Cran? Cut? What is it?

[Mikethebook]

Piper's ornaments are a mystery to me so the chance to learn one is always welcome. Declan Masterson plays something I can't figure out or recognise even at 1/5th speed on low whistle on The Long Acre from his Drifting Through The Hazel Woods album. You can listen to it at http://grooveshark.com/#!/search?q=declan+masterson. At about 21 seconds he plays a high E and then another high E that he ornaments. They're both 1/8th notes but it's not the usual connecting cut or a short roll or even a short cran, not that I can see anyway. Can anyone recognise what he's doing?

[Mr.Gumby]

Listening quickly once I hear a prety standard short-ish cran like movement A and G cut will get you the desired effect e{a}e{g}e

[Mikethebook]

Thanks Mr G. The first of the two Es appears to be a full 1/8 note without adornment so I presuming the two cuts have to be done rapidly on the second 1/8th note. Never come across a cran-like ornament on an 1/8th note!! Or do the two notes together pretty much constitute a cran on E as some people would play it?

[pancelticpiper]

I do a little semi-cran or doublet-cut on E which is

e (g) e (f#) e

It's precisely the same finger movement as the upperhand thing

a (c) a (b) a

which I also do; that is, with the ring finger lifted, cut first with the index finger and then with the middle finger. Of course you can switch the order of the cuts if you wish.

I use the term "semi-cran" for a cran with only two cuts. I don't know if I heard somebody else use that term or if I just started using it out of convenience.

For sure I've heard people use the term "long cran" for crans with four cuts rather than three. So I suppose I could call the two-cut crans "short crans" for consistency's sake.

Now as we know a, g, and f# are all three the traditional fingers used for the cuts of a cran, so why don't I do it as Gumby suggests? Because I used to play flute, and on my flute the 'a' cut on 'e' in the 2nd octave didn't sound well, so I got into the habit of not using that cut. That also affected my rolls, because I used 'g' for the cut on 2nd octave 'e' rolls too. On some whistles likewise the 'g' cut sounds better, clearer, than the 'a' cut, on 'e' in the 2nd octave.

[megapop]

Mike, if you want to learn about some rather wicked ornamentation check out this flute lesson by Niall Keegan...
@ ~14:00 he talks about "short" crans as well. Really worth watching if you haven't already!

[Mikethebook]

Thanks for the link, megapop. I'l check it out.

Crans are relatively new to me and I've really only progressed as far as a two-cut short cran on D cutting on B1 & B2. What you say is interesting, Richard. I've been trying Mr G's fingering this morning with some success but I'll give your fingering a go too, though initially it feels slightly odd having no closed hole below when I cut F sharp. Like you though, I'm finding I prefer to cut 2nd octave E with G rather than A on my low whistle. It sounds tighter for one thing but I sometimes get the blowing pressure slightly wrong and the A cut is very unforgiving. Grey Larsen prefers to cut all notes with the note above to make for tighter cuts but I don't want to have to change all my rolls. I'll have to check how he does his crans.

[Mr.Gumby]

You can do it either way, g,f cuts are fine there I would go for the a, g there because it will sound clearer for me when I try it on the (high) whistle. You can also reverse them.

I agree cutting e with g is generally the better option but again it really depends on the effect you are trying to achieve (and that's also the reason I strongly disagree with Larsen's formulaic approach to cuts).

[pancelticpiper]

I strongly disagree with Larsen's formulaic approach to cuts

Many years ago I attended a "traditional Irish flute" workshop and was dismayed when the teacher announced that he had rejected traditional techniques due to their being illogical and defective, and had invented his own improved logical approach, which he then taught us.

I took note of his methods but immediately set them aside, due to their being irrelevant to my quest, which was to learn from and emulate the older traditional players.

I term these two approaches to learning traditional music the "Yankee ingenuity" approach, and the "ethnomusicological" approach.

The first is a deeply ingrained notion in the American psyche of, first of all, distrust of anything that comes from The Old World, and second, that we clever Yanks can, on our own, and using our native logic, inventiveness, and industry, can always come up with a better way.

The second, which has always been my approach, is to start from a blank slate and study the way it's done in the tradition, accepting everything at face value, and avoiding injecting our own preconceived notions. How can you learn from others if you're trying to impose your own ideas upon them?

End of rant.

Back to that ornament thing, I suppose there's really no difference between a "double cut" and a "short cran/semi cran".

In airs I like to use those, say, in going from E in the 2nd octave to Middle D in an ornamental way, by throwing in this ornament at the end of a long E, and going down to D immediately after this ornament, the E at the back end of the ornament being very short, perhaps part of the ornament itself. I'll go from A to G in exactly the same way, but doing the same ornament with the upper hand.

Similarly I'll go from F# to E with a doublecut/short trill consisting of two G cuts, and go from B to A with the identical thing played on the upper hand. Thing is, pretty much any ornament you can do on one hand you can do on the other.

[pancelticpiper]

Grey Larsen prefers to cut all notes with the note above

Odd, when I saw him he was cutting everything with the 3rd above: f#D, gE, aF#, bG, cA.

His feeling was that not only are these often nice and clear (the very reason I used to use a G cut on 2nd octave E on my flute) but he gave a second reason, that F# harmonises with D, G harmonises with E, etc. I didn't see what that had to do with it.

All the "old guys" I was watching at that time did things differently, cutting all the lowerhand notes with A: aD, aE, aF#, aG. The fact that the A cut on E often sounds muddy (on many flutes and whistles) didn't seem to bother the old guys. More than one of those guys told me that the reasoning behind using the A cut on all the lowerhand notes was to divide the work between the hands, and indeed it makes playing rolls easier.

