1. Jeremy- My browser said thesession.org is for sale ???????
You deal with that. I trust it's an error.
2. This is a sort of 'If a tree falls in the forest..." question
Why do we play realllly pretty music at 'lighting speed'. I ask because I am at the point where I can do it...But I don't know Why'?"
The 'Music" holds it's own at any tempo. The reels are like Bach. The jigs and slides are like Beethoven. The aires are like Sancon.
I play because The Music is really pretty. The Sessions force us to to play at lightning speed- I don't feel The Music.
SWFL and Ilig (come out of retirement for a few minutes) Your input is appreciated. ( I think this is an important discussion otherwise I would have done a personal contact).
Are you sure you didn't accidentally go to thesession.com (which is for sale)? Where did you see this message?
And I know I'm not llig or SWFL, but you get my opinion anyway... Speed can change a tune, but it doesn't need to ruin it, and in a lot of cases, it takes on a new personality at a high speed. I am all for a variety of tempos throughout the course of a session. But I really miss it if at least some of it isn't flying along.
It's like a rollercoaster. When the music is moving at a good clip, the twists and turns in the melody come faster, and carry more of an element of surprise, even if you know they're coming.
And when you're playing it (well) at that speed, it's as much of an adrenaline rush as the rollercoaster. The problem is that not everybody can play fast well, and so that can suck some of the life out of it....
Tunes can sound good fast, but too often people play tunes faster than they can play them - they can hit all the notes at that tempo, but they can't play the tune. This is why I always suggest that beginners should practice slow - when you play slow, you really have to find the phrases, the glue that holds the tune together. If you get that, then when you play it fast, the phrases are (hopefully) still there. If you practice the tune fast all the time, all you learn is how to get your fingers to the next note in time, and the tune becomes an exercise in digital gymnastics.
I'm with you zippy. We crank through dozens of great tunes
every sunday - usually loud and sloppy - partly my fault I'm sure.
It would nice to bring it down to John Blake and Lamont Gillespie
speed sometimes. When I try it, I get "outvoted" by tempo-pushers.
BTW what does this have to do with jeremy? I don't get it.
Pretty much what Reverend and Hup said. It's a lot easier to play fast with mistakes than play slow and in tune and in rhythym. Playing fast for the sake of playing fast is sometimes a way to show off and play sloppy at the same time. I know, because I've done it plenty of times myself!
A question from the newbie: Aren't people supposed to take the lead from the person who calls/starts the tune? Is there really a problem starting up a few of your favorites at a more gentle pace?
Another idea, ice the hands of anyone speeding. That should slow them down a little.
Well, once you can play the tunes at an easy lope with lots of lift and pulse and nyah, it's enjoyable to bump the pace up a notch, and then again, because the lift and pulse and nyah can still be there *with the addition* of a certain groove that happens only at faster tempos.
Don't take me wrong--I'm as strong an advocate as you'll find for playing lively no matter what the pace. If you can't play with life and pulse and nyah at 60 beats per minute, then please leave the 126 bpm pace for better players. But plain speed (within reason) does NOT in itself kill the feel for a tune. Good players can create all sorts of great life and pulse and nyah well up into the 140 bpms range, when it's called for.
P.S. I love playing, say, the Greenfields of Rossbeigh, at a slow, easy lope. But it also sounds good at a fast clip. If you really want to play this music well, it's best if pace is a choice you make for reasons of mood, danceability, etc. Not a limitation imposed by your inability to create lift and nyah at one pace but not another.
There are people I know in Dublin who play at a really relaxed tempo, and it's great. I've been in sessions with them, and it's some of the best music you could find. At other times it's nice to rip along, as the Reverend suggests. And sometimes it's nice to mix it up. But often a session will find its own tempo for the evening, and the whole thing blends into a rather delicious, usually alcohol-softened, blur of sound. That can be great too.
But hey, anyone who has contributed to tunes & threads here has helped to build this great edifice - so maybe if there is some truth in it - we can all get a cut!!? Happy days.
What happens is, you go to Chamonix and your D string snaps. According to Kant, this is because reason is contingent upon the existence of the categorical imperative, which is (cont p94)
(I thought I'd add this because I like arguing with myself.)
You're wrong, you scouse git. The snapping of the D string is, utilitarianistically speaking, adding to the utility of more happiness to the manufacturers and retailers of the string. Bentham was right (he still attends meetings, but is recorded as "did not vote").
This is amazing. I am in Chamonix AND my D-string has snapped. Is this cause and effect or are these two events unrelated? I don't know. But one thing I do know. One cannot buy a violin string in Chamonix. Should have packed the spare sets but have started keeping them in the bodhran case. Fat lot of use they are to me there. I wonder what de Selby would make of this.
