Where I live (Spanish Mediterranean Coast) you cannot find many sessions, and musicians are always the same, a bunch of lunatics that play a weird kind of music and drink mainly porter. We're a kind of a ghetto, and we contact with the rest of the ITM adepts through web sites like this, or when one of us can travel to other places. We get new tunes from recordings or from the web, but there's a point where we feel specially apart from you: whenever we can get to a session in Ireland or Scotland we cannot follow the sets, I mean, I know the tunes (some of them, in fact just a few) but not the order they're played. So: is there any invisible and ancient force that control the sets, or did they become as they are through ages of evolution? Are they the same in western irish counties and in the States (for instance)? Is there any rule we should know when we "artificially" build new sets?
Now I think I will have my pills, excuse me.
PD: we really miss you all (as sessioneers, don't get me wrong).
All sets are artificial. Infact all music is artificial, that's one of the defining things about music. But more to your specific question. What you will probably find is that the sets aren't set in stone, but the players recognise a tune in an astonishingly short amount of time
The way I understand it is that a set is simply a few tunes that go together well, and you can set them up any way you like. We get some of our sets from CDs and others we just make up.
Some of the sets in our session are very fixed, e.g. after playing The Blarney Pilgrim, everybody will follow with The Kesh. It will be difficult to change unless we agree to do so before the time. But with many of the sets we simply listen to find out what the next tune is. The music often drops a bit during the switch over, but often the players do recognize the tune in an astonishingly short amount of time.
I agree Michael, nothing is set in stone, nor should it be -but there are a fair number of sets which have become standards over the years, eg, Tarbolton/Longford Collector/Sailor's Bonnet. This and other ones may be associated with a particular recording or player - and the player may just be someone down at your local session. But everyone will join in as soon as they see or hear the road map unfolding. They know what is coming next so they go along with it. And thus have sets evolved.
"there are a fair number of sets which have become standards over the years"
Yes I know, but... just in a determined area in Ireland, or are they, we can say, universally established as a set? I agree with you that they are not set in stone. I think that this kind of music is alive, so it changes, it can be as different as musicians are. But as long as there are some sets that became standard... , is it just tradition then?
Both - some are universal and some are local, and not necessarily local to an area of Ireland. That's the point I was trying to make. This is how I see it anyway.
I understand. And do you know where I could find the titles for the tunes of those most common and well known sets? You named Tarbolton/Longford Collector/Sailor's Bonnet, but I'd love to get some others. And another question, what about mixing different kinds of tunes, eg. jigs-reels or hornpipes-reels. That'd involve a change in the timing. Is that commonly used in your sessions? Thanks a lot for your help.
They can vary from town to town, pub to pub, and sometimes from musician to musician(whoever starts). As long as you know (enough of) the tunes, that's the important thing.
Everybody is correct. Our "Blarney Pilgrim/Kesh" set comes from The Bothy Band I believe, and there are many sessions that play these tunes together. So it has become a "standard", and because it is available on CD, the standard is basically universal. Other standards will spread from session to session, making it a local standard.
The bottom line is that Jorge's experience is not unique. When you go from one session to another, you will find that they do their own thing, even though they do a few standard sets.
It's logical really: a player visits a session where they play tune A and B in a set. It sounds great, so he goes home to his own session where they now play the same set. Or he may not like it and NOT play the same set. It's your choice, not a tradition.
The standards are the sets that are copied by more sessions over a longer period of time, and the non standards are the ones that have not been copied by others, or have not yet been heard by others. Obviously the better the combination of tunes sound, the more likely it is to be emulated.
If you play on non-traditional instruments, or in a non-Irish style, or you play non-Irish tunes in your Irish session, you may be criticized for not following the tradition, but if you break up a standard set to make up your own sets, you will in fact be following the tradition.
Mostly it's just local tradition. I believe that the "tarbolton" &c set that Pingu cited is from a James Morrison record from the '20's (I'm very far away from my notes, so I could very well be mistaken.) It's about as universal a set as I've run across, but there's no guarantee that Tarbolton won't be followed by "Salamanca", or "Tam Lin"
It seems to me that the best way to deal with sets is to be alert, and aware, and listen.