I found doing the G cut on E quite awkward and it never came as easily to me as the A cut. But the A cut on that flute not only sounded muddy but it also destabilized the note, causing squeaks if I wasn't careful. So I did eventually get in the habit of doing G cuts on E both in rolls and also on these little doublecut/semicran things.

[Mikethebook]

I agree with you both about a formulaic approach but, to some degree, if it's been good enough for traditional players . . . The tutors I've read in the past have tended to teach the "old guys" approach that you mention so that's how I have learned. But recently I've been trying to cut E with G and maybe D with Fsharp too to remove the muddiness. Cutting second octave E in particular with G helps mitigate against "destabilizing" the note. Good word! As yet I haven't worked on incorporating a G cut into my rolls.

I'll have to try that thing you do with airs, Richard. Sounds interesting!

Thanks guys.

[Mr.Gumby]

I think you will probably have to bear in mind a few things: as I said before, tutors will give you the basics, a start. Never the full story and the whole gamut of possible nuance. Secondly, 'the old guys' probably needs a bit of differentiation. It's not one amorphous body. They didn't all do the same things, in fact I would suggest there was great diversity to be found among their approaches. Many of the finer musicians of the previous generations had a pretty nuanced outlook and well thought through ways to embellish their tunes.

[pancelticpiper]

'the old guys' probably needs a bit of differentiation. They didn't all do the same things, in fact I would suggest there was great diversity to be found among their approaches.

For sure! The more 'old guys' I see, the more different approaches I see.

Yet, it so happened that all the "real Irish guys" I watched play back when I was learning did things more or less the same. Happenstance, but it gave me the impression that there was more unanimity then there actually was. The only people I saw doing things differently were Americans. (I didn't pay much attention to the Americans. They had opinions and theories; the 'real Irish guys' didn't talk much; it was clear who were the better players.)

The variety in ornaments is especially noticeable on the uilleann pipes. There are simply more fingers involved, and two octaves, and on/off the leg, etc. See ten pipers play something and you'll likely see ten different styles of fingerings, ten different styles of crans, etc.

[Mikethebook]

It's good to see that nothing is set in stone. I guess every whistle or set of pipes behaves differently, in subtle ways maybe, but enough that changes in the fingering of ornamentation are helpful in enhancing the tone and stability of ornaments. Thanks for all your input.

[Ted]

It comes down to what seems the best sound in any given situation. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat and a lot of different approaches to ornamentation. It is good to be able to mix it up and try different types and approaches. We all diverge on how this is done. In time, one tends to gravitate toward what sounds best to them in any given tune. After exploring and trying different approaches, you will naturally develop your own style. This takes place over years of playing and is the result of first
listening and copying what others are doing. When you have explored that, you will find there are a variety of styles. After copying a number of styles, your own will evolve into something distinctly yours. We all have different personalities, and your own style will reflect that in how you approach and express music. Some are boisterous while others may be more inwardly reflective. Your style will reflect who you are rather than who you are copying.

[pancelticpiper]

...first listening and copying what others are doing. After copying a number of styles, your own will evolve...

Exactly.

People tend to go through different phases. First they'll often focus on a particular player, their musical hero, and learn their repertoire and style. Then they'll often broaden their horizons and learn tunes from other sources, these tunes bringing other styles with them. At that point the person might sound like a musical chameleon.

In the 1980s I (like so many others) was trying my best to sound like Matt Molloy. Then I became obsessed with Paddy Carty's music and began learning his tunes. I also picked up tunes from old 1920s recordings. I would play each tune more or less as I had heard it. I didn't think about it, I was just learning tunes.

So back then we used to go down to Looney's Tavern which was owned by Ray Tubridy, cousin of Michael. Ray was a wonderful fluteplayer. He played in a very distinct style I've yet to hear elsewhere. He had learned all his music at a very young age, starting at the age of 8, from a local man (in County Clare) then in his 80s. Ray played all his tunes in exactly the same style, played them the way that old man had played them. I got the distinct feel that I was hearing a musical fossil, hearing Clare fluteplaying as it had been well over a century ago.

I found Ray's playing amazing to hear, but in turn he was amazed by my playing! Because I was a bizarre chameleon: one tune would sound like a Matt Molloy record, the next like a Paddy Carty record. I would launch into a tune and Ray would say in wonderment "He's doing Carty!" or "He's doing Molloy!". The very fault in my playing, that I had no style whatsoever, was astounding to Ray.

He had grown up in a small rural area and all his models, the musicians around him, all played in the distinct local style. His own playing was yet more focused, all based on the playing of a single local player. He and I had done the same thing: play our tunes the way we heard them. The difference was in the sorts of music we were exposed to.

I'm not alone in this; I think it's part-and-parcel to the way people outwith Ireland learn the music, exposed as they are to too much music for their own good. It's like a baby who is ready to learn to talk who is put in a room with 50 people speaking 50 different languages all at the same time... very difficult to make sense of it all.

In any case people eventually get past the stage of mimicking specific players and synthesise all of their various influences into something their own. It's the process of becoming more mature as a player.

For many years now I must have more or less been at that place, because when I learn a tune it gets processed and I'll play it the way I play rather than the way I heard the other guy play it. I change it round to what sounds 'right' to me.

BTW when Ray Tubridy passed I was a regular teacher (flute) at a music camp and the next camp we focused entirely on Ray's music. I have hours of his playing on tape. I transcribed enough of his tunes to fill a two-week camp and that's what we learned. I thought it was a fitting tribute to the man, to have his music live on.