Question for string players out there. Is it worth trying to play/practice without a D string? Or is it just the High Reel till Saturday?
Well I am of the opinion that playing fast all the time or slow all the time is not a general rule. Each tune has its own personality if you will and may be suited to being played fast or slow. I think it is important to play tunes at different speeds and see where it sounds the best. Some tunes sound great played at a nice relaxed tempo whereas some might get a bit boring without a bit of drive. And there are plenty of tunes that sound great when you play them slow or drive them along, 'Mayor Harrison's Fedora' has energy played fast but it is also gorgeous when played slow. Thats what I think on the matter, it is like anything else in life you can't really generalize tunes to slow or fast when you have some many to play. Not every reel should be played at 120 bpms all the time.
Thanks for the suggestion yhaalhouse but I've only got two more days (which I intend to spend chanting "I will never again forget to pack my spare strings ......."
...and on topic Mr. zippy, why does we? Yes, because we can.
Sure, there's nothing worse than a player playing just beyond his or her ability, stumbling and bumbling along at 'ludicrous speed' (Mel Brooks' ‘Spaceballs’ anyone?) and making a total mess out of it.
Then again, what might be worse is someone playing a tune you've played a million times as a snail's pace with no life, lift, swing, nyah or oomph.
Is it a lesser of two evils situation? Do people fall into speeding it up in order to cover gaps or deficiencies in nyah at slow speeds? Sometimes, though not always.
If someone is going to play Sally Gardens without any sauce, I’d rather have them cream the sucker at hyperactive set dance speed. Playing it moderately or slowly with no juice or goodies is going to make me want to cram the tip of my bow in my eye. It’s just how it is with those tunes that are old warhorses and have been good and flogged.
The real trick is can you play the tune at any speed with all the sauce you like? That’s the true measuring stick. If not, then ya prolly ain’t doing it right, as the grumpy old man in the back of the pub with the cap would say. At any speed, the tune should live and breathe, not become an amphetamine zombie, nor become a catatonic television watcher.
"Then again, what might be worse is someone playing a tune you've played a million times as a snail's pace with no life, lift, swing, nyah or oomph."
Ah, but slow does not mean without lift! If you can't play it slow with some bite to it, you should certainly not try to play it fast.
Of course, by slow I don't mean at some dirge-like drag. The Salley Gardens would make a terrible air - unless you mean the song, which is another matter entirely.
Sorry. I feel like I just dropeed in from a flying saucer. All manner of crises at the office occupying every waking minute.
I am glad to hese there is appreciation for a slower pace. I thought I was missing one of those unspoken rules that I always seem to trip over.
The Evanston session I go to does vary pace to honor specific tunes. But a couple of others it's all 'warp speed' whether its a reel, slip jig, or an air (kind of kidding). And if a person starts off at a nicer pace, it seems that everyone jumps in and runs the pace up to 180.
I would never generalize about fiddle players since at one session, its the whistlers who take the tune and run.
I think I am with SWFL's 'cover gaps' comment. And I don't know if the image is how my mind's eye sees Llig.
I think a see a more dominant brow peering over the top of a pair of 'spectacles', sort of image.
And on the grammar comments- must be some newer posters.
FYI. I went to engineering school. So I can't spell worth a d**m. That's why I married Herself- she's an English teacher, who thinks I am culturally deprived by training. I prefer to think of myself as a creature of Spell-Check
Easy there Mr. zippy, you'll have a whistler revolt on your hands!
Does this sound familiar?
Starts reel @ 100 bps
Gets to the tricky bits in the B part
Barfs them all out at @ 110
Carries on at 110
Gets to the tricky bits in the B part
Barfs them all out @ 120
Carries on @ 120...
Sash, after intensive and, indeed, little short of groundbreaking (if not backbreaking (it wasn’t. – Ed.)) research, I have, frustratingly, failed to unearth any Kantian analysis or critique of 3-string fiddle playing. The only possible reference was in a little-known proto-Benthamian commentary by de Selby entitled Was ist los, Herr Dok? (itself eerily, if unknowingly, prescient of the cartoon character Bugs Bunny) in which he makes the point that, owing to its elevation of over 1050m, the choice of the High Reel is particularly apposite.
"Is it worth trying to play/practice without a D string? Or is it just the High Reel till Saturday?"
Whyever not, if it's still fun? But don't you need your D string for that low G in the High reel? Here are a few you *can* play on the A and E strings:
Dinky's
The Boys of Malin
McArthur Road
The Glass of Beer
Jenny's Chickens
John Stenson's #1
Dan Collins' Father's
If your description of Irish music is "really pretty music" then I think you might be missing the whole point. What is the point? I have finally managed to articulate it with great precision, but this website is too small to contain it.
zippy, the speed thing really depends on the players & how familiar they are with a tune & how they get on with the other players. With the right set of circumstances some tunes can be played fast & you can definitely feel the music. Tempo, it depends. Great that you can play at speed, just don't give up everything else by being too single minded.
