Now, in response to the OP, we have a couple dozen waltzes offered. How many of these has the OP played? How many of these have the people who recommended them played? It's like when Somebody asks "What is your favorite album of Irish music?" and all the punters rattle off CDs that they hope nobody has ever heard before, or one that hadn't been mentioned earlier in the discussion, thereby gaining for themselves what they think of as distinction of some sort.
I have only been playing (with intent) less than a year and i only know 3 waltzes; Blue dress, Fanny power and Give me your hand and i play them all. They are all very sweet sounding tunes and i love to play them especially when i'm out in the park, making music for the passers by.
The nice thing about Blue dress and Give me your hand is that they are a nice, slow way to practice my keywork but the session i frequent plays only about one or 2 waltzes a night.
Julia Delaney wrote:It's like when Somebody asks "What is your favorite album of Irish music?" and all the punters rattle off CDs that they hope nobody has ever heard before, or one that hadn't been mentioned earlier in the discussion, thereby gaining for themselves what they think of as distinction of some sort.
I guess I haven't thought of it in those terms. To me it's simply info; who knows what I might have missed.
"If you take music out of this world, you will have nothing but a ball of fire." - Balochi musician
Yeah, well, if I pick up a flat rock and put it on a pile of papers, it is a paperweight.
When I take it off, it's just a rock.
(I shouldn't say "just" because I'm a geologist.)
Actually, there's rather more to this.
It depends a mix of intrinsic qualities of the music and how you play it.
And most importantly, is this for listening or joy in playing or for dancing?
Playing for dancers is very utilitarian.
I'm coming from the perspective of someone who plays for dancers and rarely does waltzes in any other setting, except sometimes listening music for other gatherings. Also as a dancer.
J.D.'s cautionary remarks seem to have merit. No point in listing a bunch of stuff you've heard and like. On the other hand, I've picked up several fine waltzes from friends who insisted I just had to try this particular tune. Maybe the best approach is "what waltzes are great for (listening) or (dancing) and aren't well known and seem to be flying under the radar right now?"
So, "The Trip We Took Over the Mountain" is an interesting example. For dancers, if you played this in stricter tempo, it could work nicely in a technical sense because it gives a great lift to the feet at the right places...especially the third beat of each measure. But it is so glorious as an air that it seems like a travesty to do it any other way. I wouldn't want to modify it for that purpose, but have been inspired here to see what I can do with it on flute in it's original incarnation.
Yep, O'Carolan didn't write waltzes, but many of them can work fine as such - depending on how they're played. BTW, "asymmetry" isn't a problem at all for waltzers, although some of us don't like an extra measure that puts us "wrong-footed".
So a few among those I've played fairly regularly and dancers respond to:
-- The Dancer, from Waltz Book II. In Em with many Eb and Bb accidentals. Requires some work to get in form, but worth it.
-- Pernod, by Johnny Cunningham and also in W.B.II. Great dramatic swoopy feel for dancing.
-- Metsakukkia, a three-part waltz nominally in Bb. I hear they groan now in Finland but getting overplayed is a testament.
-- My Cape Breton Home, by Jerry Holland. Unadulterated schmaltz and folks on the floor love it.
-- Valse des Jeunes Filles, in W.B.I and typically French-Canadian cheerful.
-- Waiting for Snow, by Julie King. Dancers *always* come up after and ask.
-- Haapavesi Waltz, in W.B.III. Great lift and swoop.
So many other tunes I really like to play, but dancers are sort of "meh" about. Crested Hens for example ...nobody comes up afterward and says "that was great, what was that called?" Not sure why and maybe our fault, but there it is.
Some tunes are great to dance to but don't sit particularly well on flute...you could work them around, but lose something. La Partida comes to mind.
My apologies to those exclusively interested in ITM. On my coffee table is Tomas O'Canainn's book of Traditional Slow Airs of Ireland. After having this for many years I've resolved to go through these methodically, not to mine it for waltzes (some are in 3/4) but for the love of playing them.
