There seems to be an attitude of defending ground in many people I have met. Contrarywise, many are looking for new ground to walk over. Why do they have to be at loggerheads? Can't the Trad and the Innovation co-exist in a culture? I can not ask anybody to embrace both in entirety, but each should help govern the other. Growth is a nessesity, or a thing is dead. Tradition should be an anchor, not a dry-dock. I'll use the music for an example here, but the question is really about human nature.
Example:
Why is (insert instrument here) slagged by a group of 'purists' when *everything* they play was once new and innovative? Wouldn't it be a fine thing to say "Its not my choice of instrument, but you can still play your 5str/harmonica/uke with us." Of course, feel free to mention the beginners sesh on day-x if they need more skill to keep up.
Example:
A respected and tradition-minded member of our local sesh brings a french-canadian botton box from time to time. It sounds pretty good too. Is it trad to play Co. Clare tunes on a fr-can box? I don't think so, but it works well. The result is a new sound that doesn't quite fit the normal labels but is anchored in the old music.
There are many ways of responding to a new thing, and the stance of "My great-grandpa didn't do it that way, so you are wrong/needing guidance" seems to be one that I run into often in many fields. I guess this can be found in any artistic field, not just music. Your thoughts please?
W.J.
The author of this note has used generalization. He is aware that exceptions exist, but is too tired right now to think about it.
At the session I have been hanging around lately (I've only been playing for 5 months, so I mostly "hang around" rather than making others suffer by trying to play , we have a gentlemen who occassionally shows up with his bongo drums.
My first reaction (to myself) was, what the hell are ye' doin' with yer bongo drums at a trad session, but after listening to him for a while I was surprised at how well it fit. His rythm on the bongos is as good (better actually -- appologies to an bodhran players that might read this) as any bodran I heard. It of course helps that he is a very skilled player and that he can sing a mean ballad. Last night I had the good fortune to sit next to him and his bongos and there was not one moment during that couple of hours where his bongo playing seemed out of place or seemed to detract from the experience.
I'm now very glad I kept my first reaction to myself, because it was as it usually is, misguided.
Your mileage may of course vary. Zina's story of the tamboureen player from hell is a good counter example of mileage variance
I've read several postings over the last few months on here that almost take the course of dictating what should and what shouldn't be included in a session.
It is so important (and fortunately we have an apparent abundance of such people on this website) that we preserve tradition and embrace innovation and not subject those who visit here in search of "what to do" to a vision of a stereotypical idealistic session.
The Tradition needs diversity and innovation as much as it needs it's roots. What it doesn't need is people writing commandments in stone...............that's tantamount to calling Taco Bell, Mexican food!!!
There was this guy a good many years ago, saw him once at the Whitby (UK) festival, Irish he was. Played reels on a tennor sax.
When the sessions where through he would go busking to the tourists. Saw him standing on his head playing reels to the crowd, sax case full of money happy as a lowey. Could'nt fault him.
I'm for both (trad and innovation). Usually trad in sessions, without much of a progressive element, as few people seem that way inclined. Definately innovation in gigs and non-session arrangements, though.
I fully support both, so long as it doesn't bother my musical neighbours. Good example : a popular reel played with a bit of swing and punch, making it sound a bit wilder than than the norm. Bad example : a slow air played with shedloads of reverb and slushy synth accompaniment, or "The Parting Glass" sung by a highly trained opera singer at full pelt.
It's been my experience that innovation usually starts on traditional instruments, then other ones are added in later....
We've discussed this. A lot. The upshot is: the tradition will only stay alive if it changes. But it will only stay traditional if it changes slowly. In order for that to happen, you need three kinds of people: 1) people who like to innovate and tinker with the tradition, 2) people who see the former as the watering down and abasement of the tradition, and 3) everybody in between. If the tradition changes too fast, it stops being traditional music and is just the tradition and new stuff all mixed up and neither one nor the other. If the tradition doesn't change, it becomes a dead tradition, or at the least, moribund.
What is unpleasant is when someone decides that one or the other of these necessary groups is a bigot or some such and starts in on the name calling (she said meaningfully, looking at certain people very hard), and these people deserve what they get from everyone else, directly and indirectly.
We have discussed it. A lot. And I've learned not to try to persuade people with contrasting opinions. But I'll offer a couple of thoughts.
