I suspect I can almost predict the range of responses to this thread but being bored & off work due to transport problems, I thought I might light this particular touch paper, stand back and watch the fireworks.
By cheating I mean skipping a couple of notes or ornaments to keep up the rhythm & momentum of the tune. Also it might refer to going up an octave on the flute or DG box since you can't get down to low Bb or similar.
I do it. I know other players do it. If smuggled in quietly the odd cheat doesn't ruin the tune. Sometimes it can't be helped anyway if you make a little mistake but want to keep the tune going. Keep the tune going that's what I say.
Keep the show on the road - it's a performance after all, is it not?
If you were to try to get every tune note perfect you'd be there all night.... ermmm.... on the one tune that is. OK, maybe a few gifted sons & daughters of Orpheus on here can get every tune note perfect, or others have all day to sit about practicing tunes rather than be down the mine hewing coal to keep civilisation afloat, but most of us have jobs to go to and starving mouths to be fed.... this site is called The Session and is for session players - amateurs, lovers of the music - virtuosi are welcome but it's first and foremost for session players - I think? Lesser mortals are prone to making occasional mistakes and skip bits, are we not.
A little bit of cheating is fine, I say. Also you could blag it by claiming the cheats are your interpretation of the tune - which is sort of half-right, anyway.
OK. I think I've made my point.
Views please?
Years ago I was having a piping lesson with a well known player and I was struggling with a few notes on one tune and kept going back to fix it. He advised to learn to play through your mistakes and not lose the rhythm when you trip over something.
In a session, you have to. What are you going to do when the tune is flying past at 100mph? Stop and fix it? Chances are (if you're not me leading a set) that no one will have noticed anyway. They'll be too busy worrying about their own screw ups.
It's not like you're going to get fined for skipping a few notes. The only negative impression comes from the application of the term "cheating". If you named it differently, nobody would even notice a problem, probably...
"Doing the right thing is more important than doing the thing right" - P. Drucker.
I play with a flute player every once in a while who plays far faster than I can keep up with on a tune like Bucks of Oranmore for example. If I want to have a few tunes with the guy, I have no choice but to leave several notes along side of the road just to stay on pace with the man. Sort of like taking a turn with only two tires on the road as the scenery whizzes past and loose luggage falls out the back. If that is cheating, so be it.
Who determines the absolute correct way a tune is to be played in the first place? I always see variations in sheet music and recordings for any given song...and forget about trying to follow along with the Kevin Burke fan sitting next to you...sheesh!
Yeah, most everybody does it, but it's not really "ok". It's still something to try to avoid.
After all, what if somebody learns the tune in question from you (for lack of a better source)? By willfully cheating, you've contributed to damaging the tune, and by extension, the tradition. You may not think it matters how you play, but no raindrop feels responsible for the flood.
I've seen it happen plenty of times, and I've been on the receiving end of it a few times, leaving me feeling like a tool ("oh, that tune sounds for better like *that*... What? That's how everybody else plays it? Urg.")
There may not be hard and fast versions of these tunes, but it behooves anyone who takes this music seriously to make a concerted effort to play them "right"; whether it be learning them carefully, or even just not willfully dumbing them down out of laziness.
I listen to recordings of Coleman play the Tarbolton set, and I listen to other people--who typically learned it from somebody who, in turn, learned it from somebody else, who might have listened to Coleman a few times, and I think "that heavens Coleman's recordings are still available!".
In the end, if you take this music seriously (and I know that many here don't take it particularly seriously), it behooves you to at least try and do your best to get it right. Cheating and mistakes will happen (just like everybody mistakenly drives through a stop-sign every once in a while), but it's still best avoided...
"Cheating" is what's made the good tunes good. Each time a tune is learned the "proper" way - yes, I'm becoming a regular llig on the subject - it's a chance to strip off some of the instrument-specific and the performer-specific bits and make the tune more of a tune. If everyone played the tune the way Coleman did, this wouldn't be a tradition, it'd be a preservation society. When you think "preservation", think "formaldehyde". (I never was one for formalities...)
Simplifying the tune by "cheating" is the flip side of dolling up a tune by "showing off". In both cases, what works in a session is one of the right things to do. I prefer to play with simplifiers, others prefer flashier players, but really anyone who plays the tune in time is fine with me.
The sheer number of people participating in the process makes it a conservative one. No one player's interpretation will be preserved unless it's so good that everyone who hears it decides it's the right thing, or unless it's so obvious that everyone comes up with it - in which case it's really inherent to the tune.
"Cheating" isn't what made good tunes good. Thoughtful variation (even if it simplifies the tune) is what made good tunes good. Willfully cheating makes good tunes (like the butterfly or the concertina reel) bad.
There's a difference between changing a tune to make it "better" and changing it because you couldn't be bothered to go to the trouble of playing it the way _you_think_ is better. The former is totally acceptable (and encouraged), the latter is "cheating", and (while I concede that everybody does it) is best to at least *try* to avoid.
The "preservation = formaldehyde" line is so tired and pointless. If everybody played the one version that Coleman played that one time he recorded, that would be silly. If everybody played with Coleman's life and soul--and acute sense of gorgeous detailed VARIATION--that would be fantastic... But it's not just going to happen.
Still, you can bet your pants that Coleman wasn't "cheating" when he came up with his variations. He spent a lot of energy learning to play them the way he thought was best. Likewise did Kevin Burke, or Tommy Peoples, or Matt Molloy, or any of the musicians that we likely respect.
I think a better alternative for "cheating" is "work-around". It implies a thoughtful professional approach to a problem such as a note outside the instrument's range, or beyond your technical ability - which you never mention, of course
But on the flip side, George, don't you think "trying to get every not perfect" leads to simple regurgitation of a tune, as opposed to expressing it. Part of the beauty of this music, to me, is the fluidity of your ability to express the tune however it takes your fancy at the moment - within reason, of course (and the amount of that "reason" is certainly a matter for debate).
I agree that there is a difference between glossing over a section of a tune because you don't know how it goes, or can't play it, and modifying a tune purposefully as part of your expression of it. But part of expression is allowing a tune to breathe, and giving some space to the notes, as opposed to playing every single note like a midi player. So maybe people can use the dropping of notes as the beginning of expression, and use it to their advantage. (It's a feature, not a bug... As we always say in software development).
Learning to play tunes the "proper" way is the way to learn them. Never ever ever ever ever have I ever said that's the way you should actually play them. You absolutely have to feck around with them, or it's not the music. But before you feck around with them. learn them properly.
I have often listen to accordion players playing, with a degree of ease, a tune that I find particularly hard to play. Then I discover that they are not playing the tune in the so called 'written key' but have picked a key which suits their prowess. I suppose you could call that cheating in a way, but what the hell, it's still the same tune.
Georgi - I think both sorts of variation are important. If either predominates, the music changes drastically. Too much simplification, and you're playing old-time American string band music - not that that's bad, it's just not what we're playing here. Too much complexity, and you're playing some sort of fight of the bumblebees muddle, as the virtuosi try to ornament each other's ornamentation. The two balance nicely.
Calling one "cheating" is, to my mind, silly. It's playing the tune. If you're just learning it, "cheating" is a way to find your way into the tune, so you can bring it to where you want it. If you know the tune well, "cheating" is a way of playing with economy and grace, rather than flash and fire.
This conversation is putting me in mind of the process of language change, which, like the tunes we're playing, proceeds by alterations made by each learner. That process, too, involves simplification and elaboration in fine balance, and the results of that process are likewise shocking to the older generation. The other similarity? Neither process can be stopped.
llig - I was referring to my conversion to the view that learning tunes "on the hoof" is the "proper" way to learn them, not meaning to attribute any of the other views in that post to you. I think you've demonstrated a certain capacity to speak for yourself on these matters, and I wouldn't dream of putting words in your mouth.
Learning and playing the tune correctly is a 'holy grail'. But in a group its important not to be a distraction. So leaving out a troubled note or ornament is forgivable.
The thing is not to let the troubled passage become learned. A number of threads here on the difficulty of relearning something correclty, so I will leave that alone, though I regularly experience that unfortunatley.
You can have music without melody,e.g. rap (I can hear the jokes already and some kinds of African drumming) but you can't have music without rhythm. The beat is indeed sacred-- if you f**k upnotes, you must stick to the beat.
Bodhran joke:
Q: What's the difference between a foot massage and a bodhran player?
A: Well, the first bucks up the feet, while the second...
Some of my opinions on the topic:
When playing in a session, keep the rhythm going, even if you shave off a bit here and there, or as pointed out above, if you make a mistake. If the session is moving faster than you are able to play a tune, it is better to mend the tune than mess with the beat (although it also might be a good idea to suggest folks slow down for the next set!).
As a number of folks have stated above, when learning tunes, learn them properly. Of course, you might find that one source puts in a tricky phrase that ties you up learning it for weeks, and then find that another source avoids that tricky phrase entirely. So there are alternative approaches available. On the other hand, if everyone learns the simplest possible version, what you hear at a session may only be a pale shadow of an otherwise great tune (as Georgi pointed out).
I sometimes mend phrases on accordion that I would play differently on whistle, simply because of the mechanics involved, and my lack of proficiency on accordion. Some phrases sound better on one instrument than another, and some modification to fit your instrument is appropriate. For example, in a phrase where a flute player might put a roll, a banjo player might put a triplet.
In jazz, you don't really consider a tune known until you can play the melody, play around the melody, play countermelodies, play harmonies. We have had some discussions about what it really means to know a tune, and as many have said in those discussions, there are degrees of knowing the tune, and knowing where it can be mended and varied certainly are part of that process.
I would suggest that, if you learn a tune in a stripped down manner, and that is the only way you know it, at any speed, you could be accused of 'cheating.'
zippydw: playing the tune correctly (with the appropriate respect) isn't a Holy Grail. Good musicians do it all the time. Leaving out notes is forgivable, but it's still a (minor) infraction, and not to be overly encouraged.
Reverend: You're making the common mistake of equating perfection with duplication. One can indeed play something perfectly without playing exactly the same notes as someone else (playing exactly the same as a Michael Coleman '78, while it would be pretty darn impressive, would count as a flaw in my book anyway).
Jon: OT string-band music has plenty of subtle variation in it when it's done
right (and that attitude--thinking that it doesn't--is EXACTLY what I'm talking
about here. Undoubtedly you've heard plenty of amateurs play simple stuff and claim that's what the OT tradition is... Now you think Old-Time music is simplistic. See where the tradition suffers?) I'm not taking issue with simplification, or variation. I'm just taking issue with the fact that too many people don't tend to give enough respect to traditional music, and don't make a real attempt to play it properly.
A recurring theme of this thread seems to be an effort to get us to say "it's acceptable, even encouraged, to not try to play this music well". This seems to resonate with other popular (and IMHO toxic) themes:
1) it's "Folk Music", therefore it's not important to play it well (a popular misconception from ex-classical musicians).
2) "Sessions are for everybody", so people who care about playing this music well should only be welcome to the degree that they are willing to accomodate those who don't.
Nobody's perfect, everybody screws up, and everybody has dozens of tunes that they haven't learned as well as they should have, but that's not an excuse to condone apathy and cynicism towards quality of music. Music is important. We should care about trying to do it right, even if it doesn't actually happen much of the time.
Traditional music is good because people continue to care about making it good. You don't need to execute it perfectly (though that would be nice), but it's very important to care about doing it well.
Georgi, I often leave out notes to breathe - so whether it's a minor infraction or not in your book, I think I'll continue anyway as it's way better than fainting and knocking all the pints over!