I seem to skew more in the mazurka-ly direction myself, but "The Jewel of the Ocean" is a nice waltz. I believe it's on a Dave Sheridan recording. "Genevieve's Waltz" is gorgeous, too. IIRC, Manus McGuire wrote that one.
"Inis Oirr" ("Inisheer") is nice, and of course, there are all the lovely O'Carolan things. I think another tune we play with a harper is called "The Dark Isle" and that's good.
There seem to be a lot of nice waltzes up Cape Breton way; you might consult Fiddler's Companion or some such for some of those?
Also, our Bluegrass band occasionally plays a set we heard from the Fuchsia Band that pairs Benny Thomason's "Midnight on the Water" with "Margaret's Waltz" in A. That's a flat-out-brilliant pair of tunes.
Last edited by Cathy Wilde on Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deja Fu: The sense that somewhere, somehow, you've been kicked in the head exactly like this before.
Tell us something.: I'm not registering, I'm trying to edit my profile! The field “Tell us something.” is too short, a minimum of 100 characters is required.
Julia Delaney wrote:Now, in response to the OP, we have a couple dozen waltzes offered. How many of these has the OP played? How many of these have the people who recommended them played? It's like when Somebody asks "What is your favorite album of Irish music?" and all the punters rattle off CDs that they hope nobody has ever heard before, or one that hadn't been mentioned earlier in the discussion, thereby gaining for themselves what they think of as distinction of some sort.
Though maybe I shouldn't have bothered?
Nanohedron wrote:I guess I haven't thought of it in those terms. To me it's simply info; who knows what I might have missed.
woodfluter wrote:J.D.'s cautionary remarks seem to have merit. No point in listing a bunch of stuff you've heard and like. On the other hand, I've picked up several fine waltzes from friends who insisted I just had to try this particular tune. Maybe the best approach is "what waltzes are great for (listening) or (dancing) and aren't well known and seem to be flying under the radar right now?"
TBH, I can see both sides to this (hence my smiley in quoting JD above). It's something you probably get on most larger Internet forums about anything (so not just music or this one), where responses to such requests typically vary from genuinely helpful/informative through misguidedly/inexpertly 'helpful', name-dropping and bragging to downright trolling or stirring. But my impression of this thread here was that folk were mostly recommending stuff they've tried and tested, and I've certainly played the three well-known tunes and one new one I've offered enough times (= many over many years!) to have some idea of their suitability.
jim stone wrote:A paper weight is a physical object that is used to hold down papers. That is, it is a physical object that serves a certain
function. As the jar of strawberry jam is being used as a paper weight (suppose I've used it this way for awhile) then the jar of strawberry jam is both a jar of strawberrry jam and a paper weight. The jar of jam = the paper weight,
and the answer: 'It's a paper weight' is a good one, since it doesn't preclude the object's also being a jar of jam.
I can be a paper weight, in fact, if you are willing to pay me enough and care little about the consequences
for your papers.
Roughly, some things are defined by the functions they serve (they have a functional definition) and some things
are defined by their intrinsic properties. So, if I am employed as a paper weight, I am still a man (a member
of the species homo sapiens). Typically the intrinsic properties of a thing that is used to serve a function are essential
to it, but the function is not essential to it: I can exist whether or not I'm used as a paper weight, but I cannot
exist if I cease to be a human animal. So functional definitions appear to presuppose that the things
that serve the functions have essential intrinsic definitions.
Sometimes a term gets both a functional and an intrinsic definition. We can give a functional definition of 'waltz,' namely, any music that is often used to dance a certain sort of dance (the waltz). So O'Carolan's tunes are not functionally
waltzes, since they probably aren't used much to dance that dance. But we can also give an intrinsic definition--
music with a certain rhthym, in which case his tunes are waltzes (unless we count very seriously the
small differences in rhythm and structure noted in posts above). So the question 'Are his tunes waltzes?' is ambiguous.
Not in the functional sense, but they are in the intrinsic sense (or anyhow, they nearly are).