In my observation and experience of this music, which is, I guess, reasonably broad, the persons who use the term "purist" or "bigot" are people who fit 1 of 2 categories:
(a) Those who fundamentally misunderstand the way that the tradition has incorporated new instruments, forms, and ideas.
(b) Those who *don't* have a command of the tradition repertoire, or of a traditional instrument, and don't wish to develop said command. They instead prefer to describe what they do as "innovation."
People should be allowed to play anything they want--but I'm unwilling to describe (b) above as "traditional Irish music." It's not.
More on (a):
It is widely accepted in both academic and non-academic circles that a "tradition" is technically defined not only by its content but also by its processes: how the tradition itself has developed methods for learning, teaching, passing on, archiving, and creating new art works. That's why many persons' CDs explicitly say "Traditionally arranged by [x]"--those persons are clearly identifying the *process* by which they have arrived at a particular arrangement. Similarly, someone can teach this music using a "traditional" pedagogy (mostly by ear, lots of demonstration-imitation-critique, etc) or a "non-traditional" pedagogy.
Similarly, somone can develop new ideas in this music using "traditional" processes (incorporating new instruments--guitar, banjo, concertina, accordion--by playing them as much as possible in the fashion of existing core instruments) or by using "non-traditional" processes.
Hence, the "tradition versus innovation" statement is a false dichotomy--this music has always been receptive to innovation. However, that innovation has usually come from people who *already were strong players within the tradition.*
Neillidh Boyle accompanied silent films and was renowned for his imitation of a locomotive--but he was a masterful traditional player. Josie McDermott played saxophone as well as simple-system flute--but he was a masterful traditional player. Both Coleman and Patsy Tuohey made the "innovation" of playing in a vaudeville situation, in costume from a stage, and of recording their music for sale--but they were masterful traditional players.
So it's false to presume that the tradition is not already innovative--it is. But historically the innovations that have "stuck" are those which are made by people who are already strong players in the tradition, who *understand how to take a new idea and employ it using the tradition's historically-tested aesthetics.*
Historically, the music has been strong enough to withstand a lot of good and bad ideas. But that doesn't mean that people who have made a lifelong commitment to playing within the tradition need to agree when blow-ins say "but I AM playing traditional Irish music--I'm just being innovative!"
And when people throw the word "purist" or "bigot" around to refer to those who prefer the traditional processes, I am reminded of the "Hitler/Nazi" reductio ad absurdum--those of you who know Net history will understand this better than I. That is, like the "Hitler" buzzword, if in an argument someone throws around the term "purist" (a false construct, like the phrase "politically-correct"), they lose credibility. At least to me.
Have you guys who've been playing for a while gone through different phases with this discussion? I guess when I started I didn't know caca about caca and I just accepted everything. Then, I got started, decided I knew everything about everything and became an obnoxious "purist" for a few years. Now, I'd say I'm on to being an "affable purist". I don't get bent out of shape when people do stuff I don't agree with; I won't neccessarily stop playing at a sesh if people are playing silly instruments in a silly fashion. It's all right; sometimes I just let it slide and I enjoy myself. But, I always can't wait to be back with some like minded trad heads bangin' away with our "purist" tunes our "purist" way. The "innovative" stuff it's all right for a while but it strikes me as shallow; it just bores me silly. Anybody can whip out some weird instrument or some weird tune or some weird way of playing and get a lot of attention because what they're doing is "different" and "innovative". It takes a real musician to play good trad in a way that excites and inspires. That's what gets my blood a'goin'.
Chis, you really have some the best information on this subject I have ever seen! I like the way you describe the folks in your example 2. I have some experience with a bluegrasser in a session that was so pushy in his approach, he put off many players. His defense was "I am being innovative!" Very informative post!
I think the answer is that anyone playing an instrument which is not currently considered traditional(*) will likely face the presumption that they don't know how to play traditionally.
This is not unique to unusual instruments either; the rap that the bodhran gets is not that it isn't traditional, but rather that it is far too often played by badly. So you get cases (some of them have been detailed in earlier threads here) where talented and skilled players are greeted poorly at a session because of a presumption (as above) based on the instrument.
