind of "plinky plonk" to me), even though I love the piano as an instrument. BUT, having said that I used to hate the sound of the banjo, but after hearing some great banjo players, I've since gotten to appreciate them (still prefer fiddle & flute though). So, maybe I will give my Arcady CDs another listen, and check out some of those other players you mentioned.
Seriously, thanks for the suggestion - I WILL give them another listen.
On accessing the notes between C & C#, & F & F#:
I also am learning how to play blues slide guitar, and when you use a slide, the guitar suddenly becomes a fretless instrument! It's quite fascinating to play (as a guitarist), and when you try to reproduce the sound of the early 20th century "bottleneck" players, you frequently have to get a note just right there between two frets - difficult, but when you get it: wow! Interestingly, many of the best players of this style were blind, and I actually find it sometimes easier to get those notes when I close my eyes.
So, I do appreciate the ideas of in-between notes, and also of "just listening"!
However, again to Iris, you have some interesting thoughts there, that I might try & incorporate into my playing. But, I will point out that whenever I flatpick a tune on my guitar, if it's at all noisy, and they want to hear me, people either a) stop playing and leave me to play solo (intensely scary!), or b) crane their neck to hear me. If it's a quiet session (4 or 5 players, and no e.g., boxes, pipes(!), or banjos), then I can sometimes get away with joining in, but mostly it's easier to stick to backing with chords. I still like learning to flatpick the tunes (it helps me understand the tunes better, and it's nice to play along when you do get that quiet session).
What I'm getting at is that perhaps the piano is a bit louder & able to switch between chords and melody a bit more. At the moment, I am trying to teach myself a hybrid of fingerpicking & flatpicking, which actually does have some of these ideas, but as with all of these things, it requires patience & practice, and I'll need a lot more, before I can use that approach in a session! :(
As to the value (or lack thereof) of theory in ITM, there have been some interesting comments here. I just want to give some of my own thoughts on the matter here:
1. Probably, theory is really only of "use" in ITM to a) composers who want to keep the traditional feel, b) people trying to harmonise with this (mostly) melodic music & c) people trying to preserve the music in written form. I would be in the second category.
I don't think that knowing theory is a bad thing for other people, but I agree that it's not at all necessary, especially if you learn & play "by ear" (which some people find easy, while others, like myself, have to work at it! :( )
2. The fact that this is an online community, suggests to me that none of you actually think that written communication is a bad thing, especially when it's used to supplement additional forms of communication (and if you do, what are you doing on-line???).
So, I think/hope that what bugs a lot of you, is not that some people use written forms of communication to learn, but that some people use ONLY written forms!
If so, I agree with you, particularly for an oral tradition like this one. But, without any attempt at recording knowledge, a lot of this knowledge CAN become lost, and I don't like that.
Somebody said earlier that the Greek Dorian music was different from ours, but he didn't remember how. As far as I recall from my ancient history, we currently have managed to find some written ideas of music theory, and we can re-construct SOME of the instruments they used, but we are missing the actual notes and scales (or whatever) that they actually played, because the only records we've so far found, didn't bother to mention those "trivial" details. It's kind of like if somebody wrote down that some ideas in terms of "do re me", but neglected to mention anywhere what "do re me" actually meant. :(
I mentioned earlier, how I have a hunch that at least some of modern ITM harks back to at least the time of the Irish monastries, but because it's purely oral, we have no way of knowing exactly how much of it does.
3. Some of you have suggested that theory is an abstract notion that has been imposed onto this music, and so any overlap is coincidental, or something, and shouldn't be taken seriously or whatever. This might have some truth, but I have some serious problems with it.
Ok. first of all, bearing in mind my previous point (that it's difficult to know how much of an oral tradition has been preserved, and how much has gotten distorted over the generations), how far back do you want to class ITM as traditional?
For instance, I think bands like The Bothy Band actually broke quite a few traditions at the time, but because they were really good, modern ITM does seem to have absorbed a lot of these (what used to be) new ideas and for many people they seem to have BECOME part of the tradition!
Maybe this is bad, or maybe it's good, or maybe it's neither! But, what I'm getting at is that, without written records, it's impossible to know how many e.g., 17th century Bothy Band equivalents(!) have reinvented the music over the years. At the time they may have seemed like upstarts ("oh that young Carolan, who does he think he is?"), but maybe their ideas became absorbed into the music, and later generations forgot all the hullaballoo, but instead started complaining about the "new" upstarts!!!
Now, I don't have a copy of O'Neills to hand (& I'm not saying O'Neills is the be all & end all, it's just the oldest ITM that I've looked at), but as far as I remember, many of the tunes used key signatures that indicated that the transcribers felt the tunes were modal. It's important to realise that outside of ITM and jazz circles, most theoreticians consider modes to be an obscure notion - a lot of people in ITM too, it seems ;). So, my feeling is that in the 19th century (before Jazz had been invented), modes were even more obscure, and that it would have been MUCH easier to transcribe the music as major or minor, and include a few "accidentals"!
So, I think that the transcribers had to go out of their way to describe the music of the time (which is not necessarily what we currently describe as "traditional"!) as being modal, which suggests that they were making an effort to do that, and if we want to consider our music as traditional, we should combine what little written knowledge that we have of this 19th century oral "traditional" with our current 21st century oral "traditional" music.
Ok... looks like I beat Iris in writing too much! ;)
Random_notes, NOW am I rambling? ;)
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
To me, understanding the difference between E minor and E dorian has been an important part of my development as an accompanist. Many novices, especially those who (like I did) come to the music with a standard tuned guitar from other musical traditions, make everything minor, and for example, throw C major chords throughout any tune where E minor and D major are the two dominant chords. This works well for minor tunes, works somewhat for tunes were the C is absent and mode not explicit, but doesn't work for the true dorian tunes where the C sharp is present.
In recognition of this, I use that C (or 6 chord) a lot more sparingly these days.
The key, as llig would remind us, is to learn the tunes themselves rather than approach accompaniment as something where you don't really have to know the specific tune.
For myself, I tend to find that E minor tunes tend to lead well into a G major tune, while E dorian tunes tend to lead well into a D major . So, if you are an ear player, unsure what you are dealing with, tack another tune on after the tune in question, and it should help you figure out what mode you are dealing with.
As always, thanks iris for your fine, thoughtful contributions to the thread.
