The antichrist thread got me thinking... As stated in that thread there are folks out there that are publishing newer and different methods for learning tradition music; usually in books that will hit up a larger audience. Is having these newer methodologies for teaching tradition music propogating a degredation and loss of pure traditional styles over time? I would like to think that the majority of people only use them as extra tools, but I though it might be interesting to hear what everyone else thought.
Well...I wasn't 'referring', I was 'asking', though I think you're right about time actually being one of the factors that builds the traditions. So, perhaps the question should be added to in the context that s1m0n stated, do you think it's ruining the music?
S1m0n, I ceratinly am a revival musician and only wish I had someone who taught me what I know...I learned classical violin from a man named Montague! Anyways, I'm certain that I butcher up the tunes because of the various ways I've learned.
I can recognize trad, even if it is a new style. It is unmistakeable and beautiful.
The problem is that the music takes a significant turn towards the mundane when trad is interpreted as "whatever I am capable of musically and nothing more."
My point was that the music hasn't been "pure" tradition since some time in the twenties when the first Michael Coleman 78s started to trickle back to Ireland, and people started learning the tunes.
Or maybe since 1903, when FJ O'Neill published his collection of tunes.
Or maybe since Padraig O'Keefe devised his own notation system in order to teach his star pupils Denis Murphy and Julia Clifford, some time in the fifties.
~~~
Pretty much any development you can name that came about in the revival can claim one of these three events as a precedent.
~~~
I was just reading an interview with flute player Mike Rafferty, and I was struck by one of his comments about learning the music in his youth. Like Packie Manus Byrne, he tells about how hard-won each and every tune in his repertoire was. It was HARD to find new tunes. If someone in the area had learned a new tune, that was news, and local musicians would descend upon him to learn it.
Now, I can sit at my desk and access every tune I could ever conceivably want to learn, and I have a shelf full of tune books I hardly look at any longer.
Simon, what do you mean by 'pure tradition'? Music untainted by outside influence? I'm sure that never existed, otherwise rural areas would never have picked up new-fangled things like reels(!) Even before the twenties there were travelling musicians - and the music isn't only from rural areas. O'Carolan was influenced by Baroque composers - How far back are you going to go searching for purity
I'm also not sure about this notion of 'revivalism' . It was a term coined in the sixties, I believe, to describe the folk music movement in England and America, which was in the process of resuscitating moribund traditions. Irish music never died in quite the same way, and has progressed and changed in a living, organic way.
I can only answer for myself why I called myself a revival musician and that is because folk music in Canada has become much more poplular over the last 10 or so years...one reason why I had taken up the fiddle again.
For the purpose of this discussion, I have been using "pure" in what I take to be the same sense of the original post.
My point is that "pure traditional styles" (whatever they are) have been a moving target at every point during their entire existance, and the same kinds of innovations that the folk police are currently decrying in the name of tradition ARE the tradition.
>>Is there anyone on this site who can honestly claim that they're a "traditional" musician, in the learned-it-from-your-uncle sense?
Assuming that wasn’t a rhetorical question ... I was taught by my father (and took a few "classical" lessons). But then he used sheet music as well as by-ear methods, and he’d definitely heard the recordings of Michael Coleman et al, so maybe he wasn’t "traditional"?
And perhaps the answer to that question says as much about the membership of this site as the number of musicians who fall into that category?
My two cents is that the only real "danger" is if everybody starts playing the same way. But it seems to be the nature of the music that tunes and styles mutate from time to time and place to place. So as long as there are both "pure drop" sessions and those that recreate whatever CDs are currently in fashion we should do o.k.
And strange mutations happen even with the dots. I understand some Canadian sessions rely on a "bible" tune book based on the Bulmer & Sharpley series. The first of these was itself largely based on versions of tunes played by Irish musicians in Leeds (England) in the 1970s
>>The problem is that the music takes a significant turn towards the mundane when trad is interpreted as "whatever I am capable of musically and nothing more."
