No, that gives them more notes to the beat, which is not the same thing! But it's a moot point when neither's going to stretch a good tongue.


No, he's using a speculative, subjective superlative while MTGuru's not actually knocking her.


He can't possibly even know who they all are when there could be hidden/unknown/upcoming talent out there (nothing against Kathleen Conneely at all, but you're coming over as aggressively defensive here)!

And adding here that we should keep in mind that as MTGuru himself said, if he found the playing substandard, he wouldn't have even bothered to say anything. A big part of a lot of members' vision for this site is to discuss, and thereby further promote learning about, the process of playing and how aesthetics are expressed within the tradition, and this is MTGuru's cup of tea. We seem to see more threads about making than we do about playing, here, and there's no reason why that should be.

Yes, he approaches it from the mechanism of critique. However, this is NOT at all the same thing as a put-down; it's analysis. Sometimes it's nothing more than the articulation of why a particular detail of one person's playing doesn't work for another's tastes, yet the musicianship is never in question. Ms. Conneely is very skilled and a pleasure to listen to, I think all would agree. That being established, MTGuru's gone farther and is looking deeper than adding to a chorus of mere "attaboys", and this is worth discussion (and being deemed worth discussion is in this case a mark of respect for the whole of one's abilities in a general sense, I would argue; does anyone benefit from a struggling beginner getting such close critical analysis?). From there, we can add such perspectives to the grab-bag for our own choices in advancing our abilities if we're committed to working toward it. Knowledge is power, you could say. The rest is choice.

I got a critique from MTGuru about my cittern backup playing, once. I had the choice of either merely letting my ego get bruised, or of seeing it as a point of view worth listening to. It doesn't necessarily mean that what I was doing was unworthy; in fact, if he thought my playing was junk he probably would have thought his input too soon for the times and tried to weasel out by distractedly giving me a nice pat on the head and sending me happily on my way. What it does mean over all else is that his ear had a different vision (if you'll excuse the odd metaphor) than mine, and that there are further levels I could climb to expand my musicianship. If that's not helpfulness, then what is? In all cases I firmly believe it is very much a good idea to be able to articulate (at least for myself if no one else) why I choose, on the basis of my aesthetic values, and not laziness (or contrariwise, even because of it), to do what I do and why I change or don't change it, and then own up to it.

Whether my taste matches someone else's taste is not a fit matter for discord.

Well first, if you think that's true, then you need to rethink the relationship between pulse and tempo in trad dance music. Because, without belaboring the details, that's just not the way it works.

Second, it's not germane anyway to your specific comment about the slow and fast tunes. Comparing apples and apples, you're implying that the "fast" reels are less articulated than the slower reels, and "fast" jigs less articulated than the slower jigs. Or perhaps that all the reels are less articulated than the jigs.

And none of those things is objectively true. The degree of Kathleen's articulation is consistent throughout all the (sample) tracks - jigs and reels, (very slightly) slower or faster. Exactly as I'd expect from a player with a well-defined style. If you're hearing less articulation in what you perceive as "faster" tunes, then you're simply mis-hearing it.

Finally, suggesting that, say, raising a reel's tempo slightly from 100 bpm to 105 would suddenly make the same articulations "physically impossible" to play completely mis-judges the skills of a player of Ms. Conneely's level.


I sure hope he might not, not if he's a good teacher. A little hyperbole or even hubris is forgivable. Not recognizing it as such is not.


Again, you seem to want to play loose with the difference between critical listening and charged terms like "condemning" and "knocking". Or between the player and the playing. I've said nothing at all against Ms. Conneely. I don't doubt that brad moloney's nice comment above is perfectly true. And frankly, I have no idea what "support" means in the context of discussing the technical details of a particular recording.


Endorsements and friends are nice. But I've yet to see someone use negative criticism for album promotion. I'm going to buck the trend when I release my first whistle CD:

"Completely mediocre. Not his best effort." - Mary Bergin.
"Should have stuck to playing the saxophone." - Paddy Moloney.
"This album is a joke, right?" - Kevin Crawford.
"All Chiffboard and no play makes MTGuru a dull boy." - Dale Wisely.

Of course, if you can't use your own ears and have to rely on teacher's comments and album blurbs to know if a performance pleases or vexes you, you have more listening to do. But don't we all?