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Ronan... i am relieved that you win the writing too much prize! Good thoughts though. I think my comments more related to one on one playing with a melody player and accompanist. A group can be a different dynamic....sometimes it's really hard to pick who to listen to and be with more closely.
Pianos don't have to be overwhelming but can be. I was more fascinated by them from a technical standpoint, they opened up a whole new world for me. Sort of two dimensional backing. I like what Martin Carthy does a lot, he does that two dimensional thing on his backing.
Thanks Al... I do think to much. I could show someone what I mean in person in about three minutes. I do think it is so hard to convey how to accompany to anyone, even in person. You can teach them the right chords easy enough, but how to teach the subtleties... to be 110% focused on the melody player and where they are headed, what surprise notes they will stress, getting it about their phrasing. I really think the best way is to learn the basics and go home with CDs and practice constantly for a long time. Learning the tunes, yes, learning the repeating patterns and structures, yes.... but play with lots of different great players on CD, all who have different phrasing and styles. Learn to adapt to many, it's fun too, with the right motivation. Too often people pick up the guitar thinking they just want to be part of the session music, but don't really have a deep passion for the music, it may be a social thing, who knows. It doesn't have to get complicated either, even a 2-3 chord player who had good timing, stays in tune and plays the right 2-3 chords can be fine...you can tell the ones who really make a study of the music, whether simple or complex.
I come from initially a tune playing background on guitar and still have that mentality, I would get bored to tears strumming a few chords. Others prefer a simpler apporach, and that works too. My playing is too busy for some who just want a few strummed chords behind them, that's OK. Styles are a whole other discussion, but there is room for many as long as they suit the music. And the music will go on with or without backers, and I wish some who only back would try some melody playing too, on anything, it's a real joy, and would also increase greatly their understanding of how to accompany.
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
I'm gonna have to spell this out, 'cause it seems a lot of people have completely missed it:
The discussion about the merits of E minor and E dorian with regards to C or C# completely disregards the use of the notes that exists between C and C#.
It's like the dominance of animal classification that divides mammals and reptiles ... and conveniently sweeps the echidna and the platypus under the carpet.
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Mulling recently over the musical history of England since about 1600 - such as I know of it, which isn't frankly a lot - I was struck by how plainly the music divides between a majority Classical-based stream and a decidedly minority trad / modal stream, which hardly seem to touch. (Black and other significant musics only really came in round the end of this time.)
The trad music was associated with people who were marginalised - by choice (rake aristocrats), by remote occupations (sailors), by being a de facto underclass or seen as obstacles to progress (Gaelic peasantry in both Ireland and Scotland) - and so on. Not only that, but the music itself had a stigma. There is no doubt that it was the rock-and-roll of the past, with all that implied - though Baroque could be a player here too. It could also fire large numbers of people up - the Jacobites lost their wars but I'm sure they generated the best incidental music. I think the majority population had something of a horror of it because of these characteristics, and also simply found it archaic, uncouth, "hick music". Plenty of people in Ireland seem to have done so till now, after all. Microtonal or idiosyncratic tunings might have been anathema to musicians intent on standardising keys, getting even-tempered keyboards and the like, in order to create a universally-accepted musical language in which to create and transmit works that could be unpackaged and played anywhere in the Europeanised world with a minimum of misunderstanding. The Classical scales and chromaticism lent themselves to the exploration of a huge range of musical avenues and to extended, developing works: diatonic modal music as far as I know does not (though I should check out Renaissance choral stuff, and see if at least some of it isn't diatonic...).
So I think the modes were dumped and regarded as obsolete by mainstream musicians born after they were commonly heard - and in Catholic times, they would have been heard in church. An association with Catholicism may well have clung to them. Catholic music and art were key targets of the Puritans and aspiring musicians for some time might have risked actual danger, not just disapproval, by playing with them, both in Cromwell's Republic and in subsequent emergencies.
Eventually Vaughan Williams created extended music that respected the characteristics of trad, either starting from a trad tune ("Five Variants On 'Dives And Lazarus'") or creating original music ("The Lark Ascending"). But it had taken some 300 years for trad to get thoroughgoing treatment by a major Classical composer who understood it. I'm tempted to say "VW hybridised the two traditions" - but don't know for sure if this is the case: I must listen again, and notice how much or how little actual Classical element there is in these VW pieces.
In summary, I suspect that the modes were deliberately forgotten - maybe actiually banned - after Catholic church music was junked, and that England and its rulers bought into Continental Classical music very extensively. Only towards the end of this period were the modes seen as agreeable and intriguing, and brought out again.
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Hey Llig: Thank you for pointing that out, repeatedly! I suspected as much, and as someone that wants to be a good backer, we really need to understand these things. At one of my first sessions, I had to ask the flute player sitting next to me if the notes were "C" or "C#" in what I believe was "The Old Bush". He seemed impressed that a guitar player would even be concerned with that sort of detail...but I'd rather sit it out than do it wrong.
Do these "in-between" notes come from the old pipe tunes?
Thanks again, all; this is definitely a discussion that I need to bookmark.
Tom
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
llig, I am very interested in hearing what you have to say about these in-between notes. As I mentioned, blues music also uses very similar in-between notes, which can be sublime in the right place. I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on this.
Do you find many people still playing them? Is it intentional, instinctive, or accidental? Have you any suggestions on recordings you hear it in, or do you just here it in local sessions?
Is it something that gets lost when using fretted or buttoned instruments?
Do you feel that minor tunes also have this ambiguity, or is it just dorian (and what about mix & major?)?
If dorian C#s do have a distinction from an accidental C# in a minor key, it could explain why those transcribers were so adamant about the key signature...
Nicholas, interesting ideas - thanks for them.
I think that for whatever reason, Irish folk music (& English/Scottish too) does seem to have been somehow "isolated" from the continental classical music that seems to have swept through history. (Good thing too, eh?)
I think that's the most reasonable explanation for how we kept the modal feel (and I think we did "keep" this, rather than it being an coincidental similarity to monastic music). Your ideas do seem to fit with this.
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Good point llig, the beauty of so many of these tunes is that they don't neatly fit into any particular category, there is a wildness and unpredictability which is big part of what makes them so much fun to play,,,,,
If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
This is one of those things were I THOUGHT I understood something, until I tried to explain it to someone else! ;)
As a backer, I was trying to explain how I worked out appropriate chords to a fellow backer. I was explaining how for a given key signature, there are only six triad chords (1,3,5 triads that is) that are in "key" (I realise that this is only from a classical "Western" harmony theory point of view, and that ITM is a melody-based, not harmony-based music, but please bear with me!).