Thing I notice is not when a tune is getting played too fast or too slow, but rather when the tempo is up & down & up & down. Then it gets uncomfortable.
Listen to the good players & don't think, "how can I play that fast?" instead, how about, "I want my tunes to sound this good & feel easy."
Here is a YouTube link of the Sé Mo Laoch documentary on TG4 about one row melodeon player Johnny Connolly; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC8vuMZTVMQ
You may have already seen this one, hope you enjoy his music. Sorry for crashing your thread this way. I have it downloaded & was watching it again before last nights' session.
Yes, tempo does make a difference because certain tunes sound better at certain speeds--either faster or slower. This is equally true no matter what type of music you are playing or what instrument you play. You want to make the music come alive but you don't want it to be too lively.
Fair play, though I think Will made a good point, "If you really want to play this music well, it's best if pace is a choice you make for reasons of mood, danceability, etc. Not a limitation imposed by your inability to create lift and nyah at one pace but not another."
Can you imagine someone saying they married their wife because she was really pretty? If you are gonna spend some time and make an effort over something, anything, if you love something/someone, you'd better have a better bloody reason that it/they is/are merely "pretty".
If this music was "Pretty" with only a surface beauty and nothing else going on underneath the surface (like my sister-in-law and too many other women), I would have quit playing it and playing around it with it many years ago. However, since there is much more to this music than what you may see or hear on the surface, I am still playing it fifteen years later and I still enjoy playing it.
[The Sessions force us to to play at lightning speed- I don't feel The Music.] yes, the aesthetic that brought me into the music was the non-lightning aesthetic, as played by the irish musicians whose sound made me want to make that sound also. it was kind of a shock to be confronted with the whack-a-tune hegemony...and i don't mean, people who play faster than their skill level. i mean, good players who want to sound like that teada Live record. this is an aesthetic i would run through a plate-glass window to get away from. but i've come to feel the problem isn't fast playing. the fact is, even in county clare or galway, you have plenty of whack-a-tune, by really good players. but in those places, there are so many fine players and so much of the music, that there are also enough really high-quality musican playing the music at a gorgeous relaxed speed that you have your choice of where to hang and play, and fair play to the whackers. so, london has plenty of hyper-drive going on, but it also has john blake and lamond gillespie. and the east coast usa has willie kelly, mike rafferty, dana lyn, and others.....see?
so the problem isn't really the fast players (though i agree that those who engage in this without having the chops to do belong in the stocks)...the problem is really that outside of galway, county clare, london, or other places in or out of ireland with a wide and deep supply of players to a very high standard, you don't have that kind of choice. and where i live, the more relaxed-speed sessions are often pretty depressing experiences because they're not relaxed due to being led by master musicians who extol that style. they're relaxed because the playing is not strong, and that's the tactful way of putting it. the stronger players where i live want to drive in the fast lane, and yes, they do have the chops to do so. So yeah, i do a workout at high speeds about once a month because it's really good for my playing. but on my own i follow my own aesthetic...
"Can you imagine someone saying they married their wife because she was really pretty? If you are gonna spend some time and make an effort over something, anything, if you love something/someone, you'd better have a better bloody reason that it/they is/are merely "pretty"."
llig, I would say I married my wife because she was really pretty. Especially if she was present during the conversation!
And some people aren't just pretty on the surface, they are pretty right down to the bone--just like The Music is!
Anyway, is it just me? I've always thought of he adjective "pretty" to be a slightly derogatory term. My dictionary has things like, "pleasing to the ear: a pretty tune." This is not the music I know and love. The best of it can be difficult to the ear, especially the unfamiliar ear.
And the adverb is even worse ... "fairly or moderately: Her work was pretty good."
I'd be describing the best of this music as bloody brilliant.
I think whether or not the word "pretty" has derogatory connotations depends on context. Much like the word "cute." It can mean what it literally means, or it can be a polite euphemism for, "I think (whatever) is butt ugly."
I have heard people say, "That's a pretty tune" in an entirely complimentary way. I've heard the phrase "that's a pretty good tune" in a way in which the speaker was understating how awesome they thought the tune was and also, in a way which implied the speaker thought the tune was crap but was too polite to say.
You can make any word or phrase make what ever you want it to mean. Language's arsenal of stuff like sarcasm (which is really just sneering derision), deliberate ambiguity, fashionable reversals of meaning (like Michael Jackson saying he's "bad") and suggested connotation are cop outs.