I think this sorts things out. Of course nobody in the world cares about this but me. You have to be crazy
in a special sort of way. In fact these distinctions can be important and controversial in the philosophy
of mind.
Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love.
Love is not music. Music is the best.
- Frank Zappa
Beyond recognition.
I suggested the o' carolan pieces simply because they're
in 3/4 knowing full well that they were not composed as
dance tunes much less waltzes. I've seen them danced to as such,
heard them played as such (not that I would ever play them as such.)
woodfluter wrote:
Actually, there's rather more to this.
It depends a mix of intrinsic qualities of the music and how you play it.
And most importantly, is this for listening or joy in playing or for dancing?
I want to ask Mr. Stone a question, are you playing for dancers or
do you just like to play tunes that are in 3/4 time? (God help me if I call it a waltz!)
Have you tried "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling" or "Too Ra Loo Ra Loo Ral"?
Too turgid maybe............
Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love.
Love is not music. Music is the best.
- Frank Zappa
Beyond recognition.
I suggested the o' carolan pieces simply because they're
in 3/4 knowing full well that they were not composed as
dance tunes much less waltzes. I've seen them danced to as such,
heard them played as such (not that I would ever play them as such.)
woodfluter wrote:
Actually, there's rather more to this.
It depends a mix of intrinsic qualities of the music and how you play it.
And most importantly, is this for listening or joy in playing or for dancing?
I want to ask Mr. Stone a question, are you playing for dancers or
do you just like to play tunes that are in 3/4 time? (God help me if I call it a waltz!)
Have you tried "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling" or "Too Ra Loo Ra Loo Ral"?
Too turgid maybe............
Yes, I've played Too Ra Loo Ra Loo Ra, which was popular when I was a child,
and 'When Irish Eyes Are Smiling.'
Here's one of those sort of waltzes, a boon to buskers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-ZB_rZcgC4
No, I don't play for dancers, which is a pity.
None to be played for. When I play waltzes or 'waltzes' I often visualize a room full
of people waltzing to my tune.
Tell us something.: I play fiddle, concertina, flute. I live in NH. Lived in Kilshanny, Co Clare, for about 20 years. Politically on the far left. Diet on the far right (plant-based fundamentalist). Musically in the middle of the pure drop.
... some things are defined by their intrinsic properties.
This is fuzzy philosophy. It's like "talent," which has no meaning unless after the fact. In which case the word really means "accomplishment."
By intrinsic properties do you mean something like ding an sich? Some platonic ideal? Reference to intention? How could anybody say "this sorts things out"? Wishful thinking perhaps? Because the word has been delivered from on high? When I was a grad student in philosophy at U Penn way back when, when we all studied with Nelson Goodman and Noam Chomsky was talking about grammar and linguistic constructs, such a term as "intrinsic properties" would have been unacceptable. At least, not without a long discussion about both the word "intrinsic" and the word "properties."
I love waltzes, both to play and to dance. Maybe not so much to talk about. To paraphrase the great philosopher (Ludwig W.), modern philosophy most properly concerns itself with linguistic analysis. And when it comes to things in life that really matter, philosophy really won't help you very much. Waltzes really matter. Anent which, we should be dancing and playing and not talking so much about.
Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. The Internationale
Julia Delaney wrote:... some things are defined by their intrinsic properties.
This is fuzzy philosophy. It's like "talent," which has no meaning unless after the fact. In which case the word really means "accomplishment."
By intrinsic properties do you mean something like ding an sich? Some platonic ideal? Reference to intention? How could anybody say "this sorts things out"? Wishful thinking perhaps? Because the word has been delivered from on high? When I was a grad student in philosophy at U Penn way back when, when we all studied with Nelson Goodman and Noam Chomsky was talking about grammar and linguistic constructs, such a term as "intrinsic properties" would have been unacceptable. At least, not without a long discussion about both the word "intrinsic" and the word "properties."