Eg., in the key of D (and Edor, Amix, Bmin), the only 1,3,5 triad chords that don't have a clash are:
D, Em, F#m, G, A and Bm.
whereas, in the key of G (and Ador, Dmix, Emin), the only ones that don't clash are:
G, Am, Bm, C, D and Em.
I then was explaining that actually most of the "minor" tunes in ITM, are actually dorian (I'd heard this a couple of times, and it seemed true to me, at the time).
I was explaining that there wasn't much difference between Edorian and Eminor (for instance), BUT in E dorian, the C's are sharpened, while in E minor, the C's are natural. This means that playing a C chord in Edorian COULD cause a clash, while playing in Eminor, you could cause a clash with F#m.
Unfortunately, then I tried to back up this explanation with some examples!!!
The first two "E dorian" tunes I looked at (Killavil Jig & Contentment Is Wealth) didn't have either a C# OR C (in the versions I had)!
Then I finally found two "E dorian tunes" that had a C# (Joe Cooley's Reel & The Leitrim), but they only had ONE each!
An "E minor" tune (Kid on the Mountain) that only had ONE C, and then the version of The Tap Room I found on thesession which has both C & C#'s.
If there's only one occurrence of a sharp or natural in a tune (especially when it's a passing note), is it realistic to call it "dorian" instead of "minor" or vice versa, especially when there are so many variations on most tunes? If so, should you keep ornamentation in that "key" because of that one occurrence? Or if you're backing/harmonising, should you emphasise that distinguishing note (C# or C), or avoid emphasising it to keep a bit of ambiguity?
To be honest, I don't really use C and F#m chords much when backing the given tunes, and ITM isn't a harmonic music anyway, so perhaps it's a moot point, but from a theory point of view, it's gotten me a bit confused. :(
Sorry about the long, rambling question! ;)
By the way, Merry Christmas! (or Happy Holidays, if you're in one of those PC countries that can't say "Christmas"! ;) ),
Ronan
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by -ronan-
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
You can play a power chord.
Instead of the triad.
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by Random_notes
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
lol
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by Fishmonger
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Some melodies are pentatonic.
Backers, & many melody players, have an urge fill in harmonies.
In one sense you add something (chromatic harmony).
In another sense you may obscure the simplicity of the tune.
On the other hand many tunes, or different versions, modulate.
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by Random_notes
A dorian tune?
Just try the melody 1st;
I like this but it probably is not typically played in session;
"The Irish waltz"
http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display/561February 23rd 2002 by Redbird.
I'd say it is ambiguous, or modulates. But listen to the tune & then try your harmony. Just don't put all your stock in theory . . . or securitization.
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by Random_notes
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Oh, I actually agree about power chords. In fact when I'm backing, I probably play D5 chords more frequently than Dmaj (or Dmin) chords, cause they have a nice droning and ambiguous sound.
And for most dorian tunes (particularly the "pentatonic" melodies you refer to), I find my backing mostly revolves around 2 chords (Em & D for E dorian/minor, and Am & G for A dorian/minor).
But, the triad chords often give a fuller sound than diad chords.
As you say, many backers & melody players (myself included) have an urge to fill in the harmonies. I'm not saying this is a bad OR a good thing. I understand that sometimes it's nice, but sometimes it can clutter things.
What, I'm asking is, should we use terms like "dorian" or "minor" to describe the "pentatonic" (or "hexatonic") melodies?
And should we restrict ourselves to those penta/hexatonic scales when embellishing or harmonising?
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by -ronan-
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Just saw your "Irish waltz" comment after posting my last comment. Will check it out now...
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by -ronan-
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
ronan. It's good that you are confused. Keep that feeling. Don't think you can "solve" the music. The terms you are trying to shoehorn the music into do not have relevance.
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Thanks for mentioning "Kid on the Mountain"
Ceolachan had some good comments. Including a 6th part I hadn't heard. For that matter the 5th part is different from how I play. & he gives a link to an Andy McGann recording.
Mad Baloney describes his take on Joe Cooley's in the comments.
If I understood your post it is more about sussing out the chords than anything. Just listen to the tune.
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by Random_notes
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
@llig: Well, if they don't have relevance, how come loads of people seem to use them, even on this site? ;)
Seriously, I'm not trying to "solve" the music - just trying to figure out a way to balance keeping the traditional feel of a tune, with adding some harmony that can sometimes give a nice lift.
@Random_notes: that is a nice tune. I see what you mean about the ambiguous modulation. The juxtaposition of F and F# in part B is quite powerful. In this case, it seems that my initial attempt at backing avoids the issue by playing G (GBD triad) during the F bar, and a D5 (DA) during the F# bar in part B. For what it's worth, here's my initial attempt at backing
A: |Am|C|G|D|
|Am|C|G|Am|
B:|Am|G|D5|G|
|Am|C|G|Am|
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by -ronan-
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
I don't always feel that I can agree with llig, but I think I do in this case. You are trying to categorise something that was not originally written and tabulated, but felt and enjoyed. Unless you feel strongly that a particular phrase cries out for a major or a minor, there's a lot to be said for a power chord. On the other hand the occasional stating by chord of the progression you feel can be very powerful.
Tread carefully with your chords in this melodic tradition.
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by Guernsey Pete
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
ronan you got me on those chords.
I am not a backer so I will have to defer to someone who plays chords. Glad you like the waltz.
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by Random_notes
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Power chords are great, but try to avoid those power cords. But that's a whole other thread. (All puns intentional.)
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by GaryAMartin
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
The question made my bum fall off with laughter. But wf cares?
Merry St Stephen's Day.
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by Pomme de Terre
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Fair enough. How about the following question;
On another note, for the last few days I've had the beginning of a very happy reel in D singing in my head. Can't for the life of me find the name or the second part. Any ideas? The first part is something like...
dB|AF3 G2FE|DFAd fgfe|dB3 gBdB|AFDF E2dB|AF3 G2FE|DFAd fgfe|dB3 AFDF|EDCE D2:|
# Posted on December 24th 2008 by fiddleK
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by Random_notes
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Along the lines of what llig said, I find that:
The more I learn about Irish traditional music
the more I find
that I have more to learn
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by sts
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Yes.