Artificially constructed context aside, if you think this music is "pretty", you're either listening to the wrong players, or you're not getting it.
@ david_h: "I have heard "pretty" and "quite good looking" used by men to describe women to their partners in order to indicate (or simulate) objectivity".
Oh, really? You have "heard" it, or you say it?
Does your partner ever tell you the same thing about men she/he fancies? If not, why not?
I think the music's "pretty", all right. I don't think we should dismiss a perfectly good word. The music does have a pleasing quality and a grace to it, both of which (in my dictionary) seem to be associated with "pretty". It's just that there's so much more going on as well ...
this music is descriptive - of a whole range of things and interactions. "pretty" is probably a perspective of some people from some other parts of the world other than where the music actually comes from. That'd be pretty right, I'd say, anyway.
DD. You are missing the point. Both terms are superficial in that they refer to something on the surface and both are inherently subjective. I was not implying any lack of transparency.
I guess its a bit like being shown round someones lovingly created collection of roses or orchids and referring to them 'pretty flowers'. But if they choose to think of them that way that's fine.
Fair enough, David. And I agree that I wouldn't normally use the word "pretty" on its own when referring to decent trad. I just think it can be pretty *as well*. Like the orchids.
"Why do we play realllly pretty music at 'lighting speed'."
One eminently reasonable answer I'd proffer in all sincerity, is to stop it sounding so horribly bloody pretty.
DD, I believe he dwells in the city, so would that make him a metrognome? (sorry)
Point is spot on. A little tempo injects some power and passion into a pretty tune. Any other p words while we're at it? p*ss off, perhaps? Oh, well, there's two more.
Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
1. Jeremy- My browser said thesession.org is for sale ???????
You deal with that. I trust it's an error.
2. This is a sort of 'If a tree falls in the forest..." question
Why do we play realllly pretty music at 'lighting speed'. I ask because I am at the point where I can do it...But I don't know Why'?"
The 'Music" holds it's own at any tempo. The reels are like Bach. The jigs and slides are like Beethoven. The aires are like Sancon.
I play because The Music is really pretty. The Sessions force us to to play at lightning speed- I don't feel The Music.
SWFL and Ilig (come out of retirement for a few minutes) Your input is appreciated. ( I think this is an important discussion otherwise I would have done a personal contact).
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by zippydw
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Sorry
Or maybe Sancon is like the Airs
I am conflicted tonight.
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by zippydw
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Are you sure you didn't accidentally go to thesession.com (which is for sale)? Where did you see this message?
Speed can change a tune, but it doesn't need to ruin it, and in a lot of cases, it takes on a new personality at a high speed. I am all for a variety of tempos throughout the course of a session. But I really miss it if at least some of it isn't flying along.
And I know I'm not llig or SWFL, but you get my opinion anyway...
It's like a rollercoaster. When the music is moving at a good clip, the twists and turns in the melody come faster, and carry more of an element of surprise, even if you know they're coming.
And when you're playing it (well) at that speed, it's as much of an adrenaline rush as the rollercoaster. The problem is that not everybody can play fast well, and so that can suck some of the life out of it....
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by Reverend
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Tunes can sound good fast, but too often people play tunes faster than they can play them - they can hit all the notes at that tempo, but they can't play the tune. This is why I always suggest that beginners should practice slow - when you play slow, you really have to find the phrases, the glue that holds the tune together. If you get that, then when you play it fast, the phrases are (hopefully) still there. If you practice the tune fast all the time, all you learn is how to get your fingers to the next note in time, and the tune becomes an exercise in digital gymnastics.
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
I'm with you zippy. We crank through dozens of great tunes
every sunday - usually loud and sloppy - partly my fault I'm sure.
It would nice to bring it down to John Blake and Lamont Gillespie
speed sometimes. When I try it, I get "outvoted" by tempo-pushers.
BTW what does this have to do with jeremy? I don't get it.
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by Hup
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
"Digital gymnastics" I like that Jon. I have had to accompany too many people who played tunes that fast just because they could do it.
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by fauxcelt
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Pretty much what Reverend and Hup said. It's a lot easier to play fast with mistakes than play slow and in tune and in rhythym. Playing fast for the sake of playing fast is sometimes a way to show off and play sloppy at the same time. I know, because I've done it plenty of times myself!
A question from the newbie: Aren't people supposed to take the lead from the person who calls/starts the tune? Is there really a problem starting up a few of your favorites at a more gentle pace?
Another idea, ice the hands of anyone speeding. That should slow them down a little.
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by banshee misfortune
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
By 'Sancon', do I assume the French composer Saint-Saens is meant?
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by nicholas
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Well, once you can play the tunes at an easy lope with lots of lift and pulse and nyah, it's enjoyable to bump the pace up a notch, and then again, because the lift and pulse and nyah can still be there *with the addition* of a certain groove that happens only at faster tempos.