Oh yeah, there's the (3 Tunes) "Tree Chunes" (Ash to the Wedding, Leslie Hornbeam , and the German Bois d'arc) ;-> but it will get called as such and you might not encounter it without a strong Dance Community in the area.
Everyone is probably going to laugh at me, but I really want to help Jorge, so what about this:
The two Comhaltas publications, Foinn Seisiún 1 and Foinn Seisiún 2, contain 220 standard traditional tunes arranged in 74 sets as played at the Tuesday and Wednesday night sessions in the Cultúrlann in Monkstown.
It's tunes arranged in sets by Paddy O'Brien. It's rock solid in terms of versions, and they all make great sets.
As far as sets like the Tarbolton one goes. Am I alone in thinking they can sound a bit tired?
Re-setting the tunes can really give them a lift and new lease of life.
There are some people who think that it's wrong to think of tunes in sets, and sets should be slung together on the hoof. but to my mind a well thought out set, with interesting key changes from tune to tune is a thing of wonder. Slung together sets can go on too long, and no matter how well played, tend to lack dynamic. Beautiful tunes get wasted.
Here's some examples of sets I currently like to play, I think they work quite well:
White Petticoat (Em) Lilting Banshee (Am) Stan Chapman's (Amaj)
Get Up Old Woman (G?) Seamus Cooley's (D) This Is My Love Do You Like Her? (Am)
Green Fields Of Rossbeigh (Em), The Peelers Jacket (G)
George White's (G), Bird In The Bush (G) Sligo Maid (Am)
You're not alone, Mark. I get tired listening to that set. I just mentioned it as it was the first to spring to mind and I thought most people here would have heard of it, in my post above.
Ottery,
Thanks for that Paddy O'Brien link, I had never seen it, and it is a great resource.
And Jorge, where I play we put together sets based on what sounds good. Our sets tend to have two or three tunes in them. Sometimes people like to put together tunes in the same key; other people like a contrast. I myself like jumping from the relative minor to major key (Em to G for example), or increasing the number of sharps (D to A). Or you can do modal tune to major tune (Dmix to D major). Sometimes the last few notes of one tune and the first few of the next will work, and sometimes they will not--and sometimes you can arrive on a little twist of melody that affixes one to the other. Some tunes resolve in the end, others kind of leave you hanging, so we tend to put tunes that resolve at the end of a set. Generally, an individual comes in with an idea for a set, and if people like it, we tend to play those tunes as a set, at least for a while. Some of us play in a group together, so the group's choice of sets often becomes the session choice (but not always). There are some sets that seem pretty universal (there are people in this neck of the woods that have trouble playing Mountain Road without following it with the Silver Spear for example). But since traditional tunes, by themselves, are a bit short (or repetitious if you play them long enough), sets is a nice way to organize things.
I think some of this goes back to dancing, which is after all the prime reason we have this music, is it not "The Dance Music of Ireland " ?
In my earlier years, playing in a barn dance band, the rule seemed to be that the longer the set of tunes, the more you changed key for every tune - it brightens up the music for the dancers, and keeps the thing going better.
We were, of course, playing the same sets of tunes more or less every gig, but to new audiences, as opposed to a session where many people may be frequent visitors and you depend on people pulling something out of the bag to intersperse with the commonly-played tunes.
In your session, do the sets come together by a happy accident, or are they planned beforehand by an individual or the group ?
I find the hardest can be when you think of another tune as one comes to an end and you have to lead in without support, when everyone else may be expecting the end.
the art of building sets. I agree with you all. It's a question of key changes, interaction of a tune with other, the shape and feeling... and, if it sound great, the set can survive in the natural selection of a session and spreads to other sessions. It's the live tradition, you know.
Jorge, I live in a smaller getho. It is and Island.
Here (Montreal) it's standard practice to throw tunes together on the fly. Sometime during the b-part a melody player will call out the name of a tune or a key (or both), and that's what gets played.
In Ireland they would usually talk about it before hand - choose 2 or 3 tunes, play a phrase or two to make sure they were talking about the same tunes and key signatures, then launch in together. (That's at a "paid to play" session - the casual "just for fun" sessions don't work like that).
If they were people who play together a lot, the discussion would be skipped but they all knew exactly what to expect by virtue of having played that set hundreds of times before.
