Slow airs

[Cayden]

I know, from this discussion, and Mom, that by not studiously emulating "how it's done," I could turn up the noses of the truly orthodox. Sigh.

I think you are missing the point somewhat A-Musing. It's not about being a purist or orthodox. This is not a discussion about Mike McGoldrick's latest CD. I very much enjoy innovation in ITM by technically competent musicians. This is about playing an air with the wrong phrasing. When you play an air with phrasing that doesn't match the words it is grating to someone who knows the words.

I am very wary of the tendency to consign constructive criticism to the pigeon-hole of 'purisim'. It is all too easy to say "Hey, I just play what I play and if you don't like it, it's because I am being innovative and you can't handle it because you are a purist". In the majority of cases here, playing is criticised because of bad technique. Master your instrument, listen carefully to good ITM players and try to emulate them. When you have achieved a certain technical competency then it is fine to view criticism as a conflict in tastes. Until you have achieved that level it is safer to assume that criticism is related to your technique.

Well said. I responded earlier along the same line, but almost immediately doubted I was willing enough to invest in a further discussion and deleted the post. A-musing's second post was actually in reply to the post deleted in which I mentioned I felt the 'purist' card was about to land on the table.

It's common here to defuse a discussion like this by pigeonholing one side of the discussion as 'orthodox' or 'purist'.

It's not what it's about at all. Interpretation is good, there's no music without it. Without interpretation things go stale and lifeless and they will eventually die. But interpretation comes through knowledge, from insight in the matter at hand. Interpretation comes from the inside. Before we speak of interpretation there's ignorance and misinterpretation to get out of the way first. Treating a melody randomly, dropping notes and dwelling on ornamentation that is no real part of the tune itself is not interpretation, it's not knowing what you're at.

Unlike lurker above I am not too heavy on 'technically competent' (and I realise it's a matter of how we use the word, I think we're thinking along the same lines), over time I have learned more from the old guys around here who have spent a life around music, who absolutely love it but not necessarily had the time to learn and play. But sometimes someone unexpectedly can pick up a whistle and say 'they used to do it like this..' and hammer out a little phrase that cuts right to the core of the piece and may shed a whole new light. Equally I have heard well trained musicians who could do absolutely everything on their instrument who hadn't an insight to go around. And by the end of the day I know who I value more.

[Louigi Verona]

But sometimes someone unexpectedly can pick up a whistle and say 'they used to do it like this..' and hammer out a little phrase that cuts right to the core of the piece and may shed a whole new light.

[amar]

I know, from this discussion, and Mom, that by not studiously emulating "how it's done," I could turn up the noses of the truly orthodox. Sigh.

I think you are missing the point somewhat A-Musing. It's not about being a purist or orthodox. This is not a discussion about Mike McGoldrick's latest CD. I very much enjoy innovation in ITM by technically competent musicians. This is about playing an air with the wrong phrasing. When you play an air with phrasing that doesn't match the words it is grating to someone who knows the words.

I am very wary of the tendency to consign constructive criticism to the pigeon-hole of 'purisim'. It is all too easy to say "Hey, I just play what I play and if you don't like it, it's because I am being innovative and you can't handle it because you are a purist". In the majority of cases here, playing is criticised because of bad technique. Master your instrument, listen carefully to good ITM players and try to emulate them. When you have achieved a certain technical competency then it is fine to view criticism as a conflict in tastes. Until you have achieved that level it is safer to assume that criticism is related to your technique.

Well said. I responded earlier along the same line, but almost immediately doubted I was willing enough to invest in a further discussion and deleted the post. A-musing's second post was actually in reply to the post deleted in which I mentioned I felt the 'purist' card was about to land on the table.

It's common here to defuse a discussion like this by pigeonholing one side of the discussion as 'orthodox' or 'purist'.

It's not what it's about at all. Interpretation is good, there's no music without it. Without interpretation things go stale and lifeless and they will eventually die. But interpretation comes through knowledge, from insight in the matter at hand. Interpretation comes from the inside. Before we speak of interpretation there's ignorance and misinterpretation to get out of the way first. Treating a melody randomly, dropping notes and dwelling on ornamentation that is no real part of the tune itself is not interpretation, it's not knowing what you're at.