I still wonder at the phrase "learn properly" expressed time and again on various threads here. I still don't really get what the "right" definition of this phrase is meant to be, just as I don't get the original phrase. There are many different versions of one tune... just look at commentary sections of posted tunes here. If someone doesn't hit a note you normally hit when playing a tune... is that "cheating" or just the version they know? Is the version they know the "right or proper" way, or is your version the tune "learned properly"? Seems a very subjective and relative philosophy to me. I say, why do we keep worrying about what others think when we play and just have fun and enjoy playing... as many have said, if you're all in the same key and generally "keeping together" (maybe a few are playing some notes and adding ornamentation others do not, some just playing the "bare bones" and others adding in counter melodies that sound just fine), then what's the big deal?
Hmm, there appears to be a fine line between caring and flipping out.
Who's to say the original poster wouldn't have played the tune perfectly had he/she not been hanging on for dear life, getting dragged around the 'dance floor' at top speed by an ace?
Very specific situation there. Playing over your head with the bog boys once in a while is a good thing, in my opinion. Do what you need to do to hang, and learn. When you set the speed, don't hurt yourself. When you play them solo, do it right.
No big whoop. No need to call the trad police. “Woo woo woo. All righty there pally, pull on over. We heard you muff that triplet as you were trying to keep up with the Alpha musician. It’s the hoosegow for you.”
There are many, but this is one of my favorite Lligisms:
"Learning to play tunes the "proper" way is the way to learn them. Never ever ever ever ever have I ever said that's the way you should actually play them. You absolutely have to feck around with them, or it's not the music. But before you feck around with them. learn them properly."
Fiddlechick - when I used the term "learn the proper way" I was talking - with tongue simultaneously in and out of cheek - about the process of learning, meaning learning tunes from other players, in a session, as opposed to the popular habit of reading them off of sheets of paper.
I was decidedly not talking about learning the "right" version or setting or allowable variations of a tune. That idea, to me, sounds absolutely mental.
I don't know what others mean by it, but that's what I mean.
In a session I do often play a simplified version of a tune so that I can keep up and keep learning. I'm still new at this. I do strive to get more of the notes each time if I possibly can. If we couldn't do this, how would any of us ever play at a session? Would we have to wait 40 years until we'd be able to join in?
Hussar: if you sound better when you breathe, then leaving out a note or two to breathe is probably a good musical choice.
FiddleChick7: The "proper way" isn't about specific versions of tunes as much as it is about the attempt to get _a_real_version_. It's about not just "learning the bare bones" (and counter-melodies are mostly anathema, if you're actually trying to do it with respect to tradition).
Yes, this is subjective, but that absolutely doesn't mean it's meaningless.
The "Big Deal" is that since this music is learned person to person, one person's apathy towards passing it on with due respect actually damages the tradition itself. If you respect traditional music, you should at least TRY to learn it properly. The music has lasted this long because people before us made that effort.
Some excellent musicians feel there is a single "correct" way to play a tune. This relatively extreme attitude is worthy of a certain amount of respect. They don't generally mean that the tune has to have an exact set of notes, but rather that there are some things they hear in the tune that they feel are important to the tune's integrity. If you don't understand why people might feel this is important, and don't appreciate the advantage of this attitude, you probably could benefit from trying to figure it out.
I think there are lots of "proper" ways to learn a tune, and a handful of improper ones. Rather than come up with a strict definition (which would almost certainly be wrong), I'll pose an example:
1) Try to learn the tune from a good source, preferably from a good musician whose taste you respect--ideally you'd learn it in person, but recording works too. (Learning from sheet music is half-baked. Occasionally useful, but most often harmful. People who don't understand why it's bad best avoid it completely).
2) Make a point of trying to learn it as much like your source plays as possible. If your source plays a C# that's awkward to reach for you, learn it with the C# regardless (then decide whether you prefer the tune with the C# afterwards). Try to ornament in the same places that your source does. Learning a tune in a session is fine, provided you actually learn the tune, rather than some half-arsed approximation that you think none of the drunk punters in the bar would notice was different.
3) Once you've got it, try to play it well. Feel free to play around with it, in the hopes of getting it to sound better, but try to avoid ironing it out just because you're feeling lazy.
And for a counter example of how to do it "improperly":
1) learning a tune from a book, without ever having heard it... Especially if you are relatively new to traditional music (if you do this, you are cheating yourself out of an opportunity to actually learn trad music in favor of getting a few notes under your fingers).
2) Ignoring awkward bowing, notes, octaves, and ornamentation, in favor of something easier, for no other reason than that it's easier for you.
3) Finding the simplest common denominator between a few times through the tune and playing that every time, rather than learning a few variations in detail--especially if those variations recurr consistently in your source's playing (eg: the second time through the second part).
4) Only learning the bare-bones of a tune.
I'm tempted to also add "5) Learning from someone who learned it improperly", but that's more complicated than it's worth getting into.
In the end, it's about paying due respect to where you got your music from, and carrying that respect on through the way you play it. It's not a crime to fail sometimes, but it's worth trying.
"True. But they seldom agree on what that is, exactly. "
Jon, I know my last post was too long, but if you're gonna bother to respond to it, you might bother to at least read all three of the sentences in the paragraph you're responding to.
Oh, I read. I just don't care so much.
But I'll try to work up a shred of enthusiasm:
I honestly can't see any sense in the statement that "there is a single "correct" way to play a tune" and I know I've never met a player who was any good who held that view. I don't know what it would mean to believe that. I can believe that there are bad ways to play tunes - meaning by that that there are versions of tunes that I don't like - but there are plenty of good ways to play any given tune.
Better?
And while I'm at it, I would encourage anyone learning a tune to ignore awkward bowings, picking, fingering, or breathing. If it's awkward to play, it'll sound awkward, and you'll lose time and they'll hate you at the session and they'll laugh at you until you cry, and then they'll feel bad and it'll be all your fault.*
Learn the tune, and then play it with a bowing, picking, fingering, or breathing that works. If someone else is playing it awkward, that's their problem, not yours.
Jon, the problem with "ignore awkward bowings" is that most people would never do some important things most Irish fiddlers routinely do, like pedal (aka figure-eight) bowing and bowed triplets. If you never go beyond your comfort zone, then you dumb down the music.
And I agree completely with Georgi's comment, which Jon seems to be misinterpreting, so much so that I want to re-post it:
"Some excellent musicians feel there is a single "correct" way to play a tune. This relatively extreme attitude is worthy of a certain amount of respect. They don't generally mean that the tune has to have an exact set of notes, but rather that there are some things they hear in the tune that they feel are important to the tune's integrity. If you don't understand why people might feel this is important, and don't appreciate the advantage of this attitude, you probably could benefit from trying to figure it out."
Yes, if when learning a tune, you leave out its signature bits, then you're not really learning the tune. Until you know those bits, you won't have a proper context for understanding what distinguishes that tune from others, or from variations of that tune.
Case in point: strip out all the twiddly bits and the third part of Over the Moor to Maggie and you get something radically different--which happens to be the "standard" old time setting of what is called "Waynesboro." Now if you enjoy old timey fiddling and that's what you want to play, all power to you (I enjoy it too). But don't call it Irish traditional, and don't expect an Irish session to welcome you with smiles and pints all around.
(Yes, there's room for both--I've had the pleasure of playing Over the Moor/Waynesboro with Alan Jabbour. But he wasn't pretending to play Irish trad and I wasn't pretending to play old timey.)
Miss Lonelyhearts (if that is your real name... ), I think that this is exactly what I mean when I say the statement makes no sense to me. In order to make this work, for your example "the correct way" has to be "as if it were an Irish tune". "Take out all the twiddly bits" is hardly changing anything specific about Over the Moor to Maggie, but rather changing your style of playing. You could just as easily say "to make a tune sound old-timey, first remove the Irish ornamentation", which is true, but it hardly defines one tune versus another.
Now perhaps I am missing something. I read "a 'correct' way to play a tune" as meaning "to play a PARTICULAR tune" - that is, that there is a single correct way to play the Musical Priest.
On the other hand, it might be that the correct interpretation is "a single correct way in which tunes generally should be played". Okay, that's got its own problems, obviously, but they're ones I didn't address.
If the first is the correct interpretation, then I don't see how this example helps at all. I assume that when you learn a tune, you're learning to play it with the person you're playing it with, and I also assume that if you're learning Irish tunes that you're going to be doing some of the things that Irish players do. What I'm saying is that there's no reason to get too worked up about getting exactly what the other guy does. You're trying to learn a tune, not a rendition. I'm not saying that you then play it completely without ornaments or phrasing, and certainly not that you then add in the flavor of old-time music.
If the second is what was meant, then I give up. That's just silly. You'd either be saying that there is such a thing as Irish music - okay, true enough but not exactly an earth-shaking conclusion - or that there is one true way to play Irish music, which is a subset of all the stuff that we call Irish music. That is, that Galway's right and Sligo's wrong, or vice versa, or some such silliness. That can't be what George means, either, because it would be insane, but that's one way to read what he said.
So I'm baffled. Someone please clarify. What is it that I'm disagreeing with, anyway?
In neither case do I see you getting away from the basic problem: there are plenty of ways to play a given tune, and many of them are quite good. Either you expand the "single correct way" to encompass all of them, in which case, fine, so what, the claim reduces to "what's good is correct" which is hardly illuminating, or you have to pick and choose which good versions are somehow not "correct" - and in the process explain the basis for your choices. Good luck on that one.
The whole thing, really, seems silly. Why get so worked up about this? Where did we start from? Someone's going to learn the Bank of Ireland wrong, and break Irish music - forever. Hundreds of years gone, because someone didn't learn the right version.
Sorry, but as a cause for alarm, it's not very high up on my list.
LOL, that's quite an essay, full of straw men. Yet you completely ignored what Georgi and I have posted about the bits important to a tune's integrity and the "signature bits."
It's not that complicated, and I'm not alarmed or worked up over it.
Maybe this misunderstanding is a matter of degree. If you're just trying to get the bones of a tune at a session so you can play along, then by all means just play the notes that land on every other beat and enjoy the craic.
But if you're actually trying to play this music well, then yes, you *do* have to learn what you call a "rendition" of it. Learn the tune from someone whose playing you admire and respect, who's well grounded in this music, and learn every nuance of how they play the tune. In fact, that's precisely how players like Brian Conway and Sean Smyth and Oisin MacDiarmada teach tunes. What would be the point of learning a tune from such a player but neglecting to understand the specifics of what they're playing? You might as well save yourself (and them) the trouble and just buy a fake book.
I've heard people who glossed over the details when they learned Bank of Ireland. They missed even obvious things like the shift between C nat and C sharp, never mind how the emphasis moves between downbeats and backbeats (they played it all backbeats). It sounded like bad bluegrass, besides not blending with what the rest of the session was playing.
Sorry, that's not my cuppa tea, and it's not the music.
Of course, that's not to say that there's only one correct sequence of notes and twiddly bits, etc., for a tune to be "right." Any decent player will have his or her own sense of the tune, grounded in the playing of the person who passed it on to them, on down the line, and grounded in an understanding of other settings of the tune, learned from other players.
Ideally, your source when learning a tune gives you his or her sense of the tune, and then shows how that can be explored, interpreted, varied.
In short, if you want to play this music well, in a way that other Irish traditional musicians will accept and maybe even respect, then yes it matters who you choose to learn your tunes from and how carefully to pick up the specifics as well as the broader context of regional and personal and historical styles and approaches to those tunes. Anything less is just dabbling, and there's already plenty of that to go around.