Don't take me wrong--I'm as strong an advocate as you'll find for playing lively no matter what the pace. If you can't play with life and pulse and nyah at 60 beats per minute, then please leave the 126 bpm pace for better players. But plain speed (within reason) does NOT in itself kill the feel for a tune. Good players can create all sorts of great life and pulse and nyah well up into the 140 bpms range, when it's called for.
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
P.S. I love playing, say, the Greenfields of Rossbeigh, at a slow, easy lope. But it also sounds good at a fast clip. If you really want to play this music well, it's best if pace is a choice you make for reasons of mood, danceability, etc. Not a limitation imposed by your inability to create lift and nyah at one pace but not another.
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by Will Harmon
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
... and by "it's" I presume you mean "its" ...
... but grammar police apart ...
There are people I know in Dublin who play at a really relaxed tempo, and it's great. I've been in sessions with them, and it's some of the best music you could find. At other times it's nice to rip along, as the Reverend suggests. And sometimes it's nice to mix it up. But often a session will find its own tempo for the evening, and the whole thing blends into a rather delicious, usually alcohol-softened, blur of sound. That can be great too.
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by ethical blend
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
But hey, anyone who has contributed to tunes & threads here has helped to build this great edifice - so maybe if there is some truth in it - we can all get a cut!!?
Happy days.
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by the wounded hussar
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
What happens is, you go to Chamonix and your D string snaps. According to Kant, this is because reason is contingent upon the existence of the categorical imperative, which is (cont p94)
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by pfft
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
(I thought I'd add this because I like arguing with myself.)
You're wrong, you scouse git. The snapping of the D string is, utilitarianistically speaking, adding to the utility of more happiness to the manufacturers and retailers of the string. Bentham was right (he still attends meetings, but is recorded as "did not vote").
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by pfft
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
This is amazing. I am in Chamonix AND my D-string has snapped. Is this cause and effect or are these two events unrelated? I don't know. But one thing I do know. One cannot buy a violin string in Chamonix. Should have packed the spare sets but have started keeping them in the bodhran case. Fat lot of use they are to me there. I wonder what de Selby would make of this.
Question for string players out there. Is it worth trying to play/practice without a D string? Or is it just the High Reel till Saturday?
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by sashiko calico
Sashiko, foreign parts & her three stringed fiddle
Sashiko, couldn't you order a set on line and pay to have them delivered to you tomorrow (1st class or wotteffah)?
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by yhaalhouse
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Well I am of the opinion that playing fast all the time or slow all the time is not a general rule. Each tune has its own personality if you will and may be suited to being played fast or slow. I think it is important to play tunes at different speeds and see where it sounds the best. Some tunes sound great played at a nice relaxed tempo whereas some might get a bit boring without a bit of drive. And there are plenty of tunes that sound great when you play them slow or drive them along, 'Mayor Harrison's Fedora' has energy played fast but it is also gorgeous when played slow. Thats what I think on the matter, it is like anything else in life you can't really generalize tunes to slow or fast when you have some many to play. Not every reel should be played at 120 bpms all the time.
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by Why Bother?
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Thanks for the suggestion yhaalhouse but I've only got two more days (which I intend to spend chanting "I will never again forget to pack my spare strings ......."
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by sashiko calico
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
no, not worth it, your violin won't sound right without the regular amount of tension over the bridge.
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by Earl Cameron
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Thanks Earl C - it was a crazy idea I know (probably something to do with the altitude)
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by sashiko calico
Speed
I just took a wander through memory lane:
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/index/search?name=speed
I came across this article I posted a million years ago:
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/13155
No, not really, it was 2007. Pretty funny though, I recommend checking it out.
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Most of us buy it everyday. We just aren't laying out the cash.
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
...and on topic Mr. zippy, why does we? Yes, because we can.
Sure, there's nothing worse than a player playing just beyond his or her ability, stumbling and bumbling along at 'ludicrous speed' (Mel Brooks' ‘Spaceballs’ anyone?) and making a total mess out of it.
Then again, what might be worse is someone playing a tune you've played a million times as a snail's pace with no life, lift, swing, nyah or oomph.
Is it a lesser of two evils situation? Do people fall into speeding it up in order to cover gaps or deficiencies in nyah at slow speeds? Sometimes, though not always.
If someone is going to play Sally Gardens without any sauce, I’d rather have them cream the sucker at hyperactive set dance speed. Playing it moderately or slowly with no juice or goodies is going to make me want to cram the tip of my bow in my eye. It’s just how it is with those tunes that are old warhorses and have been good and flogged.