Unlike lurker above I am not too heavy on 'technically competent' (and I realise it's a matter of how we use the word, I think we're thinking along the same lines), over time I have learned more from the old guys around here who have spent a life around music, who absolutely love it but not necessarily had the time to learn and play. But sometimes someone unexpectedly can pick up a whistle and say 'they used to do it like this..' and hammer out a little phrase that cuts right to the core of the piece and may shed a whole new light. Equally I have heard well trained musicians who could do absolutely everything on their instrument who hadn't an insight to go around. And by the end of the day I know who I value more.

good post. well written, non-judgemental, insightful.

[alurker]

Unlike lurker above I am not too heavy on 'technically competent' (and I realise it's a matter of how we use the word, I think we're thinking along the same lines), over time I have learned more from the old guys around here who have spent a life around music, who absolutely love it but not necessarily had the time to learn and play. But sometimes someone unexpectedly can pick up a whistle and say 'they used to do it like this..' and hammer out a little phrase that cuts right to the core of the piece and may shed a whole new light.

My comments were made in respect to someone coming from 'outside the tradition'. I should have clarified them as such. For someone new to ITM I think it is important to master the instrument and to master the ornaments used in ITM. More important is the 'careful listening' aspect of my point. Your point about the old guys who grew up around the music is important to this discussion and was well made. Such people have an advantage over the technically competent coming from another musical background. As they have been immersed in music played well, they don't have to 'learn' how to play it with the right feeling, phrasing, timing etc. In many cases 'right' is the only way they know how to play it.

The Sliabh Luachra region is a good example of what I am talking about. People who grow up around polkas and slides and play occasionally seem to be able to nail the timing every time whereas people from other parts of the country struggle with these tune types. Again it can come with careful listening and practice and sometimes learning the dances helps.

Anyway, another good post Peter. As ever, your insight is much appreciated. We'll take 5001 more of them please! I'd do the old patented C&F 'HIP HIP' thing but I haven't been here long enough. Congrats.

[Tony McGinley]

Have you ever listened to a MIDI version of a tune? It usually sounds somewhat lacking in expression, even mechanical.

We have a new contender for the "understatement of the year" award!

Gee thanks for that - I hope I win!!!!

[Tony McGinley]

Here is a recording of an unsophisticated sung version
of "Mo Ghile Mear" in Irish. It has "conviction" and it has
"feeling". It also has phrasing that lies easy on my ears.
It should give you a fair idea of how the Irish ear perceives
this ancient song.

http://www.merriman.ie/scoileanna/2006/beirlin.en

Scroll down to audio clips and its the first one on the list.

[Tommy]

Rough Analogy...given with respect to all parties.
My dear mother has sung hymns in church for 80 years. =:-) =

One of the first things an organ player has to learn before playing with a congregation. Is to play the hymn as the people without training in music will sing it. And if the organ player plays it as Beethoven wrote it before the words were added, the player may be looking for another gig. Congregations sing only in lower keys, stretch notes, and breath where they feel like it.

[Father Emmet]

It should give you a fair idea of how the Irish ear perceives
this ancient song.

And how does the Irish ear percieve Sting's rendition?

[Tony McGinley]

It should give you a fair idea of how the Irish ear perceives
this ancient song.

And how does the Irish ear percieve Sting's rendition?

Not bad at all - in fact, I like the rendition - I'd say the lads in
The Chieftains had him well instructed on the phrasing.

[Father Emmet]

Good! That's the only version I have. Wish they could have reined in Van Morrisson!

[A-Musing]

I appreciate Peter's and alurker's comments. As someone coming from outside the tradition, I think I thought I knew more about "Irish Music" than was the case! (think I thought??) Oh well. As a kid, in the late 40's and early 50's, I heard alot of Irish Pop Tunes on the radio. And, of course, when I picked up a whistle a few years ago, kind of assumed I "had an ear" for it. ( Peter...can I play my amazing teary version of When Irish Eyes Are Smiling? You haven't HEARD how, er, "different" a number like this can sound!)
In any event, I believe I'll go listen to Miko, Pakie, and Gussie...and clear my head. THEN go back to my happy A-Musing.
Thanks, Gents...

[alurker]

On second thoughts, why not: http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=47538

[Louigi Verona]

Interesting version... Wouldn't say I like the performance though.