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by Blarney_25
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
It's always fretted or button instrument players, and generally people who like to write tunes down. who fret about a C or C#.
The fiddle, flutes and pipes know the subtlety of the in between
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
@Guernsey Pete: It's precisely because I'm trying to tread carefully (or "thread carefully", as Gary might say ;), that I asked you guys if you had any suggestions.
I know a lot of you guys don't like the idea of harmonising in ITM, but in my experience, if it's done right, it can sometimes give a nice lift. For some reason, I tend to be drawn to the melancholic minor & dorian tunes, and I want to better harmonise with them, WHEN backing, but WITHOUT losing the traditional feel that draws me to it in the first place.
@sts: that's why I posted here! ;)
@llig: well, aside from taking up the fiddle (which is not a bad idea!), have you any specific advice for those of us who "fret"? ;)
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by -ronan-
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
llig: "The terms you are trying to shoehorn the music into do not have relevance."
ronan: "Well, if they don't have relevance, how come loads of people seem to use them, even on this site?"
I would question the assertion that they have *no relevance' to this music. For those that need (or want) things explained in words, the mode system, conveniently, accommodates *some* of Irish trad and be used to 'explain' it. But the thing to remember is that the mode system and Irish traditional music evolved independently from one another, and their compatibilities are merely incidental.
I am of the belief (don't ask for proof or justification - it's just a hunch) that music existed first, then people started to invent theories to explain it, not the other way round. Thus, the modes were conceived for the purpose of explaining the music of the Mediaeval Church. Whilst I do not know much about the relationship between early Christian music and Irish trad, I do know that if, indeed, they do have common origins, they have diverged to such a degree that whatever theory applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by OrganicPeatCreature
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
I’m surprised no one has answered the original question. I’m certainly not the best qualified, but I’ll give it a shot.
You’re right to be confused, because it’s ambiguous and basically open to your interpretation. – sort of a “tree falls in the woods” question. Because I have background in Western classical music, if I hear something that sounds minor and there’s no 6th scale degree (no evidence of Dorian), I tend to assume it’s in minor because that’s more usual in the music I’m used to hearing. Someone with different training might assume differently, and we have no way of knowing who’s right (and might as well say we both are).
If the only 6th scale degree you have is one ornament, then likewise it’s very open to interpretation – it could just be a non-chord tone that doesn’t mean anything. Still, if the raised 6th keeps coming back, even as just an ornament, I would think probably Dorian. Also, if you have the raised 7th (harmonic minor), it’s probably not Dorian and is harmonic minor instead, based on my (admittedly limited) experience.
Analysis aside, your ears are probably the best indicator if you're unsure. Joe Cooley's, for example, doesn't really sound minor to me, which makes me think Dorian even though it's only got the one C#.
To your other question, I think pentatonic and hexatonic can’t “really” be said to have a mode, but they can sound minor or major depending on what pitches they contain. You can harmonize them as what they sound like.
Basically: if it’s not clear, you get to pick what to call it, and it doesn’t matter much anyway.
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by Falls
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
I like to know these things, so I hum or play triplets or runs of notes that bridge the C or C# area of the tune. If I instinctively include a C#, its a Dorian tune; if a C natural, it's an Aeolian ("Minor") one. I trust my instincts and taste in this, fondly believing them to be inerrant and impeccable.
The idea that the structure of Irish tunes is actually a quaking jelly of ambiguity and flux is rather too advanced and disturbing for me to embrace, at least for the time being. My musical universe rests upon the Four Modes Of Trad even as the Discworld rests securely on the Four Giant Elephants that stand on Great A'Tuin the Turtle. To deconstruct them would lead to cosmic ruin and my discomfiture.
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by nicholas
Is it still Dorian?
Some say the Dorians led to the dark ages in Greece,
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by Random_notes
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
They did; they overran the Mycenaeans (whose life and times may well be reflected in the epics of Homer) and begat the Spartans, as well as other populations in Greece. They seem to have left Athens alone, as well as existing Greek centres in the Aegean islands and Asia Minor. These were accordingly snooty about the Dorians, and made reasonable claims to be more civilised as well as longer in the land.
I read that *our* Dorian Mode is not the same as what the Greeks called the Dorian Mode; I have forgotten the characteristics of the latter, if I ever knew them.
(Mycenaeans, Dorians and Ionians - Athenian / Aegean / Asia Minor Greeks - all count as Greeks, btw.)
# Posted on December 27th 2008 by nicholas
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
nicholas, kick those bloody elephants off that bloody turtle.
# Posted on December 28th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
I wish I could answer the original question, but play by ear, I do know it is a serious question and don't mean to make light of it, but also wonder when something is technically "right" but can sound oh so wrong somehow. You may do well to ask a good piano backer this question too, one with technical training who has studied theory.
The real question is does it sound right for the tune? Maybe I am a backwards unschooled ear player, and don't have time while playing to think about these things, modes etc. and what may or may not belong there technically... but rather, does what you are doing suit the particular tune you are playing along with?
G.Pete.... you got it.... backup/accompaniment is not written or tabulated, thus can be confusing for those wanting a formula to back tunes. It is why it is so hard to teach someone good accompaniment. I could teach someone a complex fingerstyle guitar tune a whole lot easier than teaching good backing. Really, the best way to learn to back a tune is to learn to play the melody first for that reason. That way one can work their chording or noting around the parts of the melody and hear what fits. A backer should know the tunes as well as the melody player ideally, or at least get familiar with the structure of all the types of tunes and listen really hard to where the tune goes. That's not your question though....!
# Posted on December 28th 2008 by irisnevins
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Thanks to the last few posters for actually trying to answer my question!
Iris, I suppose I'm one of those musicians who actually finds the theoretical aspects quicker to grasp than the (probably more important!) aspect of "playing by ear", which for me requires a LOT more time (practising & listening). :( It's an enjoyable struggle though!!
IMHO, it seems that they are both useful skills - though the latter is the essential one! ;)
Unfortunately, the problem with asking "one with technical training..." about this, is that modal music doesn't seem to be well-known outside of specialist circles! Most musicologists I've talked to, have been trained in terms of "Western classical" music, and consider modes to be a specialist obscure subject.
I remember hearing about an English musicologist who started studying the "native Irish music" (I think it was late 19th century), and was completely stumped that these "uneducated" locals were using modal music, when he didn't start studying modes until his final years of study!