The real trick is can you play the tune at any speed with all the sauce you like? That’s the true measuring stick. If not, then ya prolly ain’t doing it right, as the grumpy old man in the back of the pub with the cap would say. At any speed, the tune should live and breathe, not become an amphetamine zombie, nor become a catatonic television watcher.
We miss ya big guy: http://joefago.com/Fiddle/Dots_files/LLIG_2.jpg
(Thanks to fidkid for the above graphic. No, that’s not really Llig but in my mind’s eye it always is.)
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
"Then again, what might be worse is someone playing a tune you've played a million times as a snail's pace with no life, lift, swing, nyah or oomph."
Ah, but slow does not mean without lift! If you can't play it slow with some bite to it, you should certainly not try to play it fast.
Of course, by slow I don't mean at some dirge-like drag. The Salley Gardens would make a terrible air - unless you mean the song, which is another matter entirely.
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Sorry. I feel like I just dropeed in from a flying saucer. All manner of crises at the office occupying every waking minute.
I am glad to hese there is appreciation for a slower pace. I thought I was missing one of those unspoken rules that I always seem to trip over.
The Evanston session I go to does vary pace to honor specific tunes. But a couple of others it's all 'warp speed' whether its a reel, slip jig, or an air (kind of kidding). And if a person starts off at a nicer pace, it seems that everyone jumps in and runs the pace up to 180.
I would never generalize about fiddle players since at one session, its the whistlers who take the tune and run.
I think I am with SWFL's 'cover gaps' comment. And I don't know if the image is how my mind's eye sees Llig.
I think a see a more dominant brow peering over the top of a pair of 'spectacles', sort of image.
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by zippydw
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Jon, did you get to the last paragraph?
"The real trick is can you play the tune at any speed with all the sauce you like? That’s the true measuring stick."
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
And on the grammar comments- must be some newer posters.
FYI. I went to engineering school. So I can't spell worth a d**m. That's why I married Herself- she's an English teacher, who thinks I am culturally deprived by training. I prefer to think of myself as a creature of Spell-Check
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by zippydw
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Easy there Mr. zippy, you'll have a whistler revolt on your hands!
Does this sound familiar?
Starts reel @ 100 bps
Gets to the tricky bits in the B part
Barfs them all out at @ 110
Carries on at 110
Gets to the tricky bits in the B part
Barfs them all out @ 120
Carries on @ 120...
Remember, we tease because we care!
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Sash, after intensive and, indeed, little short of groundbreaking (if not backbreaking (it wasn’t. – Ed.)) research, I have, frustratingly, failed to unearth any Kantian analysis or critique of 3-string fiddle playing. The only possible reference was in a little-known proto-Benthamian commentary by de Selby entitled Was ist los, Herr Dok? (itself eerily, if unknowingly, prescient of the cartoon character Bugs Bunny) in which he makes the point that, owing to its elevation of over 1050m, the choice of the High Reel is particularly apposite.
Hope this helps.
I know I have.
Max
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by pfft
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Oh, and by the way, you're one parenthesis short.
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by pfft
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
"Is it worth trying to play/practice without a D string? Or is it just the High Reel till Saturday?"
Whyever not, if it's still fun? But don't you need your D string for that low G in the High reel? Here are a few you *can* play on the A and E strings:
Dinky's
The Boys of Malin
McArthur Road
The Glass of Beer
Jenny's Chickens
John Stenson's #1
Dan Collins' Father's
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
If your description of Irish music is "really pretty music" then I think you might be missing the whole point. What is the point? I have finally managed to articulate it with great precision, but this website is too small to contain it.
# Posted on February 17th 2010 by Chrishty
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
At long last, the day we have awaited is here ~ 18 February 2010!
# Posted on February 18th 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
zippydw, if your browser is telling you lies (such as thesession.org being for sale), you should probably use a different browser.
# Posted on February 18th 2010 by Jeremy
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
long phrases make more sense at higher speeds. When played slowly they can be lost in a sea of unnecessarily or accidentally accented beats.
# Posted on February 18th 2010 by millionyears_bc
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
I can only dream of 140 beats per minute but I have noticed tonight that the faster the reel the better the ladies downhill skiing looks
# Posted on February 18th 2010 by Eòsaph
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Random, And the significance of 18 Feb 2010 is??????
# Posted on February 18th 2010 by AlBrown
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Return of Lligg?
# Posted on February 18th 2010 by Eòsaph
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Be afraid, be very afraid!
# Posted on February 18th 2010 by AlBrown
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
I missed all the fun, there's no trace of that infamous day. Welcome back mate, if you'll have us.
No worries Al, we're all in the same boat, in a mustard washed sea. We can use a bit more colourful play once again.
# Posted on February 18th 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
What .. Julie? She's always a bit rabid after time in the cell; but its the best bit.