Additionally, much of the flavor of the music is based on the character of the traditional instruments - one of the things I have to keep an eye on with my concertina is that my very non-standard Anglo layout makes some of the lilt different than what a standard C/G almost has to have for bellows reasons. So anyone using a nonstandard instrument has to make sure that they can bring out its strengths without sounding too far out (i.e. it is fine to sound different, as long as the differences aren't jarringly untraditional) from the norm.
Finally, check with the sessions ahead of time if you want to play instruments that are outside the normal scope. Just the fact that you know enough to ask may help erase some of that negative presumption.
(*) We know that the set of traditional instruments changes over time. The fact that new instruments enter the tradition over time does not, however, imply that any new instrument will be widely accepted.
Chris, the words "purist" and "bigot", while used pejoratively in argument as you say, are words that take on real meaning when you encounter these types of people. As you said, they prefer the traditional processes, some are really good players, and nice people, etc etc... but some have an absolutely shut mind when it comes to hearing or playing anything a wee bit different.
I've come across this attitude many times. Sometimes it's come up at times when I hadn't played a single note.
You're right, such people are out there, and some do "have an absolutely shut mind" when it comes to anything different.
But I have learned to be very wary of anyone on the Net who, in defense of their own "innovation," uses the term "purist" pejoratively to describe those who think some such innovation is musically inadequate or unsatisfying.
Jerball - great post! I can totally relate to what you are saying! I'm still lingering in that obnoxious p****t stage (sorry Chris), but am slowly learning to mellow out, go with the flow and be more accepting of non-trad instruments and newer sounding music ......but for me nothing beats hearing real good old fashioned Irish trad played with heart and soul! I'll take Joe Ryan over the new flashy stuff any day!
I once had the opportunity to ask Charlie Lennon about session etiquette, (he reluctantly devoted a page to the subject in his 1st volume of compositions,) and I found his bottom line to be quite useful. I realize this isn't really a thread about session etiquette, but there was something in what he said that I think applies to the idea of having an "open mind" when it comes to encountering people getting together for a few tunes. He said that when you encounter a session you should listen to it first to decide whether or not you're interested in joining it, and if you decide to join it -- don't disturb the way the music flows. I have applied this concept ever since, and I have wished some folks joining our session might have considered it as well.
I don't think you have a "closed mind" just because you happen to have musical preferences. I have encountered sessions that I probably wouldn't have been involved in starting myself, simply because they don't match the session style or mix that I prefer, but I have ended up joining in because they looked fun. I
First things first - its either an ITM session or it isn't. If it isn't, then try some Andean/Arabic or whatever. If it is an ITM session, you have only yourself to blame.
You can be innovative on trad instruments or play trad music on innovative instruments - no problem. I wonder whether sessions are the place for innovative music on innovative instruments - Radio 3 is probably the place for that.
We know there are purists and session-fascists out there but you have to have the guts to face up to them (and be good enough), providing you are sensitive enough to be blending with what they are doing.
If you are blending and are better than them, and they still complain, either ignore them and stay or go somewhere else.
My dreaded PA gets as bad press on TheSesh as do bodhrans and shakey eggs, but I ain't bothered. If I wanna play, I'm gunna.
As a member of the younger generation of ITM, I personally prefer some of the new stuff that alot of bands and solo musicians have been coming out with over the last few years.There seems to be increased influence from the jazz and classical sectors and, in my opinion, this does not only give the music a new lease of life, but enables it to further evolve (as is the nature of ITM). For example, the distinguished flautist Niall Keegan has a list of "traditional credentials" as long as your arm, yet has developed his own distinct style through the incorporation of chromatic scales and the like (notably a characteristic of the classical style) in his playing.
"If you are blending and are better than them, and they still complain"..... laugh, they're just jealous. You're allowing them to explore their music (in the form of ornamentation, harmony, rhythmic variation and god forbid melodic variation); why can't they create a space for your innovation?
Appropriate change in a tradition is usually subtle (a tradition being that which respects and holds as valuable what came before - if you don't hold as valuable that which came before then you're not really in a tradition, are you - you just happen to play traditional tunes.). And when it happens the majority of the community eventually accepts it. Take the bouzouki, as an obvious example. The "innovations" that I get bored with are things that are tacked on to sell records or make them more "accessible" or just sound cool and innovations that obviously don't come from a deep understanding of the tradition. Innovators don't p!ss me off any more, though. I've come to realize that the tradition is plenty strong; it doesn't need me to be a crusader. So, I'll just play my little tunes and let the innovators innovate. Fair play to 'em. What they do will either be accepted or it won't. Whatever.