To expand on the final point of Miss Lonelyhearts, until you have gotten a tune from more than one source, do you truly 'know' it yet? Knowing a tune does not just represent one version of the tune, it involves knowing the possibilities the tune presents.
Thanks for that Al, that was the point I was trying to make.
I have a sound clip somewhere of Patrick Orceau teaching Garret Barry's jig where he teaches it one way, then shows how some other fiddler plays it, then does the "old" setting with high Fs as naturals.
As well defined as a tune setting can get, no tune is an island.
I Agree, learn a tune from a single source first, variations and all, and then listen to every different version possible. This happens anyway when you learn a tune and hear a different rendition. You will notice the differences immediately. I personally try to incorporate as many players styles as possible for a tune, while paying closest attention to how it is played on other instruments than the fiddle (what I usually play) because those will be the least intuitive but can be the most enriching. I don't think reading notes hinders this process either, at least not for me, because there are certainly more notated versions of tunes available to me than recorded versions. Of course there is a difference between sitting down and learning a tune note for note in a short period of time and slowly acquiring it over time from hearing it at a session or on many recordings until it is ingrained in memory. The second method usually involves more cheating while you try to play the bare bones of a tune in a session until you are comfortable enough to begin including ornaments and variations.
Seems to me that much of the difficulty in this discussion and similar ones I've read here stems from the definition of the word "tune." It appears one group of folks define it as "as set collection of notes in a constant order with a constant rhythm" while other folks define it as "a general outline filled with possibilities for variation and improvisation."
So, "learning a tune" becomes, by extension, either memorizing a set of notes off the page or learning from someone what the possibilities are available within the general outline that is the tune.
Clearly it is the latter item in each of the above paragraphs that best defines what Irish Trad is all about, and hence the suggestion that you learn all the things some good player does with a tune and then go on to discover what others do to/with it.
Does any of this help? Or, is it just late at night and I'm talking to myself again...
I'd add a third--unattractive but not uncommon--possibility to your two definitions: for some people, a tune is just a few emphasized notes pinned on a chord progression, and the rest of it is filler.
And it's this sense of a tune that leads to learning a tune "improperly" as Georgi says, to dumbing down this music, or at best changing it into something else, something more like American old time (if left sparse) or bad jazz or pentatonic rock or bluegrass (if the "filler" is more or less made up on the fly).
If you really want to play this music, you have to come to grips with the fact that it's detailed, nuanced, notey music, where good players hang on every note, and on the smallest tweak of timing and articulation of every note. You can't strip all of that out and still have Irish traditional music.
I'd also argue that learning a tune as a "set collection of notes in a constant order with a constant rhythm" misses the gist and spirit of this music.
When people come to this music from another genre, they often bring their understanding of their own genre to bear on Irish traditional tunes. They'd be better off (and so would our sessions) understanding this music on its own terms.
You have convinced me Miss L, though the process started in a similar discussion (about leaving ornaments out) elsewhere. In my case it becomes English not American old time. Same tune though, I think, but not diddley enough.
My teachers taught me that I should play through my mistakes and try to make it look as if I meant to do that.
Miss Lonelyhearts is correct--you must try to understand this music on its own terms and that is equally true of other genres of music as well.
Irish diddley music is full of abiguity and that's part of its atraction. What it's not though is, "you're all in the same key and generally keeping together". Maybe that's not a big deal to some people. But for the people who love this music, it is.
you miss the point (unless you were being sarcastic) there is very very much more to the music than merely being in the same key and generally keeping it together. The quote was from fiddlechick7 above. She asked that: as long as the session was in the same key and generally keeping it together, what the big deal?
She doesn't get the concept of learning something properly. She thinks it's a "very subjective and relative philosophy". She's wrong of course.
Actually, Fiddlechick begins by pointing out a number of paradoxes, "I still wonder at the phrase "learn properly" expressed time and again on various threads here. I still don't really get what the "right" definition of this phrase is meant to be, just as I don't get the original phrase. There are many different versions of one tune... just look at commentary sections of posted tunes here. If someone doesn't hit a note you normally hit when playing a tune... is that "cheating" or just the version they know? Is the version they know the "right or proper" way, or is your version the tune "learned properly"?"
It is only after this point when she begins to make conclusions ~ for better or worse. Although, Fiddlechick is *asking*.
tv, how can Jeremy can you if you keeping posting good threads? This is the topic which always takes my mind back to an earlier discussion. Unfortunately the accompanying video clip is long gone;
Re: 'minimalistic treatment'
November 17th 2007 http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/15829/comments#comment328679
I am just now working my way through the comments. So far Miss L, IMHO, is spot on.
"If you really want to play this music, you have to come to grips with the fact that it's detailed, nuanced, notey music, where good players hang on every note, and on the smallest tweak of timing and articulation of every note. You can't strip all of that out and still have Irish traditional music."
I'm not looking forward to the day when folks start to make academic study of this music instead of just playing to relax and pass the time. . . oh wait. . .
It's as straight forward as this: If someone lends you the courtesy of showing you a tune, the very least you can do is learn it properly. Learn everything they are showing you ... everything. It's not your place to pic and choose which bits you leave out. What you do with the tune after that is up to you, but never ever forget any tiny detail of what was shown to you. Never disrespect it.
Random, that's the point--if you're trying to play this music within the tradition, then you learn the next traditional player's version, assuming it's one you like, That expands and enhances your understanding of the music, of the tune itself, and of the broader cultural context.
It's not an "academic study" either. Just the simple respect of knowing your sources and learning what they have to pass along. That's the folk process: honoring the folks who played this tune before you by learning their music, not some half-baked approximation.
There is a difference between creativity and laziness, and that I think is the point of this discussion--creativity within the bounds of the tradition is good, but 'streamlining' or 'dumbing down' tunes because of laziness is bad.
Now I need to understand how Michael can say the same thing as Will, but then claim he doesn't agree with him. hmmmm
So what if the person who lends the courtesy of showing me a reel is from Scotland and its a tune that many scots would claim as their own, or the person showing me a jig knows it mainly from playing for rapper sword dancers in N E England ?
My respect would be first for the person giving the time, second for the tune in the irish tradition. What should I do with it before showin up and sessions where llig and Miss L go -apart from playing for another 5 years or more.
I think you should give equal respect to the scottish tradition. Though whether you learn the tune that way is up to you. Though a good example is that Scottish pipe reel the Bothy Band play on that big set on Out of the Wind Into the Sun. Don't ever think you have it until you hear a really got version on the GHB.
Don't assume to respect anything less just because it's not from your own tradition. If the Irish had taken that attitude we wouldn't have most of the tunes we have now. Irish musicians have always been great plunderers of other musics.
As for a jig from rapper sword dancers ... you're probably better off trying to learn it from sheet music.
The tune was only getting respect second because I was putting a person first. Tunes don't care, we've done that before and, as someone said, they hate anthropomorphism.
Are there two aspects to this learning a tune properly ? Is there is learning a version, by ear from a person who plays it with others in sessions. And then there is learning a version and style that would be accepted widely as being within the irish tradition - which I think is mainly what this discussion is about.
I can see that they won't be distinguished if one has access to an 'authentic' irish tradition. But many of us have 'live' contact with irish tunes in the context of them being a shared repertoire across traditions. And it is rare not to get a set of irish tunes on mainly instrumental recordings by english or scottish musicians.
Yep, including Micho Russell's playing, and that of Mary McNamara, and all the other "spare" player's out there. Their playing is still stuffed full of details and nuance and tiny tweaks of timing and articulation. It's not just the "big" stuff--rolls and scratch triplets or flashy variations--that make this music what it is. The little stuff is equally or more important.
The more closely you listen, the more you hear. Even more so with Micho.
"Their playing is still stuffed full of details and nuance and tiny tweaks of timing and articulation". Would the American old time players say that ? I think many English players would (somewhere in a recent fiddle discussion I strayed into lazyhound linked a fascinating article).
Is it diddley not done using diddles ? Is that splitting hairs ? (where have I read that about irish music recently - oh yes, in the Chris Woods essay that tv linked). And while we are at it, on another current thread bogman has just said "But there is also a huge grey area of reels and jigs played in session style that are pretty much homeless. "
>stuffed full of details
crap
It's spare. The odd ornaments help the rhythmic flow as you say, and that's it.
However, gwan, win the argument that seems to be the main motive here
The mention of Micho Russell seems to polarise opinion. If you love his playing, as I do, you may find, as I do, for instance, that his playing is "detailed, nuanced" and, I would add, packed full of character and charm. I suppose you may love his playing and find it "spare". But I would have thought a fair proportion of those in the "spare" camp would be the same as those who don't see much in his playing. And there are plenty of those, surprisingly.
dead horse brigade ~ so . . detailed & notey seems, IMHO, not minimalist. Nuanced for sure; but not minimalist(?) I'm asking. In other words, "less is more" might be a confusing if used to describe traditional Irish music.
It's melodically/harmonically (same thing) minimalist. But not rhythmically. And if this isn't too much of a contradiction for you, the complexity of the rhythmic stuff is mostly done harmonically.
But overall, it is simple music. Simple, that is, compared with the vast majority of musics of the world.
I have the utmost respect for someone when they take the time to play a tune for me on the simplest instrument ~ the tinwhistle. Especially when their main instrument is not tinwhistle. Makes each of us listen very closely. Me, out of respect. The one showing me the tune, because she or he is going out on a limb.
Hoping to bring it back to Danny's OP
Danny, I'm not trying to win any argument, just stating my opinion. Which happens to be that Micho's music has more to it in his playfulness with timing and rhythm than many players have despite all their flash and twiddly bits.
I'm not trying to score points. I just hear that in Micho Russell's playing.
Thanks aubrey, it wasnt meant to be too serious a discush, certainly not a platform for a series of lectures on *the* correct way to play Irish music, Fireworks indeed,more of a dud squib. Don't you people have a home or a wife/husb and family to go to?
Auburn Benjamin Steen (the 3rd) to be specific. All seriousness aside, you struck at the heart of the tradition; for me at least. I do have a (modest) home, but no internet. So I go to the usual haunts seeking out you beautiful people.
I find this a worthy thread. Grand original post! The first few chestnuts are the best! Followed by . . . some . . . things . . . automatic. Myself included.
Play for the sake of playing. All else is banter.
Meh. I'm glad that, over the generations, people cared enough about this music to not "skip bits," despite having to hew coal (and worse) and feed mouths, so they could pass it down without dumbing it down.
The "heart of the tradition" isn't a bunch of drunk, half-assed dabblers wrecking the same tunes week after week in a ex-pat pub....
Believe me, there are days I wish I didn't. Surprisingly, it's not much different than some pubs in South London....
Danny, music's not about perfection. I think we all know that every time we play. But *this music* also isn't about skipping bits or implying that people are snobs if they take the music more seriously than you.
TV wants to know whether or not we have a home and/or a wife or family to go home to and I can answer yes to all of those questions. However, I am at work right now and it is temporarily slow enough so I can surf the Internet and reply to messages on this web site.
When Miss Lonelyhearts says, "A bunch of drunk, half-assed dabblers wrecking the same tunes week after week in an ex-pat pub", it sounds as if he or she must have visited us at least once and sat in at one of our local sessions.
LOL, fauxcelt, there are sessions like that everywhere.
My point was that these people may be having fun, but if they're just haphazardly mucking through the tunes, they're hardly the "heart of the tradition" as Random and Danny (tv) seem to be implying.