... so perhaps I shouldn't enquire which important developments in Irish music came about because of Padraig O'Keefe devising his own notation system ...?
actually yes, i do learn from my uncle. but he lives 3 hours away, so i teach myself a lot. i memorize tunes by myself, but i learn from my uncle how to play them right. if he still lived in chicago i would probably learn all my tunes from him. its all a question of geography. the old methods arent that applicable 100% of the time. but i dont think they're leaving. i learned tunes from people at milwaukee fest, and i barely know the names of them. thats very traditional! ^_^
music is always changing, i think as it changes more, the old styles will be preserved more. i want to learn to play like my uncle plays, because it is very challenging and fun, and beautiful, but i also want to learn to play very traditional and clean. call me crazy, but i want to do both.
Those new methods...
Those new methods...
The antichrist thread got me thinking... As stated in that thread there are folks out there that are publishing newer and different methods for learning tradition music; usually in books that will hit up a larger audience. Is having these newer methodologies for teaching tradition music propogating a degredation and loss of pure traditional styles over time? I would like to think that the majority of people only use them as extra tools, but I though it might be interesting to hear what everyone else thought.
# Posted on September 14th 2004 by c_ya
Re: Those new methods...
New methods like on-line ABC archives of tunes? Yeah, they're a scandal and a menace, and totally RUIN the music.
Let's face it; apart from a few scattered individuals, we're pretty much ALL revival musicians.
Is there anyone on this site who can honestly claim that they're a "traditional" musician, in the learned-it-from-your-uncle sense?
THere are a few of those around, but not many.
# Posted on September 14th 2004 by s1m0n
Re: Those new methods...
Nonsence. How can you refere to "the loss of pure traditional styles over time", when it is merely time itself that creates pure traditional styles.
# Posted on September 14th 2004 by llig leahcim
Re: Those new methods...
Well...I wasn't 'referring', I was 'asking', though I think you're right about time actually being one of the factors that builds the traditions. So, perhaps the question should be added to in the context that s1m0n stated, do you think it's ruining the music?
# Posted on September 14th 2004 by c_ya
Re: Those new methods...
I think music should be a "living tradition" so styles are bound to develop and change through time for better or worse.
# Posted on September 14th 2004 by Johannes J
Re: Those new methods...
S1m0n, I ceratinly am a revival musician and only wish I had someone who taught me what I know...I learned classical violin from a man named Montague! Anyways, I'm certain that I butcher up the tunes because of the various ways I've learned.
# Posted on September 14th 2004 by c_ya
Re: Those new methods...
I really like that John J
# Posted on September 14th 2004 by c_ya
I know it when I hear it
I can recognize trad, even if it is a new style. It is unmistakeable and beautiful.
The problem is that the music takes a significant turn towards the mundane when trad is interpreted as "whatever I am capable of musically and nothing more."
# Posted on September 14th 2004 by Eliot
Re: Those new methods...
My point was that the music hasn't been "pure" tradition since some time in the twenties when the first Michael Coleman 78s started to trickle back to Ireland, and people started learning the tunes.
Or maybe since 1903, when FJ O'Neill published his collection of tunes.
Or maybe since Padraig O'Keefe devised his own notation system in order to teach his star pupils Denis Murphy and Julia Clifford, some time in the fifties.
~~~
Pretty much any development you can name that came about in the revival can claim one of these three events as a precedent.
~~~
I was just reading an interview with flute player Mike Rafferty, and I was struck by one of his comments about learning the music in his youth. Like Packie Manus Byrne, he tells about how hard-won each and every tune in his repertoire was. It was HARD to find new tunes. If someone in the area had learned a new tune, that was news, and local musicians would descend upon him to learn it.
Now, I can sit at my desk and access every tune I could ever conceivably want to learn, and I have a shelf full of tune books I hardly look at any longer.
# Posted on September 14th 2004 by s1m0n
Re: Those new methods...