The bottom line is that you aren't in Ireland and you aren't in Quebec, so you and your friends can do whatever you like.
i too second Pingu. At my local session, we play the "tarbolton" set of tunes in exactly the same way as Pingu says: whats coming next is probably by virtue that the session players have been playing together for yars.
however, for me, its the small changes that keep the session interesting. If you find a tune (call it X) that slots in better to a set than simply tune A, then tune B then tune C, making it A-X-C, it can change the dynamic of a session, which keeps it interesting.
bottom line- there's no set rule; for every tune set thats common, theres one that you launch to off the cuff, that sounds just as good- its music- do what feels good to you, and dont wory about 'rules!
Putting tunes together into medleys is a craft. There are many factors to consider in creating good tune transitions. Things like key changes, rhyming phrases, matching rhythms, contrast, contour, etc. are just a few of the considerations.
Established, or "traditional' sets are usually a result of having the medley recorded on an historic or important recording. Also, some sets will become standard in different locations. If it's a location famous for ITM it has a good chance of becoming a universally recognized set.
A lot of people find enjoyment from throwing together tunes on the fly. This is a musical sporting event and can be very exciting. There can be some happy accidents, but it can also lead to train wrecks and melt-downs... but it's still good for a laugh and gives you a chance to sip your pint.
To clarify what I said above, I wasn't saying there is anything wrong with putting together sets on the fly. It can be a fun 'sport' as Jack puts it, and certainly keeps everyone on their toes. But musically they can be a bit hit and miss.
There's usually time in an evening for both sorts of fun ...
Zina Lee, Dahling, It was a joke ......or a cluster-joke.... if there is such a thing.
The 3 Tunes is a dance set that IS canonized. But everybody sez " Tree Chunes" . So instead of "Haste to the Wedding", "Leslie Hornpipe", and "German Beau". ....
(I've never heard the last 2 played out of this context.)
I suppose I was too subtle with the smileys. ( Sprinkle about as needed. ) B-) B-P
LOL...lessee:
"Haste to the Wrestling, Leslie Leadpipe and the German Brawler " ?............. Nah, let me work on it a bit more.
I don't have the accent either, when I was playing for a dance school, 10-12 years ago, all the mothers were Irish nurses, and each had their own accent. Everytime I said "3 Tunes" one of them would say "tree chunes" like I'd said Athy "ATH -ee" instead of "a-THIGH" . I think they were yanking my chain (so to speak), but I got in the habit...
Haven't played it/them in years....isn't that supposed to go one time each (with repeats) and then start over?
I'd like to thank everybody for your help. I hope someday I'll be able to play many of these sets with you. I'll have to work hard with the tunes and, of course, with all those accents. You'll have to get mine, though.
Jorge, MaryMary suggested the Foinn Seisiún books and CDs for suggested session tune sets. If you just want to have a look at these you can see the listings on the recordings session as follows:-
As has already been said many times on this post there's nothing sacrosanct about these or any other groupings. They did, however, evolve out of a particular session (Monkstown) so that there's a bit of consensus there. Another advantage is that the books are used in many Comhaltas branches from Achill to Tokyo not to mention America and Australia so there's always a good chance you'll meet someone else with a few of the same sets!
Hey guys, and don't forget us poor dancers, for we also have quite canonical sets of dances, often accompanied with more or less canonical sets of tunes...
How sets became sets (and where)
How sets became sets (and where)
Where I live (Spanish Mediterranean Coast) you cannot find many sessions, and musicians are always the same, a bunch of lunatics that play a weird kind of music and drink mainly porter. We're a kind of a ghetto, and we contact with the rest of the ITM adepts through web sites like this, or when one of us can travel to other places. We get new tunes from recordings or from the web, but there's a point where we feel specially apart from you: whenever we can get to a session in Ireland or Scotland we cannot follow the sets, I mean, I know the tunes (some of them, in fact just a few) but not the order they're played. So: is there any invisible and ancient force that control the sets, or did they become as they are through ages of evolution? Are they the same in western irish counties and in the States (for instance)? Is there any rule we should know when we "artificially" build new sets?
Now I think I will have my pills, excuse me.
PD: we really miss you all (as sessioneers, don't get me wrong).