And even if you are dabblers, you can still make an effort to respect the tunes and the people who passed the down generation after generation. My own local sessions are a blend of dabblers and a sizable core of folks for whom the music is far more than just a hobby or an excuse to go out one night a week. Just because you live in a US backwater (like I do) doesn't mean you won't find people who've learned to play from brilliant Irish players and who are well immersed in the music and the tradition. I know Danny would be surprised at the level the music is played at here--nearly everyone who visits us is.
One of the downsides of the session scene is that so many people take it as an excuse to play to the lowest common denominator. Lots of better players lament the emergence of a "session style" of playing the tunes, stripped down to the bones, charging along faster than the players can play, three times through without variation and then on to the next pre-arranged tune in the stale set. But your session doesn't have to be that way, and if you love this music, it shouldn't be that way.
What I read in Danny's OP is that he's okay with just doing it for a hobby, so skipping bits and not applying yourself is all well and good.
Shame upon you Will Harmon for lying. You seem to want to take out of my few posts here what you want to fit your very wrong theories. And I've seen you do that before on this board. I actually do take my playing seriously, though of late I haven't had the time due to very long commuting journeys. This was not intended to be a very serious thread, more a light hearted look at some things that even "good" players do, sometimes. And certainly not a platform for lectures from those who want to be seen to be the lynchpins of the tradition.
My last post was in response to what Ms. L got from the original post. I got something a bit different, much more in-line with the light hearted tone tv intended, I believe.
Maybe you didn't mean to do it but it seemed to me that you carefully worded your ideas in a subjunctive mood as conjectures:
>these people may be having fun, but IF they're just haphazardly mucking through the tunes, they're hardly the "heart of the tradition" as Random and Danny (tv) SEEM to be implying.
And so on. There are other examples.
No, you didn't hit a raw nerve, but I don't like conjecture about me being WRIT LARGE.
And also, FWIW, that was the type thing that made me stop coming here also.
Er ... what's going on folks? I'm kind of lost ... I was enjoying the discussion, which I thought was interesting, but clearly I've been missing some subtext that has escaped me ...
the subtext is having to contend with an attitude that says:
Catering to the lowest common denominator affect this forum just like it affects sessions....
Danny, the subtext you read into my posts wasn't there. I certainly wasn't aiming it at you or the Blythe sessions.
I was responding at first entirely to the points Georgi raised and then Random's quip about the "heart of the tradition" being people just having a go at it.
I do apologize that my comments could've been read as nasty toward you--that wasn't my intent, up until you jumped down my throat. Not every comment here is about the OP.
Look--I'm betting we've all run into the long-time player who never gets beyond random tootling yet who shows up at every session and joins in. They might know three tunes, none of them recognizable, and they can't keep time or tune. Yet they think they're as much a part of the session as anyone.
That's a disservice to the people who've spent thousands of hours learning the music, and to the folks who've not skipped bits but who focus on getting all the bits and aren't satisfied till they do. They've earned a chance to play together without an incorrigible poser always mucking around in the middle of it, eh?
Having just now re-read the entire thread, I can't see how Danny thought I was picking on him--most of my comments were directed at Jon Kiparsky and in support of Georgi's posts. And al my uses of "you" were obviously the generic you.
So, no thanks, I'll not be responsible for Danny's paranoia.....
What US backwater do you live in Miss Lonelyhearts? Is it as out of the way as the place where I live here in Arkansas? Since we have so few guest musicians showing up to visit us and sit in with us, I have come to the conclusion that we must be an out-of-the-way backwater.
Some of the local session musicians (such as myself) have been lucky enough to go to music festivals and attend classes with master musicians. As a result, some of us know just enough about Irish music to be dangerous both to ourselves and others. We do try to respect the traditions of this music while we are playing it but at the same time we also want to enjoy ourselves and have fun at our local sessions.
Like myself, some of the musicians who participate regularly in our local sessions also play on a regular basis with a band (or bands) outside of the sessions. We come to the local sessions to play music because we love this music and it is an opportunity to play some music with our friends on what is a night off for myself and some of the other musicians at the local sessions.
And, last but not least, I am certainly not a musical Superman and/or a linchpin of this tradition or any other musical tradition. I have no intention of being a musical Superman or linchpin of any type.
Hey folks, easy does it. If I read things right one group is saying you don't have to be a super player and can play at your level. The other is saying sessions shouldn't have to sink to the lowest common denominator, particularly if there are a group of fine players. I don't see those views as mutually exclusive at all. Seems to me those who are limited in skills and repertoire can aspire to get better and to fit into sessions and those who are fine players can respect those efforts. The result will be good music making.
That said: I don't respect those who use their lack of skills and/or interest as an excuse to murder ANY repertoire be it Irish Trad or Jazz or Old Time or whatever. If what you want to do is play a bunch of basic tunes from various traditions without really trying to understand what a player IN one of those traditions does with the tune fine, but then stay away from the sessions or jams or whatever that cater to those who have made the effort to truly absorb a particular tradition. You won't feel welcome there and you won't enjoy yourself...and probably the others there won't enjoy you.
I hope you waded through that last sentence. I think I need an editor, or perhaps some sleep.
cboody, I don't see them as mutually exclusive ideas, either. But the OP treads close to the mindset described in your second paragraph. But I must've missed the "lightheartedness" Danny intended.
Fauxcelt, Arkansas is near the center of things from where I sit. I'm in Helena, Montana. Not quite a Canadian province, and at under a million people spread across the whole state (which is big enough to hold five Irelands) and our largest "city" at 160,000 (not my town), we're as back as a backwater can get when it comes to this music.
Thankfully, the planet's Irish traditional community is relatively small, friendly, and mobile, so we make the most of every opportunity to wallow in it. (Plus, as a teen, I lived on the western edge of Philadelphia, home to some late, great Irish fiddlers, and later lived in western Oregon--more great Irish fiddlers to learn from.)
Miss Lonelyhearts, are you the character from Helena Handbasket who bangs frogs on your sofa?
Also, since Billy Boy is no longer President and hasn't been President since he finished his second term in 2000, Arkansas can no longer be considered The Center Of The Universe.
Montana is one of the few states I have never visited and I don't know if I will ever have the opportunity to go there. If Glacier National Park is in Montana, we will visit Montana because both of us would like to go there.
Cheating
Cheating
I suspect I can almost predict the range of responses to this thread but being bored & off work due to transport problems, I thought I might light this particular touch paper, stand back and watch the fireworks.
By cheating I mean skipping a couple of notes or ornaments to keep up the rhythm & momentum of the tune. Also it might refer to going up an octave on the flute or DG box since you can't get down to low Bb or similar.
I do it. I know other players do it. If smuggled in quietly the odd cheat doesn't ruin the tune. Sometimes it can't be helped anyway if you make a little mistake but want to keep the tune going. Keep the tune going that's what I say.
Keep the show on the road - it's a performance after all, is it not?
If you were to try to get every tune note perfect you'd be there all night.... ermmm.... on the one tune that is. OK, maybe a few gifted sons & daughters of Orpheus on here can get every tune note perfect, or others have all day to sit about practicing tunes rather than be down the mine hewing coal to keep civilisation afloat, but most of us have jobs to go to and starving mouths to be fed.... this site is called The Session and is for session players - amateurs, lovers of the music - virtuosi are welcome but it's first and foremost for session players - I think? Lesser mortals are prone to making occasional mistakes and skip bits, are we not.
A little bit of cheating is fine, I say. Also you could blag it by claiming the cheats are your interpretation of the tune - which is sort of half-right, anyway.
OK. I think I've made my point.
Views please?
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by Rudall the time
Re: Cheating
I....that....postings would....improve...people.....out...a few....too!
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by RichardB
Re: Cheating
Years ago I was having a piping lesson with a well known player and I was struggling with a few notes on one tune and kept going back to fix it. He advised to learn to play through your mistakes and not lose the rhythm when you trip over something.
In a session, you have to. What are you going to do when the tune is flying past at 100mph? Stop and fix it? Chances are (if you're not me leading a set) that no one will have noticed anyway. They'll be too busy worrying about their own screw ups.
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by DrSilverSpear
Re: Cheating
I was under the impression that that adding or removing of notes was known as Improvising ;)
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by Barry1963
Re: Cheating
It's not like you're going to get fined for skipping a few notes. The only negative impression comes from the application of the term "cheating". If you named it differently, nobody would even notice a problem, probably...
"Doing the right thing is more important than doing the thing right" - P. Drucker.
So, where are the fireworks you promised?
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by Janek
Re: Cheating
I play with a flute player every once in a while who plays far faster than I can keep up with on a tune like Bucks of Oranmore for example. If I want to have a few tunes with the guy, I have no choice but to leave several notes along side of the road just to stay on pace with the man. Sort of like taking a turn with only two tires on the road as the scenery whizzes past and loose luggage falls out the back. If that is cheating, so be it.
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: Cheating
OOO! You are all in so much trouble! (not)
Barry half stole my joke. Those are actually called 'variations'.
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Cheating
Who determines the absolute correct way a tune is to be played in the first place? I always see variations in sheet music and recordings for any given song...and forget about trying to follow along with the Kevin Burke fan sitting next to you...sheesh!
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by Mike D
Re: Cheating
"By cheating I mean skipping a couple of notes................I do it "
Fair enough, t v, but I think you went a bit far when you submitted THIS :
http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display.php/2399
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by domhnall.
Re: Cheating
Try playing for dancers.
When playing for dancers:
Keeping on time and in key is the first priority.
Getting the tune "right" (whatever that means) comes second.
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by showaddydadito
Re: Cheating
Sorry - I meant performing for dancers.
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by showaddydadito
Re: Cheating
To even think of it as "cheating" implies an inappropriately rigid approach.
hmm, try saying that with your mouth full!
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by Bren
Re: Cheating
Full of what? are we back to teabags here?
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by showaddydadito
Re: Cheating
Domnull - thanks for introducing that lovely little tune. I'll remember your kindness whenever I play it.
My mother in law came to stay with us a couple of weeks ago. Then it snowed so much we can't get her back home.
(My mate Frank had his mother in law come to stay for a week in the early 70's and she stayed for 29 years.)
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by showaddydadito
Re: Cheating
Sigh.
Yeah, most everybody does it, but it's not really "ok". It's still something to try to avoid.
After all, what if somebody learns the tune in question from you (for lack of a better source)? By willfully cheating, you've contributed to damaging the tune, and by extension, the tradition. You may not think it matters how you play, but no raindrop feels responsible for the flood.
I've seen it happen plenty of times, and I've been on the receiving end of it a few times, leaving me feeling like a tool ("oh, that tune sounds for better like *that*... What? That's how everybody else plays it? Urg.")
There may not be hard and fast versions of these tunes, but it behooves anyone who takes this music seriously to make a concerted effort to play them "right"; whether it be learning them carefully, or even just not willfully dumbing them down out of laziness.
I listen to recordings of Coleman play the Tarbolton set, and I listen to other people--who typically learned it from somebody who, in turn, learned it from somebody else, who might have listened to Coleman a few times, and I think "that heavens Coleman's recordings are still available!".
In the end, if you take this music seriously (and I know that many here don't take it particularly seriously), it behooves you to at least try and do your best to get it right. Cheating and mistakes will happen (just like everybody mistakenly drives through a stop-sign every once in a while), but it's still best avoided...