Yay Jerball! I agree entirely about the record-selling carp.
I would like it to be known that I do not consider myself in the innovation camp. I play a D pennywhistle and share alot of common tunes with my bro. and the rest of the local 401.
I would like to recognize and thank the many innovators of the past who have helped make I/STM into what it is today. These includemthe persons who saw the potential in the fiddle and flute, the mandolin family, the accordion family, and other misc instruments that have been introduced over the centuries. Wha's like us?
Sure! Misc. rules! I'm currently developing a 5str harmonica in Eb. not sure how to market it outside my own use though... maybe funerals...
I thought I could get away without typing out the GDAE banjo, the bodhran, the piano (in cape breton) the cello and double bass (both of which I saw at the Adult Feis in Ross a couple years ago. I know a guy who plays a hot kazoo, but he's only 3yrs right now. Still plenty of time left to reform/instruct/brainwash him.
Thanks for the non-trad reference, blowfly. Do you know where I can get a dilruba?
Tradtition and Innovation
Tradtition and Innovation
There seems to be an attitude of defending ground in many people I have met. Contrarywise, many are looking for new ground to walk over. Why do they have to be at loggerheads? Can't the Trad and the Innovation co-exist in a culture? I can not ask anybody to embrace both in entirety, but each should help govern the other. Growth is a nessesity, or a thing is dead. Tradition should be an anchor, not a dry-dock. I'll use the music for an example here, but the question is really about human nature.
Example:
Why is (insert instrument here) slagged by a group of 'purists' when *everything* they play was once new and innovative? Wouldn't it be a fine thing to say "Its not my choice of instrument, but you can still play your 5str/harmonica/uke with us." Of course, feel free to mention the beginners sesh on day-x if they need more skill to keep up.
Example:
A respected and tradition-minded member of our local sesh brings a french-canadian botton box from time to time. It sounds pretty good too. Is it trad to play Co. Clare tunes on a fr-can box? I don't think so, but it works well. The result is a new sound that doesn't quite fit the normal labels but is anchored in the old music.
There are many ways of responding to a new thing, and the stance of "My great-grandpa didn't do it that way, so you are wrong/needing guidance" seems to be one that I run into often in many fields. I guess this can be found in any artistic field, not just music. Your thoughts please?
W.J.
The author of this note has used generalization. He is aware that exceptions exist, but is too tired right now to think about it.
# Posted on February 17th 2004 by Woadface Jon
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
At the session I have been hanging around lately (I've only been playing for 5 months, so I mostly "hang around" rather than making others suffer by trying to play
, we have a gentlemen who occassionally shows up with his bongo drums.
My first reaction (to myself) was, what the hell are ye' doin' with yer bongo drums at a trad session, but after listening to him for a while I was surprised at how well it fit. His rythm on the bongos is as good (better actually -- appologies to an bodhran players that might read this) as any bodran I heard. It of course helps that he is a very skilled player and that he can sing a mean ballad. Last night I had the good fortune to sit next to him and his bongos and there was not one moment during that couple of hours where his bongo playing seemed out of place or seemed to detract from the experience.
I'm now very glad I kept my first reaction to myself, because it was as it usually is, misguided.
Your mileage may of course vary. Zina's story of the tamboureen player from hell is a good counter example of mileage variance
TB
# Posted on February 17th 2004 by tbulik
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
I'm so glad Woadface Jon started this thread.
I've read several postings over the last few months on here that almost take the course of dictating what should and what shouldn't be included in a session.
It is so important (and fortunately we have an apparent abundance of such people on this website) that we preserve tradition and embrace innovation and not subject those who visit here in search of "what to do" to a vision of a stereotypical idealistic session.
The Tradition needs diversity and innovation as much as it needs it's roots. What it doesn't need is people writing commandments in stone...............that's tantamount to calling Taco Bell, Mexican food!!!
# Posted on February 17th 2004 by mikemcdaid
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
Tbulik
# Posted on February 17th 2004 by murfbox
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
There was this guy a good many years ago, saw him once at the Whitby (UK) festival, Irish he was. Played reels on a tennor sax.
When the sessions where through he would go busking to the tourists. Saw him standing on his head playing reels to the crowd, sax case full of money happy as a lowey. Could'nt fault him.