Simon, what do you mean by 'pure tradition'? Music untainted by outside influence? I'm sure that never existed, otherwise rural areas would never have picked up new-fangled things like reels(!) Even before the twenties there were travelling musicians - and the music isn't only from rural areas. O'Carolan was influenced by Baroque composers - How far back are you going to go searching for purity
I'm also not sure about this notion of 'revivalism' . It was a term coined in the sixties, I believe, to describe the folk music movement in England and America, which was in the process of resuscitating moribund traditions. Irish music never died in quite the same way, and has progressed and changed in a living, organic way.
# Posted on September 14th 2004 by Ottery
Re: Those new methods...
I can only answer for myself why I called myself a revival musician and that is because folk music in Canada has become much more poplular over the last 10 or so years...one reason why I had taken up the fiddle again.
# Posted on September 14th 2004 by c_ya
Re: Those new methods...
I agree Ottery, What revival?
# Posted on September 15th 2004 by milesnagopaleen
Re: Those new methods...
For the purpose of this discussion, I have been using "pure" in what I take to be the same sense of the original post.
My point is that "pure traditional styles" (whatever they are) have been a moving target at every point during their entire existance, and the same kinds of innovations that the folk police are currently decrying in the name of tradition ARE the tradition.
# Posted on September 15th 2004 by s1m0n
Re: Those new methods...
You did mention 'some time in twenties'...
And you said that before that the music was 'pure'.
# Posted on September 16th 2004 by Ottery
Re: Those new methods...
>>Is there anyone on this site who can honestly claim that they're a "traditional" musician, in the learned-it-from-your-uncle sense?
Assuming that wasn’t a rhetorical question
... I was taught by my father (and took a few "classical" lessons). But then he used sheet music as well as by-ear methods, and he’d definitely heard the recordings of Michael Coleman et al, so maybe he wasn’t "traditional"?
And perhaps the answer to that question says as much about the membership of this site as the number of musicians who fall into that category?
My two cents is that the only real "danger" is if everybody starts playing the same way. But it seems to be the nature of the music that tunes and styles mutate from time to time and place to place. So as long as there are both "pure drop" sessions and those that recreate whatever CDs are currently in fashion we should do o.k.
And strange mutations happen even with the dots. I understand some Canadian sessions rely on a "bible" tune book based on the Bulmer & Sharpley series. The first of these was itself largely based on versions of tunes played by Irish musicians in Leeds (England) in the 1970s
# Posted on September 16th 2004 by Wuhoo
Re: Those new methods...
"You did mention 'some time in twenties'...
And you said that before that the music was 'pure'."
Yeah, I did. Where's the button for the special "irony font"?
# Posted on September 16th 2004 by s1m0n
Re: Those new methods...
>>The problem is that the music takes a significant turn towards the mundane when trad is interpreted as "whatever I am capable of musically and nothing more."
... depending on who's talking of course
# Posted on September 16th 2004 by Wuhoo
Re: Those new methods...
Ah, irony!
A dangerous thing - read what happened to me on the 'Antichrist' post
# Posted on September 16th 2004 by Ottery
Re: Those new methods...
... so perhaps I shouldn't enquire which important developments in Irish music came about because of Padraig O'Keefe devising his own notation system ...?
# Posted on September 16th 2004 by Ottery
Re: Those new methods...
HeeHee!
# Posted on September 17th 2004 by c_ya
Re: Those new methods...
actually yes, i do learn from my uncle. but he lives 3 hours away, so i teach myself a lot. i memorize tunes by myself, but i learn from my uncle how to play them right. if he still lived in chicago i would probably learn all my tunes from him. its all a question of geography. the old methods arent that applicable 100% of the time. but i dont think they're leaving. i learned tunes from people at milwaukee fest, and i barely know the names of them. thats very traditional! ^_^
music is always changing, i think as it changes more, the old styles will be preserved more. i want to learn to play like my uncle plays, because it is very challenging and fun, and beautiful, but i also want to learn to play very traditional and clean. call me crazy, but i want to do both.
# Posted on September 18th 2004 by daiv