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by Georgi
Re: Cheating
"Cheating" is what's made the good tunes good. Each time a tune is learned the "proper" way - yes, I'm becoming a regular llig on the subject - it's a chance to strip off some of the instrument-specific and the performer-specific bits and make the tune more of a tune. If everyone played the tune the way Coleman did, this wouldn't be a tradition, it'd be a preservation society. When you think "preservation", think "formaldehyde". (I never was one for formalities...)
Simplifying the tune by "cheating" is the flip side of dolling up a tune by "showing off". In both cases, what works in a session is one of the right things to do. I prefer to play with simplifiers, others prefer flashier players, but really anyone who plays the tune in time is fine with me.
The sheer number of people participating in the process makes it a conservative one. No one player's interpretation will be preserved unless it's so good that everyone who hears it decides it's the right thing, or unless it's so obvious that everyone comes up with it - in which case it's really inherent to the tune.
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Cheating
Jon,
"Cheating" isn't what made good tunes good. Thoughtful variation (even if it simplifies the tune) is what made good tunes good. Willfully cheating makes good tunes (like the butterfly or the concertina reel) bad.
There's a difference between changing a tune to make it "better" and changing it because you couldn't be bothered to go to the trouble of playing it the way _you_think_ is better. The former is totally acceptable (and encouraged), the latter is "cheating", and (while I concede that everybody does it) is best to at least *try* to avoid.
The "preservation = formaldehyde" line is so tired and pointless. If everybody played the one version that Coleman played that one time he recorded, that would be silly. If everybody played with Coleman's life and soul--and acute sense of gorgeous detailed VARIATION--that would be fantastic... But it's not just going to happen.
Still, you can bet your pants that Coleman wasn't "cheating" when he came up with his variations. He spent a lot of energy learning to play them the way he thought was best. Likewise did Kevin Burke, or Tommy Peoples, or Matt Molloy, or any of the musicians that we likely respect.
--Georgi
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by Georgi
Re: Cheating
I think a better alternative for "cheating" is "work-around". It implies a thoughtful professional approach to a problem such as a note outside the instrument's range, or beyond your technical ability - which you never mention, of course
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Cheating
But on the flip side, George, don't you think "trying to get every not perfect" leads to simple regurgitation of a tune, as opposed to expressing it. Part of the beauty of this music, to me, is the fluidity of your ability to express the tune however it takes your fancy at the moment - within reason, of course (and the amount of that "reason" is certainly a matter for debate).
I agree that there is a difference between glossing over a section of a tune because you don't know how it goes, or can't play it, and modifying a tune purposefully as part of your expression of it. But part of expression is allowing a tune to breathe, and giving some space to the notes, as opposed to playing every single note like a midi player. So maybe people can use the dropping of notes as the beginning of expression, and use it to their advantage. (It's a feature, not a bug... As we always say in software development).
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by Reverend
Re: Cheating
I must take umbrage at being misquoted:
Learning to play tunes the "proper" way is the way to learn them. Never ever ever ever ever have I ever said that's the way you should actually play them. You absolutely have to feck around with them, or it's not the music. But before you feck around with them. learn them properly.
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by ...
Re: Cheating
Great stuff folks.
Must remember not to use the "C" word again. Glossing over, working around, improvising, all sound much more palatable.
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by Rudall the time
Re: Cheating
I have often listen to accordion players playing, with a degree of ease, a tune that I find particularly hard to play. Then I discover that they are not playing the tune in the so called 'written key' but have picked a key which suits their prowess. I suppose you could call that cheating in a way, but what the hell, it's still the same tune.
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by Free Reed
Re: Cheating
Georgi - I think both sorts of variation are important. If either predominates, the music changes drastically. Too much simplification, and you're playing old-time American string band music - not that that's bad, it's just not what we're playing here. Too much complexity, and you're playing some sort of fight of the bumblebees muddle, as the virtuosi try to ornament each other's ornamentation. The two balance nicely.
Calling one "cheating" is, to my mind, silly. It's playing the tune. If you're just learning it, "cheating" is a way to find your way into the tune, so you can bring it to where you want it. If you know the tune well, "cheating" is a way of playing with economy and grace, rather than flash and fire.
This conversation is putting me in mind of the process of language change, which, like the tunes we're playing, proceeds by alterations made by each learner. That process, too, involves simplification and elaboration in fine balance, and the results of that process are likewise shocking to the older generation. The other similarity? Neither process can be stopped.
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Cheating
llig - I was referring to my conversion to the view that learning tunes "on the hoof" is the "proper" way to learn them, not meaning to attribute any of the other views in that post to you. I think you've demonstrated a certain capacity to speak for yourself on these matters, and I wouldn't dream of putting words in your mouth.
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Cheating
Not cheating.
The rhythym has to be sacred.
Learning and playing the tune correctly is a 'holy grail'. But in a group its important not to be a distraction. So leaving out a troubled note or ornament is forgivable.
The thing is not to let the troubled passage become learned. A number of threads here on the difficulty of relearning something correclty, so I will leave that alone, though I regularly experience that unfortunatley.
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by zippydw
Re: Cheating
You can have music without melody,e.g. rap (I can hear the jokes already and some kinds of African drumming) but you can't have music without rhythm. The beat is indeed sacred-- if you f**k upnotes, you must stick to the beat.
Bodhran joke:
Q: What's the difference between a foot massage and a bodhran player?
A: Well, the first bucks up the feet, while the second...
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by chris stolz
Re: Cheating
Some of my opinions on the topic:
When playing in a session, keep the rhythm going, even if you shave off a bit here and there, or as pointed out above, if you make a mistake. If the session is moving faster than you are able to play a tune, it is better to mend the tune than mess with the beat (although it also might be a good idea to suggest folks slow down for the next set!).
As a number of folks have stated above, when learning tunes, learn them properly. Of course, you might find that one source puts in a tricky phrase that ties you up learning it for weeks, and then find that another source avoids that tricky phrase entirely. So there are alternative approaches available. On the other hand, if everyone learns the simplest possible version, what you hear at a session may only be a pale shadow of an otherwise great tune (as Georgi pointed out).
I sometimes mend phrases on accordion that I would play differently on whistle, simply because of the mechanics involved, and my lack of proficiency on accordion. Some phrases sound better on one instrument than another, and some modification to fit your instrument is appropriate. For example, in a phrase where a flute player might put a roll, a banjo player might put a triplet.
In jazz, you don't really consider a tune known until you can play the melody, play around the melody, play countermelodies, play harmonies. We have had some discussions about what it really means to know a tune, and as many have said in those discussions, there are degrees of knowing the tune, and knowing where it can be mended and varied certainly are part of that process.
I would suggest that, if you learn a tune in a stripped down manner, and that is the only way you know it, at any speed, you could be accused of 'cheating.'
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by AlBrown
Re: Cheating
I generally like to end every tune with a dramatic pause or an awkward moment.
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by Lint - upon - Tweed
Re: Cheating
zippydw: playing the tune correctly (with the appropriate respect) isn't a Holy Grail. Good musicians do it all the time. Leaving out notes is forgivable, but it's still a (minor) infraction, and not to be overly encouraged.
Reverend: You're making the common mistake of equating perfection with duplication. One can indeed play something perfectly without playing exactly the same notes as someone else (playing exactly the same as a Michael Coleman '78, while it would be pretty darn impressive, would count as a flaw in my book anyway).
Jon: OT string-band music has plenty of subtle variation in it when it's done
right (and that attitude--thinking that it doesn't--is EXACTLY what I'm talking
about here. Undoubtedly you've heard plenty of amateurs play simple stuff and claim that's what the OT tradition is... Now you think Old-Time music is simplistic. See where the tradition suffers?) I'm not taking issue with simplification, or variation. I'm just taking issue with the fact that too many people don't tend to give enough respect to traditional music, and don't make a real attempt to play it properly.
A recurring theme of this thread seems to be an effort to get us to say "it's acceptable, even encouraged, to not try to play this music well". This seems to resonate with other popular (and IMHO toxic) themes:
1) it's "Folk Music", therefore it's not important to play it well (a popular misconception from ex-classical musicians).
2) "Sessions are for everybody", so people who care about playing this music well should only be welcome to the degree that they are willing to accomodate those who don't.
Nobody's perfect, everybody screws up, and everybody has dozens of tunes that they haven't learned as well as they should have, but that's not an excuse to condone apathy and cynicism towards quality of music. Music is important. We should care about trying to do it right, even if it doesn't actually happen much of the time.
Traditional music is good because people continue to care about making it good. You don't need to execute it perfectly (though that would be nice), but it's very important to care about doing it well.
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by Georgi
Re: Cheating
Georgi, I often leave out notes to breathe - so whether it's a minor infraction or not in your book, I think I'll continue anyway as it's way better than fainting and knocking all the pints over!
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by the wounded hussar
Re: Cheating
I still wonder at the phrase "learn properly" expressed time and again on various threads here. I still don't really get what the "right" definition of this phrase is meant to be, just as I don't get the original phrase. There are many different versions of one tune... just look at commentary sections of posted tunes here. If someone doesn't hit a note you normally hit when playing a tune... is that "cheating" or just the version they know? Is the version they know the "right or proper" way, or is your version the tune "learned properly"? Seems a very subjective and relative philosophy to me. I say, why do we keep worrying about what others think when we play and just have fun and enjoy playing... as many have said, if you're all in the same key and generally "keeping together" (maybe a few are playing some notes and adding ornamentation others do not, some just playing the "bare bones" and others adding in counter melodies that sound just fine), then what's the big deal?
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by Fiddlechick7
Re: Cheating
Hmm, there appears to be a fine line between caring and flipping out.
Who's to say the original poster wouldn't have played the tune perfectly had he/she not been hanging on for dear life, getting dragged around the 'dance floor' at top speed by an ace?
Very specific situation there. Playing over your head with the bog boys once in a while is a good thing, in my opinion. Do what you need to do to hang, and learn. When you set the speed, don't hurt yourself. When you play them solo, do it right.
No big whoop. No need to call the trad police. “Woo woo woo. All righty there pally, pull on over. We heard you muff that triplet as you were trying to keep up with the Alpha musician. It’s the hoosegow for you.”
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Cheating
hahaha, bog boys. Anyone taken that for a band name yet?
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Cheating
There are many, but this is one of my favorite Lligisms:
"Learning to play tunes the "proper" way is the way to learn them. Never ever ever ever ever have I ever said that's the way you should actually play them. You absolutely have to feck around with them, or it's not the music. But before you feck around with them. learn them properly."
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Cheating
Fiddlechick - when I used the term "learn the proper way" I was talking - with tongue simultaneously in and out of cheek - about the process of learning, meaning learning tunes from other players, in a session, as opposed to the popular habit of reading them off of sheets of paper.
I was decidedly not talking about learning the "right" version or setting or allowable variations of a tune. That idea, to me, sounds absolutely mental.
I don't know what others mean by it, but that's what I mean.
# Posted on January 8th 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Cheating
In a session I do often play a simplified version of a tune so that I can keep up and keep learning. I'm still new at this. I do strive to get more of the notes each time if I possibly can. If we couldn't do this, how would any of us ever play at a session? Would we have to wait 40 years until we'd be able to join in?
# Posted on January 9th 2010 by sbhikes
Re: Cheating
Hussar: if you sound better when you breathe, then leaving out a note or two to breathe is probably a good musical choice.
FiddleChick7: The "proper way" isn't about specific versions of tunes as much as it is about the attempt to get _a_real_version_. It's about not just "learning the bare bones" (and counter-melodies are mostly anathema, if you're actually trying to do it with respect to tradition).