# Posted on February 17th 2004 by Pete Stephenson.
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
I'm for both (trad and innovation). Usually trad in sessions, without much of a progressive element, as few people seem that way inclined. Definately innovation in gigs and non-session arrangements, though.
I fully support both, so long as it doesn't bother my musical neighbours. Good example : a popular reel played with a bit of swing and punch, making it sound a bit wilder than than the norm. Bad example : a slow air played with shedloads of reverb and slushy synth accompaniment, or "The Parting Glass" sung by a highly trained opera singer at full pelt.
It's been my experience that innovation usually starts on traditional instruments, then other ones are added in later....
Jim
# Posted on February 18th 2004 by Worldfiddler
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
We've discussed this. A lot. The upshot is: the tradition will only stay alive if it changes. But it will only stay traditional if it changes slowly. In order for that to happen, you need three kinds of people: 1) people who like to innovate and tinker with the tradition, 2) people who see the former as the watering down and abasement of the tradition, and 3) everybody in between. If the tradition changes too fast, it stops being traditional music and is just the tradition and new stuff all mixed up and neither one nor the other. If the tradition doesn't change, it becomes a dead tradition, or at the least, moribund.
What is unpleasant is when someone decides that one or the other of these necessary groups is a bigot or some such and starts in on the name calling (she said meaningfully, looking at certain people very hard), and these people deserve what they get from everyone else, directly and indirectly.
So there. *grin*
# Posted on February 18th 2004 by Zina Lee
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
We have discussed it. A lot. And I've learned not to try to persuade people with contrasting opinions. But I'll offer a couple of thoughts.
In my observation and experience of this music, which is, I guess, reasonably broad, the persons who use the term "purist" or "bigot" are people who fit 1 of 2 categories:
(a) Those who fundamentally misunderstand the way that the tradition has incorporated new instruments, forms, and ideas.
(b) Those who *don't* have a command of the tradition repertoire, or of a traditional instrument, and don't wish to develop said command. They instead prefer to describe what they do as "innovation."
People should be allowed to play anything they want--but I'm unwilling to describe (b) above as "traditional Irish music." It's not.
More on (a):
It is widely accepted in both academic and non-academic circles that a "tradition" is technically defined not only by its content but also by its processes: how the tradition itself has developed methods for learning, teaching, passing on, archiving, and creating new art works. That's why many persons' CDs explicitly say "Traditionally arranged by [x]"--those persons are clearly identifying the *process* by which they have arrived at a particular arrangement. Similarly, someone can teach this music using a "traditional" pedagogy (mostly by ear, lots of demonstration-imitation-critique, etc) or a "non-traditional" pedagogy.
Similarly, somone can develop new ideas in this music using "traditional" processes (incorporating new instruments--guitar, banjo, concertina, accordion--by playing them as much as possible in the fashion of existing core instruments) or by using "non-traditional" processes.
Hence, the "tradition versus innovation" statement is a false dichotomy--this music has always been receptive to innovation. However, that innovation has usually come from people who *already were strong players within the tradition.*
Neillidh Boyle accompanied silent films and was renowned for his imitation of a locomotive--but he was a masterful traditional player. Josie McDermott played saxophone as well as simple-system flute--but he was a masterful traditional player. Both Coleman and Patsy Tuohey made the "innovation" of playing in a vaudeville situation, in costume from a stage, and of recording their music for sale--but they were masterful traditional players.
So it's false to presume that the tradition is not already innovative--it is. But historically the innovations that have "stuck" are those which are made by people who are already strong players in the tradition, who *understand how to take a new idea and employ it using the tradition's historically-tested aesthetics.*
Historically, the music has been strong enough to withstand a lot of good and bad ideas. But that doesn't mean that people who have made a lifelong commitment to playing within the tradition need to agree when blow-ins say "but I AM playing traditional Irish music--I'm just being innovative!"