Ragaman, from my own understanding of music history (please correct me if you've heard differently), I get the feeling that the modal feel of ITM actually MAY be more than coincidental.
It's possible that the ancestor of ITM was around at the same time as the early monastic music (which was definitely modal). Considering the importance of the Irish monastries (before Henry VIII), it's even possible that the monastries took their music from the local "folk" music as a basis or vice versa.
Unfortunately, because ITM is an oral tradition, it may be impossible to know how close that music was to today's ITM.
But we do know that on the continent, popular musicians started abandoning all bar two of the modes, and developing them into the major & minor keys, perhaps introducing harmonic concepts to replace the loss of these modes (???)
My hunch is that, if musicologists were inventing theories to explain ITM, they'd have picked a less "obscure" form than modes! I think it's more likely that there is still (at least) part of ITM that is much older than the attempts to "write it down" of e.g., O'Neill! Which is pretty cool, I think!
Also, the fact that these people who transcribe ITM using key signatures that indicate modes like Dorian & Mixylodian, rather than just including a couple of accidentals, suggests to me that they felt it was a more "appropriate" mode. That's what prompted my question. Why did/do they feel it is more appropriate (particularly the ones who were around pre-20th century)?
When I'm backing, I can (& do) try, of course, to make sure that my backing "sounds right". But, I've grown up exposed to "Western" pop music, etc, so there is the danger that I may accidentally "westernise" the music, which would be a shame. :( That's why I want to try & understand this theoretical aspect...
# Posted on December 28th 2008 by -ronan-
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Ok, that was a LONG (& probably very boring!) reply! ;) Sorry - I have a tendency to ramble!!! :(
P.S. Why do we still call it "Western" music, when surely Ireland is to the west of Europe! ;)
P.P.S. On a different note, I've been reading a bit of ancient history the last few years, and recently found out that the word "barbarian" was coined by the ancient Greeks to describe those "foreign people that nobody can understand cause they just seemed to be saying 'bar bar bar' all the time"!
Hence "bar bar-ian", as opposed to Athenian, Dorian, etc.!
P.P.P.S. If a tree falls in the woods, but there's nobody there to hear it,
... do the other trees laugh at him? ;)
# Posted on December 28th 2008 by -ronan-
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
You could find out by creeping up under the bushes so the other trees don't see you.
But don't let them catch you, or you might come to a nasty end. Especially if they're as p*ssed as the one that fell over.
# Posted on December 28th 2008 by nicholas
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
-ronan- you have a bit of catching up if you think that's rambling.
I had some thoughts to add. But fortunately I found a related thread. It rambles. Dow deserves credit for his endless posting of (pentatonic) tune links .
Will has an interesting take on Martin & Dennis' playing.
Cheers;
This is of vital interest to me ... anyone else? Or I am just sad ... ?
June 4th 2007 by benhall.1
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/13991/comments#comment288485
June 5th 2007 by Dow
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/13991/comments#comment288511
June 5th 2007 by Will CPT
# Posted on December 28th 2008 by Random_notes
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Random_notes, thanks. there's some interesting comments in that thread (& indeed one or two pentatonic tunes!!!).
Some ideas to consider... and again the realisation that ITM seems to be one of those things were you can be both wrong & right at the exact same time! I suppose the trick is to make sure, whether you're "wrong" or "right", that the music you're playing should at least sound good!
# Posted on December 28th 2008 by -ronan-
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
"you're playing should at least sound good!" I think that's a pretty meaningless thing to say. Sound good to who? Yourself? The Glyndebourne Opera society? The Comhaltas judging committees? Your dad?
There's a thing about modes that often comes up where people express a preference for tunes in what they refer to as the darker, more mysterious sounding modes. These are merely people who are unfamiliar with the music.
You have to get yourself away from hearing the music as unfamiliar in order to appreciate it for what it is
# Posted on December 29th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
There are several good points here;
1) modes are a system of classification invented so that 'trained' musicians could explain how people sing and play naturally.
2) classically trained musicians have had this natural ability taught out of them, which is why they don't understand modes.
3) The more you play, the less you'll realize you understand, and the better you'll sound.
PS I can't remember what happened to the 5th elephant. Somebody remind me, please ?
# Posted on December 29th 2008 by Guernsey Pete
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
So you're saying, I should listen to the darker tunes enough so that I become "familiar" with them and then I can "not prefer them"? Yay!!! :(
...Nah, I think I'll stick to actually "liking" tunes for now, but thanks for the suggestion, llig! ;)
As to your question, well, I would be quite happy if all your suggestions felt my playing sounded good (especially "myself"). But, I was going more along the lines of, if you're playing in a session, that the music shouldn't begin to sound better once you STOP playing! ;)
That's one of the reasons I practice, at any rate... The other main reason is for my own enjoyment...
# Posted on December 29th 2008 by -ronan-
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
-ronan- there have been some discussions with people saying they are attracted to the haunting, or alien, or mysterious sound of traditional music. But it's all right there for in the tune(s). Some of that "mystery" gets imposed on Irish music.
# Posted on December 29th 2008 by Random_notes
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Sorry Ronan, I meant an Irish piano backup player who is really good. I have learned so much more about accompaniment by listening to great piano players than by listening to most guitar players. May be personal preference, but I am fascinated by them, and all of the really good ones know the melody too, or can pick it up in a flash. That's what I was getting at. Think Charlie Lennon, Felix Dolan. Patsy Broderick (Arcady) floored me in the Catskills last summer, I had to stop playing and just listen and absorb. They understand the tune from two different angles at the same time, melody and backing.
# Posted on December 29th 2008 by irisnevins
*
I typed that but was not going to post it.
I hit the wrong button!
# Posted on December 29th 2008 by Random_notes
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
My suggestion is merely not to like tunes just because they sound exotic. If the music sounds exotic to you, you won't be able to play it. You will only be able to play it when it is not alien to you. For example, there are many tunes that float about with an A root that specifically use notes in between C and C# and notes in between E, F and F#. If this sounds "out of tune" to you, or your instrument is incapable of these notes, you're best hope is to either "westernise" them, or avoid them all together.
# Posted on December 29th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Speaking of buttons . . .
the day Jack Gilder met Noel Hill,
Re: How useful is a bit of music theory?