Yes, this is subjective, but that absolutely doesn't mean it's meaningless.
The "Big Deal" is that since this music is learned person to person, one person's apathy towards passing it on with due respect actually damages the tradition itself. If you respect traditional music, you should at least TRY to learn it properly. The music has lasted this long because people before us made that effort.
Some excellent musicians feel there is a single "correct" way to play a tune. This relatively extreme attitude is worthy of a certain amount of respect. They don't generally mean that the tune has to have an exact set of notes, but rather that there are some things they hear in the tune that they feel are important to the tune's integrity. If you don't understand why people might feel this is important, and don't appreciate the advantage of this attitude, you probably could benefit from trying to figure it out.
I think there are lots of "proper" ways to learn a tune, and a handful of improper ones. Rather than come up with a strict definition (which would almost certainly be wrong), I'll pose an example:
1) Try to learn the tune from a good source, preferably from a good musician whose taste you respect--ideally you'd learn it in person, but recording works too. (Learning from sheet music is half-baked. Occasionally useful, but most often harmful. People who don't understand why it's bad best avoid it completely).
2) Make a point of trying to learn it as much like your source plays as possible. If your source plays a C# that's awkward to reach for you, learn it with the C# regardless (then decide whether you prefer the tune with the C# afterwards). Try to ornament in the same places that your source does. Learning a tune in a session is fine, provided you actually learn the tune, rather than some half-arsed approximation that you think none of the drunk punters in the bar would notice was different.
3) Once you've got it, try to play it well. Feel free to play around with it, in the hopes of getting it to sound better, but try to avoid ironing it out just because you're feeling lazy.
And for a counter example of how to do it "improperly":
1) learning a tune from a book, without ever having heard it... Especially if you are relatively new to traditional music (if you do this, you are cheating yourself out of an opportunity to actually learn trad music in favor of getting a few notes under your fingers).
2) Ignoring awkward bowing, notes, octaves, and ornamentation, in favor of something easier, for no other reason than that it's easier for you.
3) Finding the simplest common denominator between a few times through the tune and playing that every time, rather than learning a few variations in detail--especially if those variations recurr consistently in your source's playing (eg: the second time through the second part).
4) Only learning the bare-bones of a tune.
I'm tempted to also add "5) Learning from someone who learned it improperly", but that's more complicated than it's worth getting into.
In the end, it's about paying due respect to where you got your music from, and carrying that respect on through the way you play it. It's not a crime to fail sometimes, but it's worth trying.
# Posted on January 9th 2010 by Georgi
Re: Cheating
"Some excellent musicians feel there is a single "correct" way to play a tune."
True. But they seldom agree on what that is, exactly.
# Posted on January 9th 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Cheating
"True. But they seldom agree on what that is, exactly. "
Jon, I know my last post was too long, but if you're gonna bother to respond to it, you might bother to at least read all three of the sentences in the paragraph you're responding to.
# Posted on January 9th 2010 by Georgi
Re: Cheating
Oh, I read. I just don't care so much.
But I'll try to work up a shred of enthusiasm:
I honestly can't see any sense in the statement that "there is a single "correct" way to play a tune" and I know I've never met a player who was any good who held that view. I don't know what it would mean to believe that. I can believe that there are bad ways to play tunes - meaning by that that there are versions of tunes that I don't like - but there are plenty of good ways to play any given tune.
Better?
And while I'm at it, I would encourage anyone learning a tune to ignore awkward bowings, picking, fingering, or breathing. If it's awkward to play, it'll sound awkward, and you'll lose time and they'll hate you at the session and they'll laugh at you until you cry, and then they'll feel bad and it'll be all your fault.*
Learn the tune, and then play it with a bowing, picking, fingering, or breathing that works. If someone else is playing it awkward, that's their problem, not yours.
*Not really, that's a joke.
# Posted on January 9th 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Cheating
Jon, the problem with "ignore awkward bowings" is that most people would never do some important things most Irish fiddlers routinely do, like pedal (aka figure-eight) bowing and bowed triplets. If you never go beyond your comfort zone, then you dumb down the music.
And I agree completely with Georgi's comment, which Jon seems to be misinterpreting, so much so that I want to re-post it:
"Some excellent musicians feel there is a single "correct" way to play a tune. This relatively extreme attitude is worthy of a certain amount of respect. They don't generally mean that the tune has to have an exact set of notes, but rather that there are some things they hear in the tune that they feel are important to the tune's integrity. If you don't understand why people might feel this is important, and don't appreciate the advantage of this attitude, you probably could benefit from trying to figure it out."
Yes, if when learning a tune, you leave out its signature bits, then you're not really learning the tune. Until you know those bits, you won't have a proper context for understanding what distinguishes that tune from others, or from variations of that tune.
Case in point: strip out all the twiddly bits and the third part of Over the Moor to Maggie and you get something radically different--which happens to be the "standard" old time setting of what is called "Waynesboro." Now if you enjoy old timey fiddling and that's what you want to play, all power to you (I enjoy it too). But don't call it Irish traditional, and don't expect an Irish session to welcome you with smiles and pints all around.
(Yes, there's room for both--I've had the pleasure of playing Over the Moor/Waynesboro with Alan Jabbour. But he wasn't pretending to play Irish trad and I wasn't pretending to play old timey.)
# Posted on January 9th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Cheating
cheating? I thought it was called learning - now I like it better.
# Posted on January 9th 2010 by airport
Re: Cheating
Miss Lonelyhearts (if that is your real name...
), I think that this is exactly what I mean when I say the statement makes no sense to me. In order to make this work, for your example "the correct way" has to be "as if it were an Irish tune". "Take out all the twiddly bits" is hardly changing anything specific about Over the Moor to Maggie, but rather changing your style of playing. You could just as easily say "to make a tune sound old-timey, first remove the Irish ornamentation", which is true, but it hardly defines one tune versus another.
Now perhaps I am missing something. I read "a 'correct' way to play a tune" as meaning "to play a PARTICULAR tune" - that is, that there is a single correct way to play the Musical Priest.
On the other hand, it might be that the correct interpretation is "a single correct way in which tunes generally should be played". Okay, that's got its own problems, obviously, but they're ones I didn't address.
If the first is the correct interpretation, then I don't see how this example helps at all. I assume that when you learn a tune, you're learning to play it with the person you're playing it with, and I also assume that if you're learning Irish tunes that you're going to be doing some of the things that Irish players do. What I'm saying is that there's no reason to get too worked up about getting exactly what the other guy does. You're trying to learn a tune, not a rendition. I'm not saying that you then play it completely without ornaments or phrasing, and certainly not that you then add in the flavor of old-time music.
If the second is what was meant, then I give up. That's just silly. You'd either be saying that there is such a thing as Irish music - okay, true enough but not exactly an earth-shaking conclusion - or that there is one true way to play Irish music, which is a subset of all the stuff that we call Irish music. That is, that Galway's right and Sligo's wrong, or vice versa, or some such silliness. That can't be what George means, either, because it would be insane, but that's one way to read what he said.
So I'm baffled. Someone please clarify. What is it that I'm disagreeing with, anyway?
In neither case do I see you getting away from the basic problem: there are plenty of ways to play a given tune, and many of them are quite good. Either you expand the "single correct way" to encompass all of them, in which case, fine, so what, the claim reduces to "what's good is correct" which is hardly illuminating, or you have to pick and choose which good versions are somehow not "correct" - and in the process explain the basis for your choices. Good luck on that one.
The whole thing, really, seems silly. Why get so worked up about this? Where did we start from? Someone's going to learn the Bank of Ireland wrong, and break Irish music - forever. Hundreds of years gone, because someone didn't learn the right version.
Sorry, but as a cause for alarm, it's not very high up on my list.
# Posted on January 9th 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Cheating
LOL, that's quite an essay, full of straw men. Yet you completely ignored what Georgi and I have posted about the bits important to a tune's integrity and the "signature bits."
It's not that complicated, and I'm not alarmed or worked up over it.
Maybe this misunderstanding is a matter of degree. If you're just trying to get the bones of a tune at a session so you can play along, then by all means just play the notes that land on every other beat and enjoy the craic.
But if you're actually trying to play this music well, then yes, you *do* have to learn what you call a "rendition" of it. Learn the tune from someone whose playing you admire and respect, who's well grounded in this music, and learn every nuance of how they play the tune. In fact, that's precisely how players like Brian Conway and Sean Smyth and Oisin MacDiarmada teach tunes. What would be the point of learning a tune from such a player but neglecting to understand the specifics of what they're playing? You might as well save yourself (and them) the trouble and just buy a fake book.
I've heard people who glossed over the details when they learned Bank of Ireland. They missed even obvious things like the shift between C nat and C sharp, never mind how the emphasis moves between downbeats and backbeats (they played it all backbeats). It sounded like bad bluegrass, besides not blending with what the rest of the session was playing.
Sorry, that's not my cuppa tea, and it's not the music.
Of course, that's not to say that there's only one correct sequence of notes and twiddly bits, etc., for a tune to be "right." Any decent player will have his or her own sense of the tune, grounded in the playing of the person who passed it on to them, on down the line, and grounded in an understanding of other settings of the tune, learned from other players.
Ideally, your source when learning a tune gives you his or her sense of the tune, and then shows how that can be explored, interpreted, varied.
In short, if you want to play this music well, in a way that other Irish traditional musicians will accept and maybe even respect, then yes it matters who you choose to learn your tunes from and how carefully to pick up the specifics as well as the broader context of regional and personal and historical styles and approaches to those tunes. Anything less is just dabbling, and there's already plenty of that to go around.
# Posted on January 9th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Cheating
To expand on the final point of Miss Lonelyhearts, until you have gotten a tune from more than one source, do you truly 'know' it yet? Knowing a tune does not just represent one version of the tune, it involves knowing the possibilities the tune presents.
# Posted on January 9th 2010 by AlBrown
Re: Cheating
Surley going up the octave on the flute can't be considered cheating?
# Posted on January 9th 2010 by premier
Re: Cheating
Thanks for that Al, that was the point I was trying to make.
I have a sound clip somewhere of Patrick Orceau teaching Garret Barry's jig where he teaches it one way, then shows how some other fiddler plays it, then does the "old" setting with high Fs as naturals.
As well defined as a tune setting can get, no tune is an island.
# Posted on January 9th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Cheating
I Agree, learn a tune from a single source first, variations and all, and then listen to every different version possible. This happens anyway when you learn a tune and hear a different rendition. You will notice the differences immediately. I personally try to incorporate as many players styles as possible for a tune, while paying closest attention to how it is played on other instruments than the fiddle (what I usually play) because those will be the least intuitive but can be the most enriching. I don't think reading notes hinders this process either, at least not for me, because there are certainly more notated versions of tunes available to me than recorded versions. Of course there is a difference between sitting down and learning a tune note for note in a short period of time and slowly acquiring it over time from hearing it at a session or on many recordings until it is ingrained in memory. The second method usually involves more cheating while you try to play the bare bones of a tune in a session until you are comfortable enough to begin including ornaments and variations.
# Posted on January 10th 2010 by Earl Cameron
Re: Cheating
Seems to me that much of the difficulty in this discussion and similar ones I've read here stems from the definition of the word "tune." It appears one group of folks define it as "as set collection of notes in a constant order with a constant rhythm" while other folks define it as "a general outline filled with possibilities for variation and improvisation."
So, "learning a tune" becomes, by extension, either memorizing a set of notes off the page or learning from someone what the possibilities are available within the general outline that is the tune.