And when people throw the word "purist" or "bigot" around to refer to those who prefer the traditional processes, I am reminded of the "Hitler/Nazi" reductio ad absurdum--those of you who know Net history will understand this better than I. That is, like the "Hitler" buzzword, if in an argument someone throws around the term "purist" (a false construct, like the phrase "politically-correct"), they lose credibility. At least to me.
chris smith
# Posted on February 18th 2004 by coyotebanjo
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
Have you guys who've been playing for a while gone through different phases with this discussion? I guess when I started I didn't know caca about caca and I just accepted everything. Then, I got started, decided I knew everything about everything and became an obnoxious "purist" for a few years. Now, I'd say I'm on to being an "affable purist". I don't get bent out of shape when people do stuff I don't agree with; I won't neccessarily stop playing at a sesh if people are playing silly instruments in a silly fashion. It's all right; sometimes I just let it slide and I enjoy myself. But, I always can't wait to be back with some like minded trad heads bangin' away with our "purist" tunes our "purist" way. The "innovative" stuff it's all right for a while but it strikes me as shallow; it just bores me silly. Anybody can whip out some weird instrument or some weird tune or some weird way of playing and get a lot of attention because what they're doing is "different" and "innovative". It takes a real musician to play good trad in a way that excites and inspires. That's what gets my blood a'goin'.
# Posted on February 18th 2004 by jerball
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
You go, Jer.
# Posted on February 18th 2004 by Zina Lee
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
Chis, you really have some the best information on this subject I have ever seen! I like the way you describe the folks in your example 2. I have some experience with a bluegrasser in a session that was so pushy in his approach, he put off many players. His defense was "I am being innovative!" Very informative post!
# Posted on February 18th 2004 by Aine Ni Scully
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
+ r sorry about that!
# Posted on February 18th 2004 by Aine Ni Scully
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
I think the answer is that anyone playing an instrument which is not currently considered traditional(*) will likely face the presumption that they don't know how to play traditionally.
This is not unique to unusual instruments either; the rap that the bodhran gets is not that it isn't traditional, but rather that it is far too often played by badly. So you get cases (some of them have been detailed in earlier threads here) where talented and skilled players are greeted poorly at a session because of a presumption (as above) based on the instrument.
Additionally, much of the flavor of the music is based on the character of the traditional instruments - one of the things I have to keep an eye on with my concertina is that my very non-standard Anglo layout makes some of the lilt different than what a standard C/G almost has to have for bellows reasons. So anyone using a nonstandard instrument has to make sure that they can bring out its strengths without sounding too far out (i.e. it is fine to sound different, as long as the differences aren't jarringly untraditional) from the norm.
Finally, check with the sessions ahead of time if you want to play instruments that are outside the normal scope. Just the fact that you know enough to ask may help erase some of that negative presumption.
(*) We know that the set of traditional instruments changes over time. The fact that new instruments enter the tradition over time does not, however, imply that any new instrument will be widely accepted.
# Posted on February 18th 2004 by Dave Weinstein
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
Chris, the words "purist" and "bigot", while used pejoratively in argument as you say, are words that take on real meaning when you encounter these types of people. As you said, they prefer the traditional processes, some are really good players, and nice people, etc etc... but some have an absolutely shut mind when it comes to hearing or playing anything a wee bit different.
I've come across this attitude many times. Sometimes it's come up at times when I hadn't played a single note.
Jim
# Posted on February 18th 2004 by Worldfiddler
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
Jim:
You're right, such people are out there, and some do "have an absolutely shut mind" when it comes to anything different.
But I have learned to be very wary of anyone on the Net who, in defense of their own "innovation," uses the term "purist" pejoratively to describe those who think some such innovation is musically inadequate or unsatisfying.
c
# Posted on February 18th 2004 by coyotebanjo
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
Jerball - great post! I can totally relate to what you are saying! I'm still lingering in that obnoxious p****t stage (sorry Chris), but am slowly learning to mellow out, go with the flow and be more accepting of non-trad instruments and newer sounding music ......but for me nothing beats hearing real good old fashioned Irish trad played with heart and soul! I'll take Joe Ryan over the new flashy stuff any day!
Joyce
# Posted on February 18th 2004 by JMH
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
"the rap that the bodhran gets..."
I love it, Dave! :>))
# Posted on February 18th 2004 by grego
Steve: let's stick with four-string harmonica-ukes only.
# Posted on February 18th 2004 by grego
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
I once had the opportunity to ask Charlie Lennon about session etiquette, (he reluctantly devoted a page to the subject in his 1st volume of compositions,) and I found his bottom line to be quite useful. I realize this isn't really a thread about session etiquette, but there was something in what he said that I think applies to the idea of having an "open mind" when it comes to encountering people getting together for a few tunes. He said that when you encounter a session you should listen to it first to decide whether or not you're interested in joining it, and if you decide to join it -- don't disturb the way the music flows. I have applied this concept ever since, and I have wished some folks joining our session might have considered it as well.