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by jorge o'lochlainn
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
All sets are artificial. Infact all music is artificial, that's one of the defining things about music. But more to your specific question. What you will probably find is that the sets aren't set in stone, but the players recognise a tune in an astonishingly short amount of time
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by llig leahcim
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
The way I understand it is that a set is simply a few tunes that go together well, and you can set them up any way you like. We get some of our sets from CDs and others we just make up.
Some of the sets in our session are very fixed, e.g. after playing The Blarney Pilgrim, everybody will follow with The Kesh. It will be difficult to change unless we agree to do so before the time. But with many of the sets we simply listen to find out what the next tune is. The music often drops a bit during the switch over, but often the players do recognize the tune in an astonishingly short amount of time.
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by Shrog
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
I agree Michael, nothing is set in stone, nor should it be -but there are a fair number of sets which have become standards over the years, eg, Tarbolton/Longford Collector/Sailor's Bonnet. This and other ones may be associated with a particular recording or player - and the player may just be someone down at your local session. But everyone will join in as soon as they see or hear the road map unfolding. They know what is coming next so they go along with it. And thus have sets evolved.
(As I see it.)
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
"there are a fair number of sets which have become standards over the years"
Yes I know, but... just in a determined area in Ireland, or are they, we can say, universally established as a set? I agree with you that they are not set in stone. I think that this kind of music is alive, so it changes, it can be as different as musicians are. But as long as there are some sets that became standard... , is it just tradition then?
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by jorge o'lochlainn
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
Both - some are universal and some are local, and not necessarily local to an area of Ireland. That's the point I was trying to make. This is how I see it anyway.
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
I understand. And do you know where I could find the titles for the tunes of those most common and well known sets? You named Tarbolton/Longford Collector/Sailor's Bonnet, but I'd love to get some others. And another question, what about mixing different kinds of tunes, eg. jigs-reels or hornpipes-reels. That'd involve a change in the timing. Is that commonly used in your sessions? Thanks a lot for your help.
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by jorge o'lochlainn
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
They can vary from town to town, pub to pub, and sometimes from musician to musician(whoever starts). As long as you know (enough of) the tunes, that's the important thing.
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by Johannes J
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
Everybody is correct. Our "Blarney Pilgrim/Kesh" set comes from The Bothy Band I believe, and there are many sessions that play these tunes together. So it has become a "standard", and because it is available on CD, the standard is basically universal. Other standards will spread from session to session, making it a local standard.
The bottom line is that Jorge's experience is not unique. When you go from one session to another, you will find that they do their own thing, even though they do a few standard sets.
It's logical really: a player visits a session where they play tune A and B in a set. It sounds great, so he goes home to his own session where they now play the same set. Or he may not like it and NOT play the same set. It's your choice, not a tradition.
The standards are the sets that are copied by more sessions over a longer period of time, and the non standards are the ones that have not been copied by others, or have not yet been heard by others. Obviously the better the combination of tunes sound, the more likely it is to be emulated.
If you play on non-traditional instruments, or in a non-Irish style, or you play non-Irish tunes in your Irish session, you may be criticized for not following the tradition, but if you break up a standard set to make up your own sets, you will in fact be following the tradition.
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by Shrog
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
Mostly it's just local tradition. I believe that the "tarbolton" &c set that Pingu cited is from a James Morrison record from the '20's (I'm very far away from my notes, so I could very well be mistaken.) It's about as universal a set as I've run across, but there's no guarantee that Tarbolton won't be followed by "Salamanca", or "Tam Lin"
It seems to me that the best way to deal with sets is to be alert, and aware, and listen.
Oh yeah, there's the (3 Tunes) "Tree Chunes" (Ash to the Wedding, Leslie Hornbeam , and the German Bois d'arc) ;-> but it will get called as such and you might not encounter it without a strong Dance Community in the area.
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by Owell Mabee
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
"Is there any rule we should know when we "artificially" build new sets?"
Yes. You should like them.
KFG
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by KFG
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
on mixing up sets, and stringing tunes together:
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display.php/6157
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by Q
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
Everyone is probably going to laugh at me, but I really want to help Jorge, so what about this:
The two Comhaltas publications, Foinn Seisiún 1 and Foinn Seisiún 2, contain 220 standard traditional tunes arranged in 74 sets as played at the Tuesday and Wednesday night sessions in the Cultúrlann in Monkstown.