November 6th 2005 by Phantom Button
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/8231/comments#comment176597
# Posted on December 29th 2008 by Random_notes
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
"...there are many tunes that float about with an A root that specifically use notes in between C and C# and notes in between E, F and F#. If this sounds "out of tune" to you, or your instrument is incapable of these notes, you're best hope is to either "westernise" them, or avoid them all together."
I more or less agree with llig here. Instruments that are capable of subtle shifts of intonation in both directions are difficult for a guitar to back if one is concerned with "perfect" pitch. But, being a guitar player, I think being able to go along with a more "wet" intonation overall can often make the sound more interesting. "Westernising" or "avoiding" is just gibberish.
# Posted on December 29th 2008 by gw
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
GW if I understand properly what you are saying, I'd have to politely debate the point....A guitar, used for backing, can certainly and quite easily adapt to these subtle changes from notes like C to C# or F to F# etc. And also one can subtly change intonation if need be. A really good guitar also can be capable of great sustain and can hold notes along with the melody as well. One can also slide into a note, along with the melody player if done right... not with the same impact or effect or volume as fiddle or flute, but it can be there with them when needed, right in time, held, then jump back onto the tune whether with a chord or note, right with the melody player.
What most guitar backers don't seem to grasp is that it doesn't have to be all chords all the time. Think piano again. They do chords AND notes, and partial melody, which includes these subtle shifts. Alec Finn does it on bouzouki. There are notes on guitar, not only chords and they can easily fit into the backing with a little work. What the pianists do can be adapted to guitar. They keep the backing closer to the melody, not just hitting chords and changing them every handful of notes in the melody, and tend to catch way more of these beautiful subtle shifts.
Shall try to convey this in words, easier to show someone though. For example, you are backing a tune in D major, basically, if one were to consider the three basic chords, D, G and A... many tunes in this key, I can hear them do a subtle shift from the G to F# back and forth in the melody line, where most backers will just keep strumming the G chord. Or the notes may progress down from G to F# and then you hit the A chord. You can note that F# subtly and quickly en route from the G chord down to the A chord. Sort of "walk" it as some say. This is different from a walking baseline though, we're taking subtle and fleeting shifts. When I am on that place where a G chord usually is in the key of D major, I will just shift the notes back and forth, G to F# rocking back and forth between them, when the melody does it for a few moments, rather than just chord a G all through the part. It's real subtle, barely noticeable, but changes the effect. Maybe I suffer from focusing on too much detail and get a bit obsessive, but it really brings the music right into my heart on a deep level somehow.
I fingerpick, but a flatpicker or crosspicker like Donal Clancy, can also momentarily step out of the strumming of the G chord and do this little subtle noting thing. It's just this little undercurrent wave thing that is incredibly beautiful when it momentarily joins with the melody, and can change the dynamic of the backing, It makes things a little more fluid and graceful to my ear anyway. Point is, it can be done and it's not so difficult once someone practices it a bit.
In playing with Alan Morrisroe (Old style melodeon player) he does a lot in the key of D (or in the D configurations on a differently tuned box), and there is a lot of C sharping en route to where the G chord should be. I really had never heard much of that, but the way he plays, a very archaic style, which could also be dictated by the way the melodeon is laid out, it happens very often. That C# is just so beautiful coming up from the D to the G that I feel compelled to catch it and merge with it for a second. And it is really pretty easy once you get the knack of doing it. Just like anything else, takes some practice, but how I would hate to cover up that C# ...it just should have attention drawn to it, it is beyond beautiful to my ear, and if one steps out of the chord box to hit it en route, it can really bring it out.
OK...sorry... wrote too much as usual. Help! need an editor, likely said the same thing in 10 different ways! Just hope it makes sense in words rather than visual example.
# Posted on December 29th 2008 by irisnevins
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
"A guitar, used for backing, can certainly and quite easily adapt to these subtle changes from notes like C to C# or F to F# etc."
Yes, but that's assuming everyone is always playing precise pitches throughout a tune. I play in a band with 4 horns. The horns key off each other. If the lead horn plays a slightly flat note in a stack the other horn are going to intonate accordingly. If the stack or melody line is even slightly flat, the chord I'm playing will sound out of tune, even though I'm not. That's what I meant by getting used to a "wet" sound. In a session, if the melody players are listening to each other they are going to play to the consensus pitch, which might not be a precise C or C# or whatever. When that happens the guitar will sound out. Subtle shades of sharpening a chord can be fairly easily done on guitar by slight bends, but flattening is tough--especially when playing "on the fly."
But maybe we have a different take the "exotic" sound
# Posted on December 29th 2008 by gw
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
That's why box players can have an urge to dominate - it's to bring these arty strings types back into line, before the music completely unravels...innit?!
# Posted on December 29th 2008 by nicholas
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
First of all, thanks to the people contributing to the discussion. I'm trying to learn more, otherwise I wouldn't have posted the thread, so even if I may disagree with some of the comments, I still appreciate them!
With that in mind, as to liking the dark sounds of the minor & dorian modes, I'm not actually sure what's wrong with that. Ok, I think you're suggesting something along the lines of "the other stuff is good too...". I never said it wasn't. In fact, I said I was drawn to dorian AND minor sounding tunes. If the reason I like these was because I'm "unfamiliar" with the modal sound, and so find it "exotic", and THAT's why I like it, then surely I would find the minor sound rubbish?
Frankly, if I was only interested in the dorian mode, then I don't think I would have become interested in ITM. Come to think of it, if what you suggest is true, surely I would only prefer dorian and mixylodian tunes! As it happens, I love tunes from all 4 modes.
But, are you saying you don't have any favourite tunes yourself? 'Cos if so, I actually find that kind of sad...
Iris, to be honest, personally I never really liked pianos backing ITM (it sounded kind of "plinky plonk" to me), even though I love the piano as an instrument. BUT, having said that I used to hate the sound of the banjo, but after hearing some great banjo players, I've since gotten to appreciate them (still prefer fiddle & flute though). So, maybe I will give my Arcady CDs another listen, and check out some of those other players you mentioned.
Seriously, thanks for the suggestion - I WILL give them another listen.
On accessing the notes between C & C#, & F & F#:
I also am learning how to play blues slide guitar, and when you use a slide, the guitar suddenly becomes a fretless instrument! It's quite fascinating to play (as a guitarist), and when you try to reproduce the sound of the early 20th century "bottleneck" players, you frequently have to get a note just right there between two frets - difficult, but when you get it: wow! Interestingly, many of the best players of this style were blind, and I actually find it sometimes easier to get those notes when I close my eyes.
