There's "landmark" and then there's "spray-painted graffiti on a rock"...Nanohedron wrote: Ah, but there's me.
But seriously, I can see how that's please a crowd.
There's "landmark" and then there's "spray-painted graffiti on a rock"...Nanohedron wrote: Ah, but there's me.
I'm not so sure about this - although you have a decent enough point in general about the tradition not being just 'old'. For the dance tunes part of the tradition, I'd say that all those 'modern' compositions are mostly from the latter half of the twentieth century rather than the first half, when it strikes me that not all much happened in terms of tune composition. Quite a lot of the more modern songs are also from later in the twentieth century rather than earlier. Mind, my feeling on this is just an impression; I don't know for sure.bigsciota wrote:I agree with most of what's been said here, but I would like to quibble a little bit with this. While a lot of people do think of trad as being a fairly old genre, 1910 would predate quite a few tunes and songs that are readily accepted as "traditional." I'd go so far as to argue that the genre as it stands today is by and large a product of the first half of the 20th century, not the 18th/19th centuries as many people would place it.benhall.1 wrote: The words were written by Frederick Weatherly, who was English. He wrote the words in 1910 - pretty recent compared with stuff normally associated with traditional music.
I think s1m0n has it right here. (Well, apart from the redundant apostrophe in the possessive pronoun "its" .)s1m0n wrote:I think there's a difference between songs that have either arisen within the tradition (Roisin Dubh), or come from outside and have been embraced (The Lakes of Pontchartrain) by trad artists. Danny Boy is neither. To the extent that traditional musicians resent it, it's because it has largely been imposed on the tradition by outsiders. There's a reason that the OP can't find a landmark recording by a famous trad artist: there isn't one. It's popularity came from touring professional "Irish Tenors" like John McCormack, as well as by Edwardian "parlour" musicians playing and singing from published sheet music around the drawing room piano. This is not traditional music. Not since 1910. Not ever. Lots of older songs than this aren't part of the tradition because they're not part of the tradition, not because of their age.
I interpret s1m0n's quote as such: "To the extent that traditional musicians resent it, it is because it has largely been imposed on the tradition by outsiders." (Italicized slight rephrase is mine.) Or did I miss a joke there?benhall.1 wrote:I think s1m0n has it right here. (Well, apart from the redundant apostrophe in the possessive pronoun "its" .)s1m0n wrote:I think there's a difference between songs that have either arisen within the tradition (Roisin Dubh), or come from outside and have been embraced (The Lakes of Pontchartrain) by trad artists. Danny Boy is neither. To the extent that traditional musicians resent it, it's because it has largely been imposed on the tradition by outsiders. There's a reason that the OP can't find a landmark recording by a famous trad artist: there isn't one. It's popularity came from touring professional "Irish Tenors" like John McCormack, as well as by Edwardian "parlour" musicians playing and singing from published sheet music around the drawing room piano. This is not traditional music. Not since 1910. Not ever. Lots of older songs than this aren't part of the tradition because they're not part of the tradition, not because of their age.
Quite so. Brilliant, that.benhall.1 wrote: Meanwhile, here's the seminal performance of Danny Boy for you.
No. What you missed was "It's popularity ...".Dan A. wrote:I interpret s1m0n's quote as such: "To the extent that traditional musicians resent it, it is because it has largely been imposed on the tradition by outsiders." (Italicized slight rephrase is mine.) Or did I miss a joke there?benhall.1 wrote:I think s1m0n has it right here. (Well, apart from the redundant apostrophe in the possessive pronoun "its" .)s1m0n wrote:I think there's a difference between songs that have either arisen within the tradition (Roisin Dubh), or come from outside and have been embraced (The Lakes of Pontchartrain) by trad artists. Danny Boy is neither. To the extent that traditional musicians resent it, it's because it has largely been imposed on the tradition by outsiders. There's a reason that the OP can't find a landmark recording by a famous trad artist: there isn't one. It's popularity came from touring professional "Irish Tenors" like John McCormack, as well as by Edwardian "parlour" musicians playing and singing from published sheet music around the drawing room piano. This is not traditional music. Not since 1910. Not ever. Lots of older songs than this aren't part of the tradition because they're not part of the tradition, not because of their age.