Yes, us newbies need to learn and the discussions here are wonderful!
I've always been interested in that creative dynamic between musician, music, and listener. Tastey stuff it is eh

Hey, I have to get that (it'll go so nicely with mine!)... can I pre-order now, please?

I've always planned for mine to have the ringing endorsement, "Who do these ****s think they are?" I don't know who, yet, but I'm going to see if I can't get someone famous to claim that one.

Speaking of negative criticism, two of us three are being derivative, here, and I'm pretty sure it ain't me.

Think I'll call mine 'Jack of all Trades' (sleeve endorsed by MTGuru and Nanohedron 'Peter Duggan is a veritable polymath'), but add 'Master of None' across the CD tray so you see it just as you lift the disc out!

As a beginner I have to say: WHAT are you guys talking about? Hahaha.

I'm kidding, but really, I'm loving to read this discussion! You guys know just so much of trad music! That's awesome

Don't speak too soon, there. I was just talking generalities that could apply to anyone. Doesn't take an ITM expert to do that.

Mine would simply say:

"That was a whistle? Really? Huh, wouldn't have guessed."
"Best recording of cutting glass with a table saw that I've ever heard!"

Yep, MTGuru and Nano know their stuff but I'm just a 'jack of all trades'...

Anyway, back to Kathleen Conneely... perhaps it's curious or perhaps merely inevitable (when we're dealing at least partly with the subjective) that one person's 'beautiful lyrical flowing style' can be another's 'choppy, stiff and heavy'. Still not sure about what we're hearing there myself although, like MTGuru, I like to hear imaginative use of tonguing (IMHO more whistle players tonguing too little than too much, with too many misguidedly eschewing or even denouncing any at all), enjoyed the unhurried tempos of the clips, but wasn't convinced by the bodhran in some of them. So overall I guess I'd say she's got something without feeling compelled to rush out and buy it, but could probably say that about 95% of the albums (yes, even by the great and the good!) that might interest me (not damning with faint praise, but just telling it how it is!).

Please. I think we can dispense with adding me to any list of immortals. I'm just quick with an opinion and standardly unremarkable at best at my playing. MTGuru's entirely another matter if it's expertise you want.

Next time I'll just delete such nonsense, well-meaning as it may be. Because if nothing else, that I can do.

Peace love out.

Aggressively defensive. That's a good one!

One more and I'm done. The rest of you can have the last word.

I have been lurking on this board for years. It seemed to be a friendly place. So far I have not had much to say, not wanting to lower the signal/noise ratio.

When I got this CD I thought it was something chiffandfipplers would want to know about. So I told them. Especially since there is a previous thread to the effect of "when is Kathleen Conneely ever going to get around to releasing an album?" viewtopic.php?t=80942

Let me quote that thread.
I was surprised when the "immoderator" came down on the album harshly. Go back and read his response to my original post. It is the kind of summary judgment that would make people lose interest in hearing the album, especially given his status here.

He did, however, invite us to talk him down from his opinion. But when I tried, he came after me with, again, undue harshness. And others, including the "moderatorer," backed him up.

Why this unpleasantness over a perfectly nice little whistle album? By the way, the CD sounds much prettier than the thin, scratchy samples on cdbaby.

I could continue to nitpick about the nitpicky topics that have come up. But wouldn't we be better off playing our whistles?

Meanwhile I encourage the moderators to re-read the policies having to do with constructive criticism and welcoming newbies. I am curious about what Dale would have to say about this thread.

Maybe your idea of "harsh" is different from mine.

If you consider explaining something from my lights as backing someone up...well, I suppose it is, but if that's the only conclusion you got out of it, I can't believe that you've actually read those posts. For example, I said - truthfully - that the CD is a nice one. I should have thought that would have clarified the tone. Still sure you're not being defensive?


I think you should ask him.

The recording is there. We can use our own ears. Reviews can tell us something of what others hear and how they feel about it, which can help us question our own views and advise us on how to interpret their views on other music.
No-one's comments here would make any difference as to whether I bought the CD or not, would like to hear Kathleen Conneely live, or would buy a track for 'study' if I was learning one of those tunes. (FWIW no, yes, possibly)