Historical Question...

[Nanohedron]

and you eventually come to recognise them by their opening few notes (to me, the "real name"). The tune itself is what counts.

well, maybe that's one of my problems, an untrained ear, and I wasn't any good with first lines in poetry either.

Keep at it. The more you do it, the more readily it comes to you.

Some people seem to need tune names as an integral part of their mental filing system, or at least at first. I can't speak to the long run for such folks; it's not the way I'm wired, myself. I do think aural recognition can be learned.

For a few years I guided an ear-learning group. They would always ask for the tune names, and I soon realised (because suddenly they were playing settings different from the ones I gave them) that they had been using those names to find the "dots" to go by elsewhere; a bit self-defeating considering the purposes of that workshop. So I stopped giving them tune names altogether. You can imagine the outcry, but I was unsympathetic; this was an ear-learning group, and besides, they all had their recording devices on hand and used them to at least record me (if not listen afterward), after all. One fellow protested that he couldn't remember tunes without names, and despite my doubts I told him that that being the case, it was perfectly fine to give them his own names then, IOW make them up, if that's what it took. "Call it The Missing Fork, or What Day Is It? or Nano The Heartless B*st*rd, if you like. It doesn't matter so long as it helps you remember. But I am not going to help undermine what you're here to do. And one day you will thank me," said I with a wink. Strictly speaking, names are negotiable. There's a Paddy Fahey's jig I play that I like to call "It's Out In The Car". Bit of a long story behind that, but given that Fahey wasn't known for titling his tunes, there's at least one other person who knows what I mean when I say it. Again, though, usually I just give the first few notes and ask, "How about that one?"

[ytliek]

For a few years I guided an ear-learning group. They would always ask for the tune names, and I soon realised (because suddenly they were playing settings different from the ones I gave them) that they had been using those names to find the "dots" to go by elsewhere; a bit self-defeating considering the purposes of that workshop.

That's what I do, and complicate it all even more because I can't read the dots to begin with. I'll just focus more on ear learning... I can hear all the way to Minn

Meanwhile, I really do want to understand ITM's history... fascinating stuff, as it evolved from a time prior to all the current day gadgets=isolation, and ITM seems to have been central to families and communities, holding people together binding even in deep poverty.

[robert schuler]

Remembering names can become a problem since many tunes have more than one name. Then folks emigrate to America and the tunes they bring with them are renamed again. Gives a new meaning to the old saying " hum a few bars"... Bob.

[I.D.10-t]

To make matters worse, I seem to remember some names having more than one tune.

[walrii]

[Thread revival. - Mod]

I think there is a good point here. When traditional music was truly in the "folk" mode, people would play mostly anything they could get their hands on, and wildly borrow from any source of material they did find interesting. Violins were introduced from the outside, and the same goes for flutes, concertinas, accordions, mandolins etc. If electric guitars had been around in the 19th century, they would be a traditional Irish instrument by now.

It is only later that "tradition" gets codified, as academic interest develops, often with a nationalist backdrop, and some elements are accepted as belonging to the pure tradition, while others are rejected.

I think that is a view of tradition colored by our modern, urban, technological way of thinking. I grew up in the rural South and traditional societies are very traditional! They do the same things, the same way, year after year, come what may. New ideas take a long time to work their way into the tradition, whether it be farming practices or the tunes played on Saturday night. I played in a Bluegrass circle for a while that was composed of guys and a few gals in their 70s who had been playing together for 30 years. After my third evening, I could name the next tune just by looking at who was going to start it. And everyone knew which banjo would come in on the instrumental part. Sure, there are innovators in a traditional culture. There was a mandolin player in that Bluegrass circle who brought a new tune every few weeks and played like blazes. Next guy in the circle applauded then played his usual tune. Change comes to a group like that but slowly. Yes, the academics come along and try to codify that and give it names. Sometimes, they get it wrong. But they started collecting and codifying because they saw a strong pattern, a body of work that was similar with strong traditions (read "sameness") running through it. Traditional societies get that way because what they are doing works. Without advanced technology, here's a right way to grow corn or kill a wholly mammoth or play a reel. If the new corn growing plan fails, we all starve; with the old way, we're all hungry but alive. If the new plan to kill a mammoth fails, all our best hunters could get killed, ending the tribe; the old way only gets us a mammoth or two a year, but we're all still alive to eat it. The old tunes are always the same but everyone enjoys them and the music puts us all in a communal spirit so lots of folks will come help you repair your barn tomorrow. IMO,traditional music should be traditional - strongly tied to the past but growing slowly as ideas work their way into the tradition on merit and by common consent.