I don't think you have a "closed mind" just because you happen to have musical preferences. I have encountered sessions that I probably wouldn't have been involved in starting myself, simply because they don't match the session style or mix that I prefer, but I have ended up joining in because they looked fun. I
# Posted on February 18th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
First things first - its either an ITM session or it isn't. If it isn't, then try some Andean/Arabic or whatever. If it is an ITM session, you have only yourself to blame.
You can be innovative on trad instruments or play trad music on innovative instruments - no problem. I wonder whether sessions are the place for innovative music on innovative instruments - Radio 3 is probably the place for that.
We know there are purists and session-fascists out there but you have to have the guts to face up to them (and be good enough), providing you are sensitive enough to be blending with what they are doing.
If you are blending and are better than them, and they still complain, either ignore them and stay or go somewhere else.
My dreaded PA gets as bad press on TheSesh as do bodhrans and shakey eggs, but I ain't bothered. If I wanna play, I'm gunna.
# Posted on February 18th 2004 by geoffwright
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
As a member of the younger generation of ITM, I personally prefer some of the new stuff that alot of bands and solo musicians have been coming out with over the last few years.There seems to be increased influence from the jazz and classical sectors and, in my opinion, this does not only give the music a new lease of life, but enables it to further evolve (as is the nature of ITM). For example, the distinguished flautist Niall Keegan has a list of "traditional credentials" as long as your arm, yet has developed his own distinct style through the incorporation of chromatic scales and the like (notably a characteristic of the classical style) in his playing.
# Posted on February 19th 2004 by never-trust-a-violinist
Btw
"If you are blending and are better than them, and they still complain"..... laugh, they're just jealous. You're allowing them to explore their music (in the form of ornamentation, harmony, rhythmic variation and god forbid melodic variation); why can't they create a space for your innovation?
# Posted on February 19th 2004 by never-trust-a-violinist
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
I don
# Posted on February 19th 2004 by blowfly
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
Appropriate change in a tradition is usually subtle (a tradition being that which respects and holds as valuable what came before - if you don't hold as valuable that which came before then you're not really in a tradition, are you - you just happen to play traditional tunes.). And when it happens the majority of the community eventually accepts it. Take the bouzouki, as an obvious example. The "innovations" that I get bored with are things that are tacked on to sell records or make them more "accessible" or just sound cool and innovations that obviously don't come from a deep understanding of the tradition. Innovators don't p!ss me off any more, though. I've come to realize that the tradition is plenty strong; it doesn't need me to be a crusader. So, I'll just play my little tunes and let the innovators innovate. Fair play to 'em. What they do will either be accepted or it won't. Whatever.
# Posted on February 20th 2004 by jerball
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
Yay Jerball! I agree entirely about the record-selling carp.
I would like it to be known that I do not consider myself in the innovation camp. I play a D pennywhistle and share alot of common tunes with my bro. and the rest of the local 401.
I would like to recognize and thank the many innovators of the past who have helped make I/STM into what it is today. These includemthe persons who saw the potential in the fiddle and flute, the mandolin family, the accordion family, and other misc instruments that have been introduced over the centuries. Wha's like us?
W.J.
# Posted on February 20th 2004 by Woadface Jon
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
Some miscellaneous instruments being more miscellaneous than others...? LOL
# Posted on February 20th 2004 by Zina Lee
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
Sure! Misc. rules! I'm currently developing a 5str harmonica in Eb. not sure how to market it outside my own use though... maybe funerals...
I thought I could get away without typing out the GDAE banjo, the bodhran, the piano (in cape breton) the cello and double bass (both of which I saw at the Adult Feis in Ross a couple years ago. I know a guy who plays a hot kazoo, but he's only 3yrs right now. Still plenty of time left to reform/instruct/brainwash him.
Thanks for the non-trad reference, blowfly. Do you know where I can get a dilruba?
W.J.
# Posted on February 20th 2004 by Woadface Jon
Re: Tradtition and Innovation
You could always try Shark - sorry - Lark in the Morning.
# Posted on February 20th 2004 by blowfly