So, I do appreciate the ideas of in-between notes, and also of "just listening"!
However, again to Iris, you have some interesting thoughts there, that I might try & incorporate into my playing. But, I will point out that whenever I flatpick a tune on my guitar, if it's at all noisy, and they want to hear me, people either a) stop playing and leave me to play solo (intensely scary!), or b) crane their neck to hear me. If it's a quiet session (4 or 5 players, and no e.g., boxes, pipes(!), or banjos), then I can sometimes get away with joining in, but mostly it's easier to stick to backing with chords. I still like learning to flatpick the tunes (it helps me understand the tunes better, and it's nice to play along when you do get that quiet session).
What I'm getting at is that perhaps the piano is a bit louder & able to switch between chords and melody a bit more. At the moment, I am trying to teach myself a hybrid of fingerpicking & flatpicking, which actually does have some of these ideas, but as with all of these things, it requires patience & practice, and I'll need a lot more, before I can use that approach in a session! :(
As to the value (or lack thereof) of theory in ITM, there have been some interesting comments here. I just want to give some of my own thoughts on the matter here:
1. Probably, theory is really only of "use" in ITM to a) composers who want to keep the traditional feel, b) people trying to harmonise with this (mostly) melodic music & c) people trying to preserve the music in written form. I would be in the second category.
I don't think that knowing theory is a bad thing for other people, but I agree that it's not at all necessary, especially if you learn & play "by ear" (which some people find easy, while others, like myself, have to work at it! :( )
2. The fact that this is an online community, suggests to me that none of you actually think that written communication is a bad thing, especially when it's used to supplement additional forms of communication (and if you do, what are you doing on-line???).
So, I think/hope that what bugs a lot of you, is not that some people use written forms of communication to learn, but that some people use ONLY written forms!
If so, I agree with you, particularly for an oral tradition like this one. But, without any attempt at recording knowledge, a lot of this knowledge CAN become lost, and I don't like that.
Somebody said earlier that the Greek Dorian music was different from ours, but he didn't remember how. As far as I recall from my ancient history, we currently have managed to find some written ideas of music theory, and we can re-construct SOME of the instruments they used, but we are missing the actual notes and scales (or whatever) that they actually played, because the only records we've so far found, didn't bother to mention those "trivial" details. It's kind of like if somebody wrote down that some ideas in terms of "do re me", but neglected to mention anywhere what "do re me" actually meant. :(
I mentioned earlier, how I have a hunch that at least some of modern ITM harks back to at least the time of the Irish monastries, but because it's purely oral, we have no way of knowing exactly how much of it does.
3. Some of you have suggested that theory is an abstract notion that has been imposed onto this music, and so any overlap is coincidental, or something, and shouldn't be taken seriously or whatever. This might have some truth, but I have some serious problems with it.
Ok. first of all, bearing in mind my previous point (that it's difficult to know how much of an oral tradition has been preserved, and how much has gotten distorted over the generations), how far back do you want to class ITM as traditional?
For instance, I think bands like The Bothy Band actually broke quite a few traditions at the time, but because they were really good, modern ITM does seem to have absorbed a lot of these (what used to be) new ideas and for many people they seem to have BECOME part of the tradition!
Maybe this is bad, or maybe it's good, or maybe it's neither! But, what I'm getting at is that, without written records, it's impossible to know how many e.g., 17th century Bothy Band equivalents(!) have reinvented the music over the years. At the time they may have seemed like upstarts ("oh that young Carolan, who does he think he is?"), but maybe their ideas became absorbed into the music, and later generations forgot all the hullaballoo, but instead started complaining about the "new" upstarts!!!
Now, I don't have a copy of O'Neills to hand (& I'm not saying O'Neills is the be all & end all, it's just the oldest ITM that I've looked at), but as far as I remember, many of the tunes used key signatures that indicated that the transcribers felt the tunes were modal. It's important to realise that outside of ITM and jazz circles, most theoreticians consider modes to be an obscure notion - a lot of people in ITM too, it seems ;). So, my feeling is that in the 19th century (before Jazz had been invented), modes were even more obscure, and that it would have been MUCH easier to transcribe the music as major or minor, and include a few "accidentals"!
So, I think that the transcribers had to go out of their way to describe the music of the time (which is not necessarily what we currently describe as "traditional"!) as being modal, which suggests that they were making an effort to do that, and if we want to consider our music as traditional, we should combine what little written knowledge that we have of this 19th century oral "traditional" with our current 21st century oral "traditional" music.
Ok... looks like I beat Iris in writing too much! ;)
Random_notes, NOW am I rambling? ;)
- Ronan
# Posted on December 29th 2008 by -ronan-
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
To me, understanding the difference between E minor and E dorian has been an important part of my development as an accompanist. Many novices, especially those who (like I did) come to the music with a standard tuned guitar from other musical traditions, make everything minor, and for example, throw C major chords throughout any tune where E minor and D major are the two dominant chords. This works well for minor tunes, works somewhat for tunes were the C is absent and mode not explicit, but doesn't work for the true dorian tunes where the C sharp is present.
In recognition of this, I use that C (or 6 chord) a lot more sparingly these days.
The key, as llig would remind us, is to learn the tunes themselves rather than approach accompaniment as something where you don't really have to know the specific tune.
For myself, I tend to find that E minor tunes tend to lead well into a G major tune, while E dorian tunes tend to lead well into a D major . So, if you are an ear player, unsure what you are dealing with, tack another tune on after the tune in question, and it should help you figure out what mode you are dealing with.
As always, thanks iris for your fine, thoughtful contributions to the thread.
# Posted on December 29th 2008 by AlBrown
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Ronan... i am relieved that you win the writing too much prize! Good thoughts though. I think my comments more related to one on one playing with a melody player and accompanist. A group can be a different dynamic....sometimes it's really hard to pick who to listen to and be with more closely.
Pianos don't have to be overwhelming but can be. I was more fascinated by them from a technical standpoint, they opened up a whole new world for me. Sort of two dimensional backing. I like what Martin Carthy does a lot, he does that two dimensional thing on his backing.