[killthemessenger]

I think that is a view of tradition colored by our modern, urban, technological way of thinking. I grew up in the rural South and traditional societies are very traditional! They do the same things, the same way, year after year, come what may. New ideas take a long time to work their way into the tradition, whether it be farming practices or the tunes played on Saturday night. I played in a Bluegrass circle for a while that was composed of guys and a few gals in their 70s who had been playing together for 30 years. After my third evening, I could name the next tune just by looking at who was going to start it. And everyone knew which banjo would come in on the instrumental part. Sure, there are innovators in a traditional culture. There was a mandolin player in that Bluegrass circle who brought a new tune every few weeks and played like blazes. Next guy in the circle applauded then played his usual tune. Change comes to a group like that but slowly. Yes, the academics come along and try to codify that and give it names. Sometimes, they get it wrong. But they started collecting and codifying because they saw a strong pattern, a body of work that was similar with strong traditions (read "sameness") running through it. Traditional societies get that way because what they are doing works. Without advanced technology, here's a right way to grow corn or kill a wholly mammoth or play a reel. If the new corn growing plan fails, we all starve; with the old way, we're all hungry but alive. If the new plan to kill a mammoth fails, all our best hunters could get killed, ending the tribe; the old way only gets us a mammoth or two a year, but we're all still alive to eat it. The old tunes are always the same but everyone enjoys them and the music puts us all in a communal spirit so lots of folks will come help you repair your barn tomorrow. IMO,traditional music should be traditional - strongly tied to the past but growing slowly as ideas work their way into the tradition on merit and by common consent.

I like this post, although I'm not qualified to comment on it.

However, it does beg the question: what is the political/psychological meaning of wanting to belong to a tradition that you're not born into? Why insist so much on a tradition that you're not natively part of? What sort of validation is the aspirant "traditional musician" seeking in his adopted tradition? (I don't mean you in person by this, of course).

This is something that always bothers me a bit about this forum, or at least, seems to go unexamined - so much insistence on a tradition that almost no-one is actually a native member of. All the "pure drop" talk. Why?

This seems very suggestive in this context:

Those who lack respect for the traditions of their forebearers, typically lack respect for most other people and things as well. It comes as no surprise to me when I witness this in someone... they have lost "the way," after all...

Hmmm... none of us really live in traditional societies anymore, or have "forebears" in any meaningful sense, so what is really being insisted on here?

[tin tin]

However, it does beg the question: what is the political/psychological meaning of wanting to belong to a tradition that you're not born into? Why insist so much on a tradition that you're not natively part of? What sort of validation is the aspirant "traditional musician" seeking in his adopted tradition?

I don't have the answer, but I have often wondered about this, too (including about myself).

I've been playing Irish trad seriously for about 12 years now and have a decent grasp of the form. That grasp came, in part, through a period of 'pure drop' fanaticism (isn't this typical of new converts in general?).

Late last year, I had a moment of stepping back and recognizing that no matter well I could quote the lineage of a tune, how many old players' names I could drop, whether I could say "Seamus Ennis played the turn like this," I'm not (in a literal sense) an Irish Traditional Musician. Which is fine--I'm a guy who loves the music, but I'm the product of my own time and place, which liberates me to make the music my own in some fashion. (That's the new adventure--how do I make it my own?) No longer the new convert, I'm less and less concerned about dogma. I just want to play good music.

Again, I don't know the answer to your question--that's just a bit of my experience. I'd love to see what thoughts others have.

[Nanohedron]

...what is the political/psychological meaning of wanting to belong to a tradition that you're not born into? Why insist so much on a tradition that you're not natively part of? What sort of validation is the aspirant "traditional musician" seeking in his adopted tradition?

Maybe they just like the music.

