DrPhill wrote:Nanohedron wrote: I have a preference for song airs strictly on the basis that the lyrics give me something to hang my hat on (still with the hat metaphors, Nano?). Without them I feel a bit adrift.
I know exactly what you mean, though I do not study the lyrics as intently as you. I do hear lyrics in my head under those circumstances, though if the original is in a language I do not know then I hear a mangled phonetic transcription, or a general impression. Recently I found myself wondering if the lyrics/vocals are just another layer over the 'real tune' (bare bones is a good term), a layer that helps me grasp the tune but which could also be a distraction from the real tune. I am not sure if I make sense here. I am learning in isolation from other musicians and probably stumbling over well known territory (I find these kind of discussions very illuminating though)
I fear I have given the wrong impression as to the degree of my zeal for lyrics. I have committed an unfortunate series of slips in wording, and I apologize for that. Let me try to be more clear: When learning a new air, my goal first and foremost is to hear
how the song is sung - that is the Prime Directive - and I learn it that way. If you asked me to recite lyrics off the cuff, I couldn't give you all of The May Morning Dew now, for example, because it's been donkeys' years and I no longer have need of the lyrics as a learning tool; the phrasing is now absorbed and reliable, and I can make appropriate variations because the rhythms of those lyrics remain. Without those guidelines I would be way off track; I have heard musicians play airs in ways that wildly had nothing to do with the songs they came from, and if you know those songs or are at least familiar with how they are sung, it's rather offensive that the musician will think they can do whatever they like with them; airs are not mere putty to be reshaped into any form at a whim and call it artistic license. A song air should be at least recognizable, and to those who don't know the tune, it should make some kind of sense. That said, there will still be various ways the air can be expressed and still be in conformity with the lyrics; musicians will have their favorite ways, and sometimes those differences are notable. But back to lyrics in specific: Nor would I directly study non-English lyrics with any gimlet intensity, because I am not a singer, and as an instrumentalist all I need is the phrasing as informed by the singing. But I insist on my being able to reproduce that phrasing, so I listen, and to multiple sources if I can, because individual variations apply, and as Peter noted, certain lines may contain built-in quirks from the expected. Those are good to know and reproduce, for the knowledgeable audience will appreciate your attention to such details. It's a way of letting them know you care.
DrPhill wrote:Nanohedron wrote:When you say, "Both of these I find continually evolving in my hands (for good or ill) and may never be 'finished'", I actually see that as a good thing!
.
But that means that my version is different to everyone else's, and if I want to play with someone else we need to spend time communicating, adapting and creating yet another version of the tune just for the occasion. That sounds like good fun (though inefficient) but I have rarely found myself in a position to try it.
FWIW, I don't know anyone versed in ITM who naturally plays a tune in exactly the same way as another. We are always urged by our betters to make the tunes we play uniquely our own, so when it comes to playing with others, you make do. In ITM sessions no one is in exact unison note-for-note, and the overall effect is one of "shimmer", as one member has put it. It's when the session is a simple duo or trio that differences might be jarring, but usually this is not the case. But it IS why I took up backup playing just in case.
You will occasionally hear ITM musicians playing in note-for-note perfect unison, ornaments and all, but that is generally a forced arrangement done for the sake of performance or recording. In my experience it's not the usual, and you will find conflicting opinions on the practice.
DrPhill wrote:Attempting to reproduce the shape of the lyrics may be missing something essential in the underlying bones that the lyrics could not represent. Apologies if that all sounds a bit pretentious for someone at my skill level.
No, it's a valid concern. My contention is that rather than being hidebound and restricted, playing an air in the context of its being sung is actually liberating, because you know the the why of its general shape and boundaries, and the rest is pretty much all blue sky. If you listen to the difference between david_h's examples, you can see a bit of how this works.
"If you take music out of this world, you will have nothing but a ball of fire." - Balochi musician