Thanks Al... I do think to much. I could show someone what I mean in person in about three minutes. I do think it is so hard to convey how to accompany to anyone, even in person. You can teach them the right chords easy enough, but how to teach the subtleties... to be 110% focused on the melody player and where they are headed, what surprise notes they will stress, getting it about their phrasing. I really think the best way is to learn the basics and go home with CDs and practice constantly for a long time. Learning the tunes, yes, learning the repeating patterns and structures, yes.... but play with lots of different great players on CD, all who have different phrasing and styles. Learn to adapt to many, it's fun too, with the right motivation. Too often people pick up the guitar thinking they just want to be part of the session music, but don't really have a deep passion for the music, it may be a social thing, who knows. It doesn't have to get complicated either, even a 2-3 chord player who had good timing, stays in tune and plays the right 2-3 chords can be fine...you can tell the ones who really make a study of the music, whether simple or complex.
I come from initially a tune playing background on guitar and still have that mentality, I would get bored to tears strumming a few chords. Others prefer a simpler apporach, and that works too. My playing is too busy for some who just want a few strummed chords behind them, that's OK. Styles are a whole other discussion, but there is room for many as long as they suit the music. And the music will go on with or without backers, and I wish some who only back would try some melody playing too, on anything, it's a real joy, and would also increase greatly their understanding of how to accompany.
# Posted on December 29th 2008 by irisnevins
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
I'm gonna have to spell this out, 'cause it seems a lot of people have completely missed it:
The discussion about the merits of E minor and E dorian with regards to C or C# completely disregards the use of the notes that exists between C and C#.
It's like the dominance of animal classification that divides mammals and reptiles ... and conveniently sweeps the echidna and the platypus under the carpet.
# Posted on December 30th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Mulling recently over the musical history of England since about 1600 - such as I know of it, which isn't frankly a lot - I was struck by how plainly the music divides between a majority Classical-based stream and a decidedly minority trad / modal stream, which hardly seem to touch. (Black and other significant musics only really came in round the end of this time.)
The trad music was associated with people who were marginalised - by choice (rake aristocrats), by remote occupations (sailors), by being a de facto underclass or seen as obstacles to progress (Gaelic peasantry in both Ireland and Scotland) - and so on. Not only that, but the music itself had a stigma. There is no doubt that it was the rock-and-roll of the past, with all that implied - though Baroque could be a player here too. It could also fire large numbers of people up - the Jacobites lost their wars but I'm sure they generated the best incidental music. I think the majority population had something of a horror of it because of these characteristics, and also simply found it archaic, uncouth, "hick music". Plenty of people in Ireland seem to have done so till now, after all. Microtonal or idiosyncratic tunings might have been anathema to musicians intent on standardising keys, getting even-tempered keyboards and the like, in order to create a universally-accepted musical language in which to create and transmit works that could be unpackaged and played anywhere in the Europeanised world with a minimum of misunderstanding. The Classical scales and chromaticism lent themselves to the exploration of a huge range of musical avenues and to extended, developing works: diatonic modal music as far as I know does not (though I should check out Renaissance choral stuff, and see if at least some of it isn't diatonic...).
So I think the modes were dumped and regarded as obsolete by mainstream musicians born after they were commonly heard - and in Catholic times, they would have been heard in church. An association with Catholicism may well have clung to them. Catholic music and art were key targets of the Puritans and aspiring musicians for some time might have risked actual danger, not just disapproval, by playing with them, both in Cromwell's Republic and in subsequent emergencies.
Eventually Vaughan Williams created extended music that respected the characteristics of trad, either starting from a trad tune ("Five Variants On 'Dives And Lazarus'") or creating original music ("The Lark Ascending"). But it had taken some 300 years for trad to get thoroughgoing treatment by a major Classical composer who understood it. I'm tempted to say "VW hybridised the two traditions" - but don't know for sure if this is the case: I must listen again, and notice how much or how little actual Classical element there is in these VW pieces.
In summary, I suspect that the modes were deliberately forgotten - maybe actiually banned - after Catholic church music was junked, and that England and its rulers bought into Continental Classical music very extensively. Only towards the end of this period were the modes seen as agreeable and intriguing, and brought out again.
# Posted on December 30th 2008 by nicholas
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Hey Llig: Thank you for pointing that out, repeatedly! I suspected as much, and as someone that wants to be a good backer, we really need to understand these things. At one of my first sessions, I had to ask the flute player sitting next to me if the notes were "C" or "C#" in what I believe was "The Old Bush". He seemed impressed that a guitar player would even be concerned with that sort of detail...but I'd rather sit it out than do it wrong.
Do these "in-between" notes come from the old pipe tunes?
Thanks again, all; this is definitely a discussion that I need to bookmark.
Tom
# Posted on December 30th 2008 by tomw
C or C#?
let me think ~ playing notes between C & C# is possible on flute, fiddle, voice.
Whoa - MOUTH MUSIC . . .
O-M-G
# Posted on December 30th 2008 by Random_notes
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
From llig , "...the use of the notes that exists between C and C#...."
Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but that's EXACTLY what I was trying to address in my posts.
# Posted on December 30th 2008 by gw
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
llig, I am very interested in hearing what you have to say about these in-between notes. As I mentioned, blues music also uses very similar in-between notes, which can be sublime in the right place. I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on this.
Do you find many people still playing them? Is it intentional, instinctive, or accidental? Have you any suggestions on recordings you hear it in, or do you just here it in local sessions?
Is it something that gets lost when using fretted or buttoned instruments?
Do you feel that minor tunes also have this ambiguity, or is it just dorian (and what about mix & major?)?
If dorian C#s do have a distinction from an accidental C# in a minor key, it could explain why those transcribers were so adamant about the key signature...
Nicholas, interesting ideas - thanks for them.
I think that for whatever reason, Irish folk music (& English/Scottish too) does seem to have been somehow "isolated" from the continental classical music that seems to have swept through history. (Good thing too, eh?)
I think that's the most reasonable explanation for how we kept the modal feel (and I think we did "keep" this, rather than it being an coincidental similarity to monastic music). Your ideas do seem to fit with this.
# Posted on December 30th 2008 by -ronan-
Re: If an E dorian tune doesn't have a C or C#, is it still dorian?
Good point llig, the beauty of so many of these tunes is that they don't neatly fit into any particular category, there is a wildness and unpredictability which is big part of what makes them so much fun to play,,,,,
# Posted on December 31st 2008 by AlBrown