This is something that always bothers me a bit about this forum, or at least, seems to go unexamined - so much insistence on a tradition that almost no-one is actually a native member of. All the "pure drop" talk. Why?

Why not? Those that really delve deep into a tradition are inevitably going to go there. It doesn't necessarily mean they stay there to the exclusion of all else. Each to their own, of course, but without some grounding in the roots of the matter, you won't really have the music; you'll be somewhere around it. And that's fine, if that's where you like being. This is reasonable.

But I challenge your assertion. You say, "so much insistence" and "all the...talk". I don't believe you can statistically defend such generalities.

[killthemessenger]

But I challenge your assertion. You say, "so much insistence" and "all the...talk". I don't believe you can statistically defend such generalities.

Fair enough. It's my impression - I've been on the forum, on and off, for a couple or three years by now, I think, sometimes lurking, sometimes more active. I have no idea how I'd go about "statistically defending" it.

I think it's interesting how much of the internet seems to revolve around issues of identity and belonging - especially where hobbies are involved, paradoxically - and how little they're examined. Not just this forum, by any means. It's not a criticism - I'm just intrigued by it, is all.

[benhall.1]

I think it's interesting how much of the internet seems to revolve around issues of identity and belonging - especially where hobbies are involved, paradoxically - and how little they're examined. Not just this forum, by any means. It's not a criticism - I'm just intrigued by it, is all.

I think that the 'Club' mentality is bound to exist wherever you get a special interest group, whether on the internet or not. Funnily enough, on this particular forum, I find it much less so. Again, like you, I'm just musing. Just interested.

[Nanohedron]

But I challenge your assertion. You say, "so much insistence" and "all the...talk". I don't believe you can statistically defend such generalities.

Fair enough. It's my impression - I've been on the forum, on and off, for a couple or three years by now, I think, sometimes lurking, sometimes more active. I have no idea how I'd go about "statistically defending" it.

I don't think it's necessary to bother; by contrast, my impression is that there isn't that much prevalence of Pure-Droppery except when the Pure-Droppers are talking to each other, or to those who have an interest in the conversation. Live and let live, as the saying goes. If someone posts a recording of an unornamented trad tune on trumpet with angelic chorus effects, I'm not going to protest, "But that's not Pure Drop!". If it's brilliant, I'll give it that, but it's more likely I won't listen long; I have other interests. It's as simple as that.

I'll match you for going out on a limb, and theorise that maybe you find the occasional Pure Drop talk jarring, for whatever reason, and so to your perception it looms large for that. It's worth a thought, anyway.

I think it's interesting how much of the internet seems to revolve around issues of identity and belonging - especially where hobbies are involved, paradoxically - and how little they're examined. Not just this forum, by any means. It's not a criticism - I'm just intrigued by it, is all.

I see the human impulse toward identity and belonging as only natural, and for some, self-examination about that serves no purpose so long as they're happy. Some people's motivations may indeed be political (as you touched on), and I honestly don't know where I sit with that. Does that bear examination? I'd like to say yes, but I can't prescribe. That, for better or worse, is up to the individual. It may not matter to them. Sometimes the politics and identities are thrust upon you. Me, I'm just here for the music, but I've had people suggest that as an ITM musician, I must therefore be a White Supremacist. Incredible and offensive, isn't it. I daresay I don't need to search my soul over that.

One's origins don't necessarily call for self-examination; as I said earlier, sometimes people just like the music and want to play it. For an extreme example along these lines, there are killer Japanese ITM players out there. I don't think they need to examine their motivations too far. And what shall we say of Caucasian Minnesotans learning the Okinawan sanshin, or gamelan music? That's going on. Too, origins can be nuanced and resist easy categorisation. I'm a Yank of very mixed ancestry, as so many of us are, but my mother highly esteemed her Irish and Scots heritage, sang Irish lullabies to me, and dragged me out to hear GHB pipers at every opportunity. So, patchwork Yank or no, it should be no surprise that as a result I loved and wanted to play the music that spoke to me. It could even be argued that I didn't have much of a choice. But I don't see myself as any more "Irish" for it, per se. I'm just a Yank who happens to want to, and does, play Trad. And I've made friends in the process. Can't beat that.