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by MC2
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
Jorge,
do yourself a big favour - download this pdf and print it out:
http://www.ceolas.org/pub/tunes/tunes.pdf/POB.pdf
It's tunes arranged in sets by Paddy O'Brien. It's rock solid in terms of versions, and they all make great sets.
As far as sets like the Tarbolton one goes. Am I alone in thinking they can sound a bit tired?
Re-setting the tunes can really give them a lift and new lease of life.
There are some people who think that it's wrong to think of tunes in sets, and sets should be slung together on the hoof. but to my mind a well thought out set, with interesting key changes from tune to tune is a thing of wonder. Slung together sets can go on too long, and no matter how well played, tend to lack dynamic. Beautiful tunes get wasted.
Here's some examples of sets I currently like to play, I think they work quite well:
White Petticoat (Em) Lilting Banshee (Am) Stan Chapman's (Amaj)
Get Up Old Woman (G?) Seamus Cooley's (D) This Is My Love Do You Like Her? (Am)
Green Fields Of Rossbeigh (Em), The Peelers Jacket (G)
George White's (G), Bird In The Bush (G) Sligo Maid (Am)
Eel In The Sink (Amaj?) Lad O'Beirne's (G)
Mark
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by Ottery
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
You're not alone, Mark. I get tired listening to that set. I just mentioned it as it was the first to spring to mind and I thought most people here would have heard of it, in my post above.
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by Key Maniac Lad
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
Ottery,
Thanks for that Paddy O'Brien link, I had never seen it, and it is a great resource.
And Jorge, where I play we put together sets based on what sounds good. Our sets tend to have two or three tunes in them. Sometimes people like to put together tunes in the same key; other people like a contrast. I myself like jumping from the relative minor to major key (Em to G for example), or increasing the number of sharps (D to A). Or you can do modal tune to major tune (Dmix to D major). Sometimes the last few notes of one tune and the first few of the next will work, and sometimes they will not--and sometimes you can arrive on a little twist of melody that affixes one to the other. Some tunes resolve in the end, others kind of leave you hanging, so we tend to put tunes that resolve at the end of a set. Generally, an individual comes in with an idea for a set, and if people like it, we tend to play those tunes as a set, at least for a while. Some of us play in a group together, so the group's choice of sets often becomes the session choice (but not always). There are some sets that seem pretty universal (there are people in this neck of the woods that have trouble playing Mountain Road without following it with the Silver Spear for example). But since traditional tunes, by themselves, are a bit short (or repetitious if you play them long enough), sets is a nice way to organize things.
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by AlBrown
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
I think some of this goes back to dancing, which is after all the prime reason we have this music, is it not "The Dance Music of Ireland " ?
In my earlier years, playing in a barn dance band, the rule seemed to be that the longer the set of tunes, the more you changed key for every tune - it brightens up the music for the dancers, and keeps the thing going better.
We were, of course, playing the same sets of tunes more or less every gig, but to new audiences, as opposed to a session where many people may be frequent visitors and you depend on people pulling something out of the bag to intersperse with the commonly-played tunes.
In your session, do the sets come together by a happy accident, or are they planned beforehand by an individual or the group ?
I find the hardest can be when you think of another tune as one comes to an end and you have to lead in without support, when everyone else may be expecting the end.
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by Guernsey Pete
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
the art of building sets. I agree with you all. It's a question of key changes, interaction of a tune with other, the shape and feeling... and, if it sound great, the set can survive in the natural selection of a session and spreads to other sessions. It's the live tradition, you know.
Jorge, I live in a smaller getho. It is and Island.
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by fer
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
Here (Montreal) it's standard practice to throw tunes together on the fly. Sometime during the b-part a melody player will call out the name of a tune or a key (or both), and that's what gets played.
In Ireland they would usually talk about it before hand - choose 2 or 3 tunes, play a phrase or two to make sure they were talking about the same tunes and key signatures, then launch in together. (That's at a "paid to play" session - the casual "just for fun" sessions don't work like that).
If they were people who play together a lot, the discussion would be skipped but they all knew exactly what to expect by virtue of having played that set hundreds of times before.
The bottom line is that you aren't in Ireland and you aren't in Quebec, so you and your friends can do whatever you like.