# Posted on February 18th 2010 by Eòsaph
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
zippy, the speed thing really depends on the players & how familiar they are with a tune & how they get on with the other players. With the right set of circumstances some tunes can be played fast & you can definitely feel the music. Tempo, it depends. Great that you can play at speed, just don't give up everything else by being too single minded.
Thing I notice is not when a tune is getting played too fast or too slow, but rather when the tempo is up & down & up & down. Then it gets uncomfortable.
Listen to the good players & don't think, "how can I play that fast?" instead, how about, "I want my tunes to sound this good & feel easy."
# Posted on February 18th 2010 by Ben Steen
For zippydw ;)
Here is a YouTube link of the Sé Mo Laoch documentary on TG4 about one row melodeon player Johnny Connolly;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC8vuMZTVMQ
You may have already seen this one, hope you enjoy his music. Sorry for crashing your thread this way. I have it downloaded & was watching it again before last nights' session.
# Posted on February 18th 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Yes, tempo does make a difference because certain tunes sound better at certain speeds--either faster or slower. This is equally true no matter what type of music you are playing or what instrument you play. You want to make the music come alive but you don't want it to be too lively.
# Posted on February 18th 2010 by fauxcelt
Tempo
Fair play, though I think Will made a good point, "If you really want to play this music well, it's best if pace is a choice you make for reasons of mood, danceability, etc. Not a limitation imposed by your inability to create lift and nyah at one pace but not another."
# Posted on February 18th 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
"I play because The Music is really pretty"
Pretty??
Yeauuurrch.
Can you imagine someone saying they married their wife because she was really pretty? If you are gonna spend some time and make an effort over something, anything, if you love something/someone, you'd better have a better bloody reason that it/they is/are merely "pretty".
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by ...
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Yer man!
Yes, she's pretty, does the whites just how I like them and makes a mean sammich. God love her.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
If this music was "Pretty" with only a surface beauty and nothing else going on underneath the surface (like my sister-in-law and too many other women), I would have quit playing it and playing around it with it many years ago. However, since there is much more to this music than what you may see or hear on the surface, I am still playing it fifteen years later and I still enjoy playing it.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by fauxcelt
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
[The Sessions force us to to play at lightning speed- I don't feel The Music.] yes, the aesthetic that brought me into the music was the non-lightning aesthetic, as played by the irish musicians whose sound made me want to make that sound also. it was kind of a shock to be confronted with the whack-a-tune hegemony...and i don't mean, people who play faster than their skill level. i mean, good players who want to sound like that teada Live record. this is an aesthetic i would run through a plate-glass window to get away from. but i've come to feel the problem isn't fast playing. the fact is, even in county clare or galway, you have plenty of whack-a-tune, by really good players. but in those places, there are so many fine players and so much of the music, that there are also enough really high-quality musican playing the music at a gorgeous relaxed speed that you have your choice of where to hang and play, and fair play to the whackers. so, london has plenty of hyper-drive going on, but it also has john blake and lamond gillespie. and the east coast usa has willie kelly, mike rafferty, dana lyn, and others.....see?
so the problem isn't really the fast players (though i agree that those who engage in this without having the chops to do belong in the stocks)...the problem is really that outside of galway, county clare, london, or other places in or out of ireland with a wide and deep supply of players to a very high standard, you don't have that kind of choice. and where i live, the more relaxed-speed sessions are often pretty depressing experiences because they're not relaxed due to being led by master musicians who extol that style. they're relaxed because the playing is not strong, and that's the tactful way of putting it. the stronger players where i live want to drive in the fast lane, and yes, they do have the chops to do so. So yeah, i do a workout at high speeds about once a month because it's really good for my playing. but on my own i follow my own aesthetic...
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by ceemonster
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
"Can you imagine someone saying they married their wife because she was really pretty? If you are gonna spend some time and make an effort over something, anything, if you love something/someone, you'd better have a better bloody reason that it/they is/are merely "pretty"."
Isn't that the purpose of mail order brides?
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by DrSilverSpear
one would think
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by Ben Steen
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
llig, I would say I married my wife because she was really pretty. Especially if she was present during the conversation!
And some people aren't just pretty on the surface, they are pretty right down to the bone--just like The Music is!
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by AlBrown
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
SilverSpear, maybe you should have said, "Male Order Brides" instead of "mail order brides"?
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by fauxcelt
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
You get my vote Al, the bus driver extrordinaire.
Bragging rights reserved.....Yeah baby!
My pretty wife is a pleasure to wake up next to. Jumpin jeepers...her bones are pretty!!
I feel the same way bout the music!!
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by Gone to work
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
.. or is it ... male's order wives?
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by ...
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
.,.... ..... to thwack their goat skins?
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by ...
