new tunes

[john]

I don't have the gift of being able to compose tunes myself, but loads of you out there do. Kila only record original pieces as far as I know, and I had a listen to their piper's solo recording on the internet - again it was new material.
Basically I was wondering how hard it is for tunesmiths to get their compositions embedded into the repertoire of session players. I can think of several tunes written by Michael McGoldrick that seem to have found their way into the tradition - it must be a thrill to know that something you have made up is being played all over the world. I'm not really that up to date on new music on the whole - the last band that really got me going was Cran and they haven't made a recording for ages, so I'm sure there are hundreds of new compositions that i haven't heard. Some new tunes I find a bit too clever for their own good - they seem to overuse syncopation in my opinion. Others I find too pretty - there's a tune that Sharon Shannon helped popularise on one of The Waterboys albums that i've always disliked, which to me fits into this category. The old tunes that I like that have stood the test of time seem to have both an earthiness and an otherworldly quality to them - I can't think of a single tune that Willie Clancy and Seamus Ennis recorded that I wouldn't love to play and I never get tired of playing Garrett Barry's jig, An Phis Fliuch or the Old Bush. Tunes like this seem to have existed for ever - it's almost like they were discovered or plucked out of the air rather than composed. Anyway, if you have managed to follow my ramblings, what do you think is the hallmark of a tune that's going to be around for a long time? Are most of them destined to be forgotten, not necessarily because they're no good but because there's only so many melodies that can be assimilated into the tradition, or because the composer doesn't have the platform (say the latest Altan album) to get their music heard?

[straycat82]

[IMHO]
I would agree with you about the cleverness of certain tunes (modern and traditional). I've never been too keen on McGoldrick and the like for that reason. Brilliant musicians and more accomplished than I'll ever be but when the tunes become quite musically clever and almost jazzy I lose interest. I'm not trying to put on any airs or preach on tradition but I know what I like when I hear it. It's not to say you can't give a tune a unique mark but for me it's the simpler stuff that really sings (and sure you can accomplish both).
As for how it spreads, it's the same thing as with pop music; you can write a simple and catchy melody that will catch on like wildfire in the mainstream or you can write this complex theory piece that will be appreciated intellectually and played by a smaller crowd. Bottom line is I think you should express yourself in a way that means something to you as a musician/artist and not worry too much about becoming famous for a tune you wrote. For me it'd mean a lot more if a few of my local friends picked up the tune and played along than if it made it's way to standard session fare in US and/or Ireland.
[/IMHO]

[MTGuru]

Agree with straycat. It's natural to take pride when something you do finds favor in the tradition. But the forumulation "get their compositions embedded into the repertoire of session players" implies a fundamental misunderstanding, I think.

[Cathy Wilde]

:AMEN: Tunes get in, and stay in, the repertoire for good reason: because they're good! It's not who writes them -- shoot, half the time we don't even know the TUNE'S name, let alone its composer's -- it's how the tunes are written.

On the other hand, I think who plays and records a tune may have some influence (let's face it, Lunasa sells more records than Patrick Street so something may reach more ears that way), but bottom line is when a tune's good enough, people want to learn and play it, so it germinates and eventually some critical mass is attained.

Charlie Lennon, Paddy O'Brien (Nenagh), Ed Reavy, Paddy Fahy and Vincent Broderick in particular have written many wonderful tunes that have become quite popular in relatively short periods of time. Others like Liz Carroll, John McCusker, Sharon Shannon and Brendan McGlinchey also come to mind as people who've written more than a couple of tunes that have taken root.

And there are tons of others out there -- Johnny Harling, Phil Cunningham, Jackie Daly, Grey Larsen, etc., etc., etc. -- who have at least one or two tunes in the "first 500." But like I said, a lot of people don't even know what a tune's called let alone who wrote it; they just play it because they like it. So the first job of a composer who wants to get some recognition would be to write music that more than 10 people like and want to learn to play.

[straycat82]

The execution of a tune makes the world of difference in my decision to pick it up. I don't pick tunes because they are common, uncommon, associated with this or that performer, or any reason other than the fact that it got my blood going when I heard it. I've had tunes come up in my iPod on a bike ride and couldn't wait to get home and work it out and I've grabbed my digital recorder mid-set in a session to snatch a tune that one of my peers has played well. My question when I hear those tunes has never been, "who wrote that". Perhaps "what do you call that one" or "who did you get that one from?" are the questions at the top of my mind. If the composer is a part of the tunes "story" for that player then that's great. Usually it's more like a fond story of who they learned it from and other context. The tune then has a good chance of becoming "embedded" in the local repertoire of the 4-6 session mates who've shared that moment. A session without that kind of craic and comradery is not very valuable to me and I can't imagine a person with notions of fame fitting into that equation very naturally (no offense offered to anyone). No, it's the down-to-earth folks and the raw and gritty stuff that makes me so passionate about this music.

[SteveShaw]

[IMHO]
I would agree with you about the cleverness of certain tunes (modern and traditional). I've never been too keen on McGoldrick and the like for that reason. Brilliant musicians and more accomplished than I'll ever be but when the tunes become quite musically clever and almost jazzy I lose interest. I'm not trying to put on any airs or preach on tradition but I know what I like when I hear it. It's not to say you can't give a tune a unique mark but for me it's the simpler stuff that really sings (and sure you can accomplish both).
[/IMHO]

Well said.