I love waltzes, both to play and to dance. Maybe not so much to talk about. To paraphrase the great philosopher (Ludwig W.), modern philosophy most properly concerns itself with linguistic analysis. And when it comes to things in life that really matter, philosophy really won't help you very much. Waltzes really matter. Anent which, we should be dancing and playing and not talking so much about.
Amen and Mr. Stone, a beautiful job on the peeking pup!
Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love.
Love is not music. Music is the best.
- Frank Zappa
Tell us something.: Whistle player, aspiring C#/D accordion and flute player, and aspiring tunesmith. Particularly interested in the music of South Sligo and Newfoundland. Inspired by the music of Peter Horan, Fred Finn, Rufus Guinchard, Emile Benoit, and Liz Carroll.
Julia Delaney wrote:Now, in response to the OP, we have a couple dozen waltzes offered. How many of these has the OP played? How many of these have the people who recommended them played? It's like when Somebody asks "What is your favorite album of Irish music?" and all the punters rattle off CDs that they hope nobody has ever heard before, or one that hadn't been mentioned earlier in the discussion, thereby gaining for themselves what they think of as distinction of some sort.
Well, I am human, and so I definitely hope that my posts will make everyone think I am sophisticated, charming, and handsome.
But I listed, you know, my favorite waltzes that I play on flute or whistle. (I do have a couple more I love that I think of as accordion tunes.) I didn't name the most obscure tunes I could think of, I named the waltzes I would play if you asked me to play a waltz. I didn't learn them because of peer pressure, I learned them because I liked them so well it was worth learning them even though no one else around played them. (I've been working on that problem by teaching them to the other folks at our local sessions.)
"Killavil Waltz" is kind of obscure, I guess, but it's a lovely tune and Peter Horan learned it from his mother, so it actually represents a tune that was out in the wild in Ireland a century ago. The rest are common modern-composed Canadian waltzes, all in thesession.org and recorded multiple times. The recording on flute of the Brian Pickell waltzes I was thinking is was from Nicholas Williams' album The Crooked River, Amazon has it as an MP3 and it's well worth checking out.
Some of my properties consist in standing in relations to other things, e.g. being a brother, living in Missouri.
These are sometimes called 'extrinsic' properties or, more simply, 'relational' properties. Other of my properties
do not consist in my standing in relations to other things, e.g. being hairy, having toes. Such properties
are sometimes called 'intrinsic' properties (or 'non-relational' properties).
The property of being a paper weight is relational (it consists in being used to hold down papers). The property
of being a piece of bronze is intrinsic. One thing (the piece of bronze) can have both properties,
just as I am both a hairy thing and also a brother.
'Waltz' can be defined
relationally as music often used to do a certain dance, or it can be defined in terms of the intrinsic (or more intrinsic) property
of being music in 3/4 time. So the term 'waltz' is ambiguous along these lines, which perhaps helps illumine
our discussion about whether O'Carolan's tunes are waltzes. They are according to one definition; they are not
according to the other.
This distinction between relational and non-relational properties is certainly controversial (some hold that all properties are relational) and lots more can be said, but a thread on waltzes is perhaps not the place to say it. The rough idea serves this discussion's purposes, I think,
and the ambiguity of 'waltz' survives whatever one thinks of the alleged distinction tween the two types of properties. Close
enough for folk music.
Last edited by jim stone on Wed Aug 08, 2012 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tell us something.: I'm not registering, I'm trying to edit my profile! The field “Tell us something.” is too short, a minimum of 100 characters is required.
jim stone wrote:or it can be defined in terms of the intrinsic (or more intrinsic) property of being music in 3/4 time.
No, it can't. There's just too much 3/4 music that can never, ever be a waltz. So (despite impostors like the alleged 5/4 'waltz' of Tchaikovsky's sixth symphony) you can argue for waltzes being 3/4 but not the other way round.
I don't understand what you are saying here, but it's interesting. Will you please explain?
It seems to trade on the ambiguity I mentioned, but perhaps I miss your point.