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Anyway, is it just me? I've always thought of he adjective "pretty" to be a slightly derogatory term. My dictionary has things like, "pleasing to the ear: a pretty tune." This is not the music I know and love. The best of it can be difficult to the ear, especially the unfamiliar ear.
And the adverb is even worse ... "fairly or moderately: Her work was pretty good."
I'd be describing the best of this music as bloody brilliant.
"Pretty good" just doesn't hack it for me.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by ...
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Superficial rather than derogatory maybe ? Hence the need for "really pretty".
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by David50
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
And "quite pretty" would push it the other way.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by David50
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
"C'mon, guys, these are PURRTY SONGS !!..."
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by nicholas
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Pretty would be something like "Nellie the Elephant" played anglo-scottish ceilidh band style.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by David50
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
If you liked that sort of thing.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by David50
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
I think whether or not the word "pretty" has derogatory connotations depends on context. Much like the word "cute." It can mean what it literally means, or it can be a polite euphemism for, "I think (whatever) is butt ugly."
I have heard people say, "That's a pretty tune" in an entirely complimentary way. I've heard the phrase "that's a pretty good tune" in a way in which the speaker was understating how awesome they thought the tune was and also, in a way which implied the speaker thought the tune was crap but was too polite to say.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by DrSilverSpear
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
I have heard "pretty" and "quite good looking" used by men to describe women to their partners in order to indicate (or simulate) objectivity.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by David50
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
You can make any word or phrase make what ever you want it to mean. Language's arsenal of stuff like sarcasm (which is really just sneering derision), deliberate ambiguity, fashionable reversals of meaning (like Michael Jackson saying he's "bad") and suggested connotation are cop outs.
Artificially constructed context aside, if you think this music is "pretty", you're either listening to the wrong players, or you're not getting it.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by ...
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
@ david_h: "I have heard "pretty" and "quite good looking" used by men to describe women to their partners in order to indicate (or simulate) objectivity".
Oh, really? You have "heard" it, or you say it?
Does your partner ever tell you the same thing about men she/he fancies? If not, why not?
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
I think the music's "pretty", all right. I don't think we should dismiss a perfectly good word. The music does have a pleasing quality and a grace to it, both of which (in my dictionary) seem to be associated with "pretty". It's just that there's so much more going on as well ...
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by ethical blend
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
this music is descriptive - of a whole range of things and interactions. "pretty" is probably a perspective of some people from some other parts of the world other than where the music actually comes from. That'd be pretty right, I'd say, anyway.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
DD. You are missing the point. Both terms are superficial in that they refer to something on the surface and both are inherently subjective. I was not implying any lack of transparency.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by David50
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Elegantly put, point taken, dh.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
I guess its a bit like being shown round someones lovingly created collection of roses or orchids and referring to them 'pretty flowers'. But if they choose to think of them that way that's fine.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by David50
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
That was in response to Eb.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by David50
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
E flat, that's an excellent key.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Fair enough, David. And I agree that I wouldn't normally use the word "pretty" on its own when referring to decent trad. I just think it can be pretty *as well*. Like the orchids.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by ethical blend
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Pretty; ok.
This is "pretty". Quaint; and commendable; and it's probably trad, but hey!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzPKU4hYTyQ
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
but going all the way back to original question:
"Why do we play realllly pretty music at 'lighting speed'."
One eminently reasonable answer I'd proffer in all sincerity, is to stop it sounding so horribly bloody pretty.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by ...
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Don't think so.
Really pretty music at lightning speed plus lack of nyah = egotism (or absence of cultural understanding of the music at best).
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
you're really a gnome in an English country garden in disguise, aren't you, llig.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
DD, I believe he dwells in the city, so would that make him a metrognome? (sorry)
Point is spot on. A little tempo injects some power and passion into a pretty tune. Any other p words while we're at it? p*ss off, perhaps? Oh, well, there's two more.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
...a little guy with a pointy hat, curly toe shoes, a wry smile and a fiddle, whackin' out a really great tune...there you go; very quaint.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
A little tempo injects some power and passion into a pretty tune.
Exactly right, my Latin-Irish-music friend.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
what sort of "pretty" do they want? This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrcYs5Qc-Nk&feature=related
or
the English Country Garden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzPKU4hYTyQ
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
Why DD, how did you know I was of mixed Irish-Italian ancestry? Amazing!
For my next trick, I will cook up a lovely dish of spaghetti coddle.
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Philosophical thread, and one for Jeremy
DD - Thanks (not) for that ECG clip - my own ECG did a blip, confronted with such plop
# Posted on February 19th 2010 by domhnall.
and one for Jeremy
I wonder which colour the new owner will paint the place.
# Posted on February 20th 2010 by Ben Steen