Clearly it is the latter item in each of the above paragraphs that best defines what Irish Trad is all about, and hence the suggestion that you learn all the things some good player does with a tune and then go on to discover what others do to/with it.
Does any of this help? Or, is it just late at night and I'm talking to myself again...
# Posted on January 10th 2010 by cboody
Re: Cheating
Some of us are still awake....
I'd add a third--unattractive but not uncommon--possibility to your two definitions: for some people, a tune is just a few emphasized notes pinned on a chord progression, and the rest of it is filler.
And it's this sense of a tune that leads to learning a tune "improperly" as Georgi says, to dumbing down this music, or at best changing it into something else, something more like American old time (if left sparse) or bad jazz or pentatonic rock or bluegrass (if the "filler" is more or less made up on the fly).
If you really want to play this music, you have to come to grips with the fact that it's detailed, nuanced, notey music, where good players hang on every note, and on the smallest tweak of timing and articulation of every note. You can't strip all of that out and still have Irish traditional music.
I'd also argue that learning a tune as a "set collection of notes in a constant order with a constant rhythm" misses the gist and spirit of this music.
When people come to this music from another genre, they often bring their understanding of their own genre to bear on Irish traditional tunes. They'd be better off (and so would our sessions) understanding this music on its own terms.
# Posted on January 10th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Cheating
You have convinced me Miss L, though the process started in a similar discussion (about leaving ornaments out) elsewhere. In my case it becomes English not American old time. Same tune though, I think, but not diddley enough.
# Posted on January 10th 2010 by David50
Re: Cheating
My teachers taught me that I should play through my mistakes and try to make it look as if I meant to do that.
Miss Lonelyhearts is correct--you must try to understand this music on its own terms and that is equally true of other genres of music as well.
# Posted on January 10th 2010 by fauxcelt
Re: Cheating
Irish diddley music is full of abiguity and that's part of its atraction. What it's not though is, "you're all in the same key and generally keeping together". Maybe that's not a big deal to some people. But for the people who love this music, it is.
# Posted on January 10th 2010 by ...
Re: Cheating
I don't like it either when musicians are unable to play in the same key and at the same tempo and rhythm at a session.
# Posted on January 10th 2010 by fauxcelt
Re: Cheating
"Your cheatin' hart (oh deer) will tell on you" (to quote the late Hank Williams.
# Posted on January 10th 2010 by fauxcelt
Re: Cheating
you miss the point (unless you were being sarcastic) there is very very much more to the music than merely being in the same key and generally keeping it together. The quote was from fiddlechick7 above. She asked that: as long as the session was in the same key and generally keeping it together, what the big deal?
She doesn't get the concept of learning something properly. She thinks it's a "very subjective and relative philosophy". She's wrong of course.
# Posted on January 10th 2010 by ...
Re: Cheating
Sarcasm on the mustard board, oh my!
Actually, Fiddlechick begins by pointing out a number of paradoxes, "I still wonder at the phrase "learn properly" expressed time and again on various threads here. I still don't really get what the "right" definition of this phrase is meant to be, just as I don't get the original phrase. There are many different versions of one tune... just look at commentary sections of posted tunes here. If someone doesn't hit a note you normally hit when playing a tune... is that "cheating" or just the version they know? Is the version they know the "right or proper" way, or is your version the tune "learned properly"?"
It is only after this point when she begins to make conclusions ~ for better or worse. Although, Fiddlechick is *asking*.
# Posted on January 10th 2010 by Ben Steen
. . .
tv, how can Jeremy can you if you keeping posting good threads? This is the topic which always takes my mind back to an earlier discussion. Unfortunately the accompanying video clip is long gone;
Re: 'minimalistic treatment'
November 17th 2007
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/15829/comments#comment328679
I am just now working my way through the comments. So far Miss L, IMHO, is spot on.
"If you really want to play this music, you have to come to grips with the fact that it's detailed, nuanced, notey music, where good players hang on every note, and on the smallest tweak of timing and articulation of every note. You can't strip all of that out and still have Irish traditional music."
# Posted on January 10th 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Cheating
I'm not looking forward to the day when folks start to make academic study of this music instead of just playing to relax and pass the time. . . oh wait. . .
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by lastnitesfun
Re: Cheating
I wouldn't worry about it lastnitesfun, most people just use this website to talk sh*te. Only the very naive come to any harm.
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by bogman
Play for the sake of play. Discuss for the sake of . . . whatever ~ Who cares? In between the tunes is sport.
or banter, or mustard.
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Cheating
It's as straight forward as this: If someone lends you the courtesy of showing you a tune, the very least you can do is learn it properly. Learn everything they are showing you ... everything. It's not your place to pic and choose which bits you leave out. What you do with the tune after that is up to you, but never ever forget any tiny detail of what was shown to you. Never disrespect it.
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by ...
& then *someone* comes along with another version of the tune you were just *shown*?
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Cheating
Aren't we merely discussing what we personally think about "the Folk process", or is Irish Traditional Music" exempt from this concept?
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by Ebor_fiddler
No & Yes
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Cheating
Random, that's the point--if you're trying to play this music within the tradition, then you learn the next traditional player's version, assuming it's one you like, That expands and enhances your understanding of the music, of the tune itself, and of the broader cultural context.
It's not an "academic study" either. Just the simple respect of knowing your sources and learning what they have to pass along. That's the folk process: honoring the folks who played this tune before you by learning their music, not some half-baked approximation.
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Cheating
& then *someone* comes along with another version of the tune you were just *shown* and you show them the same courtesy you showed the first guy.
As for the "Folk process" ... it's the biggest pile of balls. It's just a feckin raft of goddam lazy feckers who won't learn tunes properly.
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by ...
Thanks for that Michael. Will, have another toke. ;)
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Cheating
Funny...Michael and I just said the same thing.
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Cheating
I know Will, and it's at times like this that people come on here and agree with you ..., but not me. ha ha
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by ...
Re: Cheating
There is a difference between creativity and laziness, and that I think is the point of this discussion--creativity within the bounds of the tradition is good, but 'streamlining' or 'dumbing down' tunes because of laziness is bad.
Now I need to understand how Michael can say the same thing as Will, but then claim he doesn't agree with him. hmmmm
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by AlBrown
Re: Cheating
LOL, what he meant was that people agree with me, but they won't agree with Michael, even when we say the same thing.
But who's paranoid?
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Cheating
So what if the person who lends the courtesy of showing me a reel is from Scotland and its a tune that many scots would claim as their own, or the person showing me a jig knows it mainly from playing for rapper sword dancers in N E England ?
My respect would be first for the person giving the time, second for the tune in the irish tradition. What should I do with it before showin up and sessions where llig and Miss L go -apart from playing for another 5 years or more.
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by David50
Re: Cheating
showing up at sessions
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by David50
Re: Cheating
I think you should give equal respect to the scottish tradition. Though whether you learn the tune that way is up to you. Though a good example is that Scottish pipe reel the Bothy Band play on that big set on Out of the Wind Into the Sun. Don't ever think you have it until you hear a really got version on the GHB.
Don't assume to respect anything less just because it's not from your own tradition. If the Irish had taken that attitude we wouldn't have most of the tunes we have now. Irish musicians have always been great plunderers of other musics.
As for a jig from rapper sword dancers ... you're probably better off trying to learn it from sheet music.
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by ...
Re: Cheating
The tune was only getting respect second because I was putting a person first. Tunes don't care, we've done that before and, as someone said, they hate anthropomorphism.
Are there two aspects to this learning a tune properly ? Is there is learning a version, by ear from a person who plays it with others in sessions. And then there is learning a version and style that would be accepted widely as being within the irish tradition - which I think is mainly what this discussion is about.
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by David50
Re: Cheating
These two aspects are one in the same. You cannot distinguish between them.
The discussion is about whatever you do with a tune, don't do it just because you are a feckin lazy cloth-eared blighter.
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by ...
Re: Cheating
I can see that they won't be distinguished if one has access to an 'authentic' irish tradition. But many of us have 'live' contact with irish tunes in the context of them being a shared repertoire across traditions. And it is rare not to get a set of irish tunes on mainly instrumental recordings by english or scottish musicians.
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by David50
Re: Cheating
OK ... very common to get a set of irish tunes on mainly ...
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by David50
Re: Cheating
>it's detailed, nuanced, notey music, where good players hang on every note, and on the smallest tweak of timing and articulation of every note.
Micho Russell?
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by Rudall the time
Re: Cheating
Yep, including Micho Russell's playing, and that of Mary McNamara, and all the other "spare" player's out there. Their playing is still stuffed full of details and nuance and tiny tweaks of timing and articulation. It's not just the "big" stuff--rolls and scratch triplets or flashy variations--that make this music what it is. The little stuff is equally or more important.
The more closely you listen, the more you hear. Even more so with Micho.
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Cheating
"Their playing is still stuffed full of details and nuance and tiny tweaks of timing and articulation". Would the American old time players say that ? I think many English players would (somewhere in a recent fiddle discussion I strayed into lazyhound linked a fascinating article).
Is it diddley not done using diddles ? Is that splitting hairs ? (where have I read that about irish music recently - oh yes, in the Chris Woods essay that tv linked). And while we are at it, on another current thread bogman has just said "But there is also a huge grey area of reels and jigs played in session style that are pretty much homeless. "
Good site this.
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by David50
Re: Cheating
>stuffed full of details
crap
It's spare. The odd ornaments help the rhythmic flow as you say, and that's it.
However, gwan, win the argument that seems to be the main motive here
# Posted on January 11th 2010 by Rudall the time
Re: Cheating
The mention of Micho Russell seems to polarise opinion. If you love his playing, as I do, you may find, as I do, for instance, that his playing is "detailed, nuanced" and, I would add, packed full of character and charm. I suppose you may love his playing and find it "spare". But I would have thought a fair proportion of those in the "spare" camp would be the same as those who don't see much in his playing. And there are plenty of those, surprisingly.
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by ethical blend
Re: Cheating
dead horse brigade ~ so . . detailed & notey seems, IMHO, not minimalist. Nuanced for sure; but not minimalist(?) I'm asking. In other words, "less is more" might be a confusing if used to describe traditional Irish music.
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Cheating
It's melodically/harmonically (same thing) minimalist. But not rhythmically. And if this isn't too much of a contradiction for you, the complexity of the rhythmic stuff is mostly done harmonically.
But overall, it is simple music. Simple, that is, compared with the vast majority of musics of the world.
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by ...
Re: Cheating
Fair play & spot on, though I was referring to the thread I linked earlier about the *minimalist treatment*. http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/15829
I have the utmost respect for someone when they take the time to play a tune for me on the simplest instrument ~ the tinwhistle. Especially when their main instrument is not tinwhistle. Makes each of us listen very closely. Me, out of respect. The one showing me the tune, because she or he is going out on a limb.
Hoping to bring it back to Danny's OP
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by Ben Steen
;)
w/out contradiction it ain't Mustardville.
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by Ben Steen
Where does the apostrophe go?
I am the last one to suss it out, Mr. Gill. But I think it is musics' of the world. For more details; http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/621/1
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Cheating
Danny, I'm not trying to win any argument, just stating my opinion. Which happens to be that Micho's music has more to it in his playfulness with timing and rhythm than many players have despite all their flash and twiddly bits.
I'm not trying to score points. I just hear that in Micho Russell's playing.
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Cheating
Poor Micho. Him, Tommy Potts, and Kevin Burke seem to be brought into everyone's arguments on this site.
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by DrSilverSpear
Re: Cheating
IMHO less is more.