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
i too second Pingu. At my local session, we play the "tarbolton" set of tunes in exactly the same way as Pingu says: whats coming next is probably by virtue that the session players have been playing together for yars.
however, for me, its the small changes that keep the session interesting. If you find a tune (call it X) that slots in better to a set than simply tune A, then tune B then tune C, making it A-X-C, it can change the dynamic of a session, which keeps it interesting.
bottom line- there's no set rule; for every tune set thats common, theres one that you launch to off the cuff, that sounds just as good- its music- do what feels good to you, and dont wory about 'rules!
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by aaron b
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
"Ash" to the Wedding? I've always seen that one as "Haste" to the Wedding.
What everyone else said.
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by Zina Lee
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
Putting tunes together into medleys is a craft. There are many factors to consider in creating good tune transitions. Things like key changes, rhyming phrases, matching rhythms, contrast, contour, etc. are just a few of the considerations.
Established, or "traditional' sets are usually a result of having the medley recorded on an historic or important recording. Also, some sets will become standard in different locations. If it's a location famous for ITM it has a good chance of becoming a universally recognized set.
A lot of people find enjoyment from throwing together tunes on the fly. This is a musical sporting event and can be very exciting. There can be some happy accidents, but it can also lead to train wrecks and melt-downs... but it's still good for a laugh and gives you a chance to sip your pint.
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
To clarify what I said above, I wasn't saying there is anything wrong with putting together sets on the fly. It can be a fun 'sport' as Jack puts it, and certainly keeps everyone on their toes. But musically they can be a bit hit and miss.
There's usually time in an evening for both sorts of fun ...
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by Ottery
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
A fine example of Jack exercising the craft of putting a tune together into a mudley can be heard at:
http://www.berzen.se/jimdorans/jack_gilder_plough_temp.mp3
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by Kerri Brown
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
Somebody needs to tell the pool players to stick (in every sense) to the beat. God help them when we get to a slip jig.
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by wormdiet
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
Zina Lee, Dahling, It was a joke ......or a cluster-joke.... if there is such a thing.
The 3 Tunes is a dance set that IS canonized. But everybody sez " Tree Chunes" . So instead of "Haste to the Wedding", "Leslie Hornpipe", and "German Beau". ....
(I've never heard the last 2 played out of this context.)
B-) B-P
I suppose I was too subtle with the smileys. ( Sprinkle about as needed. )
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by Owell Mabee
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
Ah, I see, I was skimming. We don't call it the Tree Chunes around here, not having the accent and all. We call them the Three Goons.
# Posted on June 28th 2005 by Zina Lee
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
LOL...lessee:
"Haste to the Wrestling, Leslie Leadpipe and the German Brawler " ?............. Nah, let me work on it a bit more.
I don't have the accent either, when I was playing for a dance school, 10-12 years ago, all the mothers were Irish nurses, and each had their own accent. Everytime I said "3 Tunes" one of them would say "tree chunes" like I'd said Athy "ATH -ee" instead of "a-THIGH" . I think they were yanking my chain (so to speak), but I got in the habit...
Haven't played it/them in years....isn't that supposed to go one time each (with repeats) and then start over?
SO....how far OT are we anyway?
# Posted on June 29th 2005 by Owell Mabee
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
I'd like to thank everybody for your help. I hope someday I'll be able to play many of these sets with you. I'll have to work hard with the tunes and, of course, with all those accents. You'll have to get mine, though.
# Posted on June 29th 2005 by jorge o'lochlainn
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
Jorge, MaryMary suggested the Foinn Seisiún books and CDs for suggested session tune sets. If you just want to have a look at these you can see the listings on the recordings session as follows:-
http://www.thesession.org/recordings/display.php/1227 (Foinn Seisiún Book 1) and http://www.thesession.org/recordings/display.php/1587 (Foinn Seisiún Book 2)
As has already been said many times on this post there's nothing sacrosanct about these or any other groupings. They did, however, evolve out of a particular session (Monkstown) so that there's a bit of consensus there. Another advantage is that the books are used in many Comhaltas branches from Achill to Tokyo not to mention America and Australia so there's always a good chance you'll meet someone else with a few of the same sets!
# Posted on June 29th 2005 by Bannerman
Re: How sets became sets (and where)
Hey guys, and don't forget us poor dancers, for we also have quite canonical sets of dances, often accompanied with more or less canonical sets of tunes...
# Posted on July 5th 2005 by Cavaler