It's an emotional performance, that.s1m0n wrote:Quite so. Brilliant, that.benhall.1 wrote: Meanwhile, here's the seminal performance of Danny Boy for you.
I've had another think about this ... Why did you flag up polkas? In Ireland, they (together with mazurkas etc) date from the early part of the nineteenth century, which strikes me as well within the 'old' traditional era that we would think of for other tunes and tune types.bigsciota wrote:Oh, I know. It amuses me when, sitting at a pub session with people on bouzouki, banjo, B/C accordion, and pipes in D, playing polkas and singing "The Auld Triangle" or "Sean South," people will wax on about the antiquity of the music...Nanohedron wrote: Considering the emotional investment some have in the Tradition's age, that's a brave statement that might raise some hackles.
He's talking about the "It's" that starts the second sentence down from the it's you spotted.Dan A. wrote: I interpret s1m0n's quote as such: "To the extent that traditional musicians resent it, it is because it has largely been imposed on the tradition by outsiders." (Italicized slight rephrase is mine.) Or did I miss a joke there?
I know what he's talking about. I was pointing out that he didn't know what I was talking about.s1m0n wrote:He's talking about the "It's" that starts the second sentence down from the it's you spotted.Dan A. wrote: I interpret s1m0n's quote as such: "To the extent that traditional musicians resent it, it is because it has largely been imposed on the tradition by outsiders." (Italicized slight rephrase is mine.) Or did I miss a joke there?
No it's not. An apostrophe in the neutral possessive pronoun "its" is simply wrong. The problem with its misuse is that the reader (me, for instance) is always pulled up short. I find that, whenever it's used incorrectly, in the possessive pronoun, I have to check and double check to make sure I understand what the writer is on about. That's not good communication, in any language. And it's certainly not good English.s1m0n wrote:It's a debated point.
That's a crossed-post. I was draughting my response to Dan while you posted ahead of me.benhall.1 wrote:I know what he's talking about. I was pointing out that he didn't know what I was talking about.s1m0n wrote:He's talking about the "It's" that starts the second sentence down from the it's you spotted.Dan A. wrote: I interpret s1m0n's quote as such: "To the extent that traditional musicians resent it, it is because it has largely been imposed on the tradition by outsiders." (Italicized slight rephrase is mine.) Or did I miss a joke there?
I'm perfectly happy to look them up. Who were you thinking of?s1m0n wrote:It think you'll find, ben, that if you examine the writings of some of the best english stylists over the past few centuries, the issue is much less clear cut than you've been led to believe.
Yep, that's exactly what happens for me too. An "it's" where it should be "its" interrupts my reading while I'm re-reading the sentence.benhall.1 wrote: No it's not. An apostrophe in the neutral possessive pronoun "its" is simply wrong. The problem with its misuse is that the reader (me, for instance) is always pulled up short. I find that, whenever it's used incorrectly, in the possessive pronoun, I have to check and double check to make sure I understand what the writer is on about. [..]
Good article. Thanks for that.Tor wrote:Yep, that's exactly what happens for me too. An "it's" where it should be "its" interrupts my reading while I'm re-reading the sentence.benhall.1 wrote: No it's not. An apostrophe in the neutral possessive pronoun "its" is simply wrong. The problem with its misuse is that the reader (me, for instance) is always pulled up short. I find that, whenever it's used incorrectly, in the possessive pronoun, I have to check and double check to make sure I understand what the writer is on about. [..]
We're off-topic w.r.t. the OP of course. But it baffles me that so many native English speakers (writers, I mean) seem to write "it's" all the time, while non-native speakers rarely have a problem separating the two..
Addendum: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-a ... 27s-vs-its