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by Ben Steen
~
please re-read the original post, & think about what tv is asking. It got sh*t canned for no good reason.
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Cheating
Thanks aubrey, it wasnt meant to be too serious a discush, certainly not a platform for a series of lectures on *the* correct way to play Irish music, Fireworks indeed,more of a dud squib. Don't you people have a home or a wife/husb and family to go to?
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by Rudall the time
Re: Cheating
Auburn Benjamin Steen (the 3rd) to be specific. All seriousness aside, you struck at the heart of the tradition; for me at least. I do have a (modest) home, but no internet. So I go to the usual haunts seeking out you beautiful people.
I find this a worthy thread. Grand original post! The first few chestnuts are the best! Followed by . . . some . . . things . . . automatic. Myself included.
Play for the sake of playing. All else is banter.
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Cheating
Meh. I'm glad that, over the generations, people cared enough about this music to not "skip bits," despite having to hew coal (and worse) and feed mouths, so they could pass it down without dumbing it down.
The "heart of the tradition" isn't a bunch of drunk, half-assed dabblers wrecking the same tunes week after week in a ex-pat pub....
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Cheating
>a bunch of drunk, half-assed dabblers wrecking the same tunes week after week in an ex-pat pub....
Well I'm glad I don't live in Montana then....
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by Rudall the time
Re: Cheating
Believe me, there are days I wish I didn't. Surprisingly, it's not much different than some pubs in South London....
Danny, music's not about perfection. I think we all know that every time we play. But *this music* also isn't about skipping bits or implying that people are snobs if they take the music more seriously than you.
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Cheating
TV wants to know whether or not we have a home and/or a wife or family to go home to and I can answer yes to all of those questions. However, I am at work right now and it is temporarily slow enough so I can surf the Internet and reply to messages on this web site.
When Miss Lonelyhearts says, "A bunch of drunk, half-assed dabblers wrecking the same tunes week after week in an ex-pat pub", it sounds as if he or she must have visited us at least once and sat in at one of our local sessions.
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by fauxcelt
Re: Cheating
LOL, fauxcelt, there are sessions like that everywhere.
My point was that these people may be having fun, but if they're just haphazardly mucking through the tunes, they're hardly the "heart of the tradition" as Random and Danny (tv) seem to be implying.
And even if you are dabblers, you can still make an effort to respect the tunes and the people who passed the down generation after generation. My own local sessions are a blend of dabblers and a sizable core of folks for whom the music is far more than just a hobby or an excuse to go out one night a week. Just because you live in a US backwater (like I do) doesn't mean you won't find people who've learned to play from brilliant Irish players and who are well immersed in the music and the tradition. I know Danny would be surprised at the level the music is played at here--nearly everyone who visits us is.
One of the downsides of the session scene is that so many people take it as an excuse to play to the lowest common denominator. Lots of better players lament the emergence of a "session style" of playing the tunes, stripped down to the bones, charging along faster than the players can play, three times through without variation and then on to the next pre-arranged tune in the stale set. But your session doesn't have to be that way, and if you love this music, it shouldn't be that way.
What I read in Danny's OP is that he's okay with just doing it for a hobby, so skipping bits and not applying yourself is all well and good.
Meh.
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Cheating
Shame upon you Will Harmon for lying. You seem to want to take out of my few posts here what you want to fit your very wrong theories. And I've seen you do that before on this board. I actually do take my playing seriously, though of late I haven't had the time due to very long commuting journeys. This was not intended to be a very serious thread, more a light hearted look at some things that even "good" players do, sometimes. And certainly not a platform for lectures from those who want to be seen to be the lynchpins of the tradition.
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by Rudall the time
Re: Cheating
Sigh.
And that kind of response is exactly why I stopped coming here.
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by Georgi
Re: Cheating
Wha?
Wow. Musta hit a nerve.
I'm as far from a linchpin as anyone can get, and I have no doubts about that.
But at least I'm not the one here trying to run anyone off for simply voicing their opinions....
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Cheating
Yeah, me too, Georgi.
Catering to the lowest common denominator affect this forum just like it affects sessions....
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Cheating
Well, perhaps. However, there's another aspect here, and that's not beating yourself up because you can't play like Superman.
A fine line. Please do aspire to the heights, but yes, it's no reason to beat yourself up if you can't perform (HA! Oops!) musical miracles.
Or, to put it another way, not being able to perform (oh noes!) musical miracles is no reason to sink the lowest common denominator.
Aim high. Don't knock yourself out. Whatever you do, do not forget to use the whoopee cushion.
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Cheating
My last post was in response to what Ms. L got from the original post. I got something a bit different, much more in-line with the light hearted tone tv intended, I believe.
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Cheating
Maybe you didn't mean to do it but it seemed to me that you carefully worded your ideas in a subjunctive mood as conjectures:
>these people may be having fun, but IF they're just haphazardly mucking through the tunes, they're hardly the "heart of the tradition" as Random and Danny (tv) SEEM to be implying.
And so on. There are other examples.
No, you didn't hit a raw nerve, but I don't like conjecture about me being WRIT LARGE.
And also, FWIW, that was the type thing that made me stop coming here also.
# Posted on January 12th 2010 by Rudall the time
Re: Cheating
Er ... what's going on folks? I'm kind of lost ... I was enjoying the discussion, which I thought was interesting, but clearly I've been missing some subtext that has escaped me ...
# Posted on January 13th 2010 by ethical blend
Re: Cheating
the subtext is having to contend with an attitude that says:
Catering to the lowest common denominator affect this forum just like it affects sessions....
# Posted on January 13th 2010 by Rudall the time
Re: Cheating
Yeah, but I didn't understand what that meant, so I sort of glossed over it ...
# Posted on January 13th 2010 by ethical blend
Re: Cheating
In that case best to stay out of it - be a wise monkey - see no evil. I wish I could.
# Posted on January 13th 2010 by Rudall the time
Re: Cheating
Danny, the subtext you read into my posts wasn't there. I certainly wasn't aiming it at you or the Blythe sessions.
I was responding at first entirely to the points Georgi raised and then Random's quip about the "heart of the tradition" being people just having a go at it.
I do apologize that my comments could've been read as nasty toward you--that wasn't my intent, up until you jumped down my throat. Not every comment here is about the OP.
Look--I'm betting we've all run into the long-time player who never gets beyond random tootling yet who shows up at every session and joins in. They might know three tunes, none of them recognizable, and they can't keep time or tune. Yet they think they're as much a part of the session as anyone.
That's a disservice to the people who've spent thousands of hours learning the music, and to the folks who've not skipped bits but who focus on getting all the bits and aren't satisfied till they do. They've earned a chance to play together without an incorrigible poser always mucking around in the middle of it, eh?
# Posted on January 13th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Cheating
Having just now re-read the entire thread, I can't see how Danny thought I was picking on him--most of my comments were directed at Jon Kiparsky and in support of Georgi's posts. And al my uses of "you" were obviously the generic you.
So, no thanks, I'll not be responsible for Danny's paranoia.....
# Posted on January 13th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Cheating
What US backwater do you live in Miss Lonelyhearts? Is it as out of the way as the place where I live here in Arkansas? Since we have so few guest musicians showing up to visit us and sit in with us, I have come to the conclusion that we must be an out-of-the-way backwater.
Some of the local session musicians (such as myself) have been lucky enough to go to music festivals and attend classes with master musicians. As a result, some of us know just enough about Irish music to be dangerous both to ourselves and others. We do try to respect the traditions of this music while we are playing it but at the same time we also want to enjoy ourselves and have fun at our local sessions.
Like myself, some of the musicians who participate regularly in our local sessions also play on a regular basis with a band (or bands) outside of the sessions. We come to the local sessions to play music because we love this music and it is an opportunity to play some music with our friends on what is a night off for myself and some of the other musicians at the local sessions.
And, last but not least, I am certainly not a musical Superman and/or a linchpin of this tradition or any other musical tradition. I have no intention of being a musical Superman or linchpin of any type.
# Posted on January 13th 2010 by fauxcelt
Re: Cheating
Hey folks, easy does it. If I read things right one group is saying you don't have to be a super player and can play at your level. The other is saying sessions shouldn't have to sink to the lowest common denominator, particularly if there are a group of fine players. I don't see those views as mutually exclusive at all. Seems to me those who are limited in skills and repertoire can aspire to get better and to fit into sessions and those who are fine players can respect those efforts. The result will be good music making.
That said: I don't respect those who use their lack of skills and/or interest as an excuse to murder ANY repertoire be it Irish Trad or Jazz or Old Time or whatever. If what you want to do is play a bunch of basic tunes from various traditions without really trying to understand what a player IN one of those traditions does with the tune fine, but then stay away from the sessions or jams or whatever that cater to those who have made the effort to truly absorb a particular tradition. You won't feel welcome there and you won't enjoy yourself...and probably the others there won't enjoy you.
I hope you waded through that last sentence. I think I need an editor, or perhaps some sleep.
# Posted on January 13th 2010 by cboody
Re: Cheating
cboody, I don't see them as mutually exclusive ideas, either. But the OP treads close to the mindset described in your second paragraph. But I must've missed the "lightheartedness" Danny intended.
Fauxcelt, Arkansas is near the center of things from where I sit. I'm in Helena, Montana. Not quite a Canadian province, and at under a million people spread across the whole state (which is big enough to hold five Irelands) and our largest "city" at 160,000 (not my town), we're as back as a backwater can get when it comes to this music.
Thankfully, the planet's Irish traditional community is relatively small, friendly, and mobile, so we make the most of every opportunity to wallow in it. (Plus, as a teen, I lived on the western edge of Philadelphia, home to some late, great Irish fiddlers, and later lived in western Oregon--more great Irish fiddlers to learn from.)
# Posted on January 13th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Cheating
Apology accepted Will, and please accept my apology for "jumping down your throat". I don't think I'm paranoid. Who said I was? C'mon who was it?
:-0
# Posted on January 13th 2010 by Rudall the time
Re: Cheating
"Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you...."
# Posted on January 13th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Cheating
Miss Lonelyhearts, are you the character from Helena Handbasket who bangs frogs on your sofa?
Also, since Billy Boy is no longer President and hasn't been President since he finished his second term in 2000, Arkansas can no longer be considered The Center Of The Universe.
Montana is one of the few states I have never visited and I don't know if I will ever have the opportunity to go there. If Glacier National Park is in Montana, we will visit Montana because both of us would like to go there.
# Posted on January 13th 2010 by fauxcelt
Re: Cheating
This is me after reading this thread:
http://www.students.sbc.edu/kitchin04/artandexpression/edvard_munch_the_scream590%5B1%5D.jpg
# Posted on January 13th 2010 by Rudall the time
Re: Cheating
LOL, this would be me: http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lgsc0169+homers-scream-the-simpsons-art-print.jpg
fauxcelt, yes, swing up to see Glacier--it's worth the drive. And it's only 4 hours from Helena, so we'll save a seat for you at our session.
# Posted on January 13th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Cheating
I kinda like Marvin's general attitude
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4P3pvKmbsg&feature=related
# Posted on January 13th 2010 by Rudall the time
Re: Cheating
Sorry I can't resist, being in a silly mood. More Marvin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_sZD7ZnWvc&feature=related
and more HHGTTG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=174xssvh1-w
# Posted on January 13th 2010 by Rudall the time
Re: Cheating
Thank you for the invitation Miss Lonelyhearts, we may take you up on it one of these years.
# Posted on January 14th 2010 by fauxcelt