Cultural divide

[Tyghress]

Okay...I understand a bit of where this thread started, but puhleeeze...

Rant On...

I bought a James Keane LP recently - his brother Sean is a Chieftain, of course. James plays the box. He spoke of how difficult it was when he was growing up, how unaccepted playing traditional music was, to the extent that at school he would get beaten up just for playing the stuff.
Now, this is drastically different from what obtains now. How many of you have gotten the crap kicked out of you for playing music?

A lot of us were bullied as children for our cultural standards...Jews, Polish, African-Americans, Puerto Ricans. . .the list goes on and it isn't limited to ANY group, music, style of clothing, accent. The Irish sure don't have a monopoly on that.

And going even further, you could reflect on what it was like for the Irish in the 18th and 19th centuries, how downtrodden they were, and tied to the soil. These were people who by and large didn't know any other music to begin with, who had no radios or gramaphones, no contact with any musicians outside of a ten mile radius (the distance a person could walk in a night and return home to work in the morning).

Um...NO ONE had access to radios or gramaphones in the 18th and 19th century, at least not until nearly 1890. ALL music was limited, and ALL agrarian societies had the same problems with distances. In fact the American Midwest was even more remote.

The great joy in their lives was music, song, and story, passed on from generation to generation. The players who came out of that background really have this quality in their music, I think. An innocence, and heartiness, grittiness. They never sound contrived, and many of them were fantastic musicians, too.

Oh this does put a rosy glow on it...and I'm not going to start on where you have report of an 18th or 19th musician who has been described as having a style called 'innocent, hearty, gritty, uncontrived....' This is what you want to believe. Fine.

The contrast between that and the world people, meaning us, who play Irish music live in now, is about as great a gulf as can be imagined. This world of computers, cell phones, credit cards, paved roads, electricity, TV, jumbo jets, etc. Bright colored clothing with lots of writing on it, tennis shoes from Adidas and Reebok. All of that stuff. Much of the music played now has this suburban/middle class sheen to it, too.
Does this bother any of you? Any thoughts on this situation?

Our current culture that allows for 'world music' is firmly bedded in that society that brings you the internet, CDs, live broadcast and world tours. You would never have heard this music if it weren't for the high tech society that brought you easy travel, cheap recorded music, travelling tours and emmigration.

Rant off...


No...I change my mind...I'm still irked....

To all the Miniver Cheevies out there...you may be enamoured of the Irish music, but there is as great a tradition of music in dozens of different cultures...fiddlers in the Scandinavian style that are phenomenal at their art as anyone else...Indian players with skills that come from the old master/apprentice school of teaching...Klezmer music that is driving and exciting and approachable. But if the artists can't reach an audience, if there isn't a density of population to sustain the art form you'll never hear it, you'll never develop an ear for it, you'll never appreciate the genius of it. And if it isn't passed on, its lost and forgotten and replaced with something else.

I'm certainly not dissing Irish or Scottish traditional music. But to put the past generations up on a pedestal and think how tragically wonderful it all was...and isn't it a shame that its so commercial now. . .the history is what put it on the map today. ALL the history from the agrarian basis to Riverdance, gramaphones to .mp3's, peat fires to concert halls.

Okay. I'm going now. Really.

No...really really.

[vaporlock]

How the heck do I delete this post?

[Byll]

John's comment about recorded music cuts a lot of ways...One result of our recorded music industry is the expectation of perfection in performance, by many in the public. Many years ago, my studio jumped on the multi-track band wagon, with a lot of others. This allowed magic tricks - among them the illusion of perfection in performance - that has been amplified by our current digital technology.

The result can be perfect - but sterile - recordings. Some in the public have come to subconsciously demand perfection in live performance - and that rarely happens. Again: Let the music speak - imperfections and all...
Best.
Byll

[DCrom]

I think it's possible to regret the loss of broad participation in music without wanting to go back to the conditions that created it.

To put it bluntly: most of the world, materially, is far better off today than it was 100 years ago. Even most of the "third world" countries.

Most of us, especially in the developed world, live in conditions that would have dazzled the very wealthiest of a century or two back.

Sometimes, we romantisize conditions of the past - but that's, in good part, because we don't have to live them. We see the parts we like, and ignore the hard work, poverty, misery, and disease of the past.

Even a century ago, the affluent lived a life that would seem comfortable, but 9 out of 10 did not; in both absolute numbers and as a percentage, far, far, more people can live like that today.

So although I miss the broad base that traditional music used to rest on, I want to rebuild that in *today's* society, not recreate the conditions that forced it the first time around.

[fluter_d]

'Tradition' is an important word to consider. While it denotes cultural and historical connotations, it also does not exist solely in the past. Traditions are customs that are continued, and necessarily change in so doing. So Irish traditional music at the end of the 18th century was probably a lot different at the end of the 19th century, because of newfangled ideas about collecting - writing down and, on occasion, editing - folk music. Earlier even than that, Turlough O'Carolan - often held up as an important part of the tradition - was not in any way involved with what is now accepted as traditional Irish music. The harp tradition in Ireland was entirely separated from the dance music tradition, forming (in fact) an Irish 'art music' of a kind. And O'Carolan's compositions reflect this - but also the changes taking place in that tradition: Corelli and Handel were regular visitors to Dublin, and O'Carolan's patrons were gravitating toward the European art music tradition, so Turlough, in the grand tradition of marketing and consumerism (another tradition, you notice !), started listening carefully and incorporating elements of that music into his harping.
Any talk of the 'ideal' of Irish traditional music being in the past is crap, to put it bluntly, as is the idea that music is only valid as ITM if it conforms to the tradition as it existed in 18XX or 19XX. Each one of us can choose to play as we wish - and choosing to play in the style of Xxxx from 19XX is perfectly fine. But blanket assumptions and statements to the effect that emulating past masters is all that should be done, because the folk tradition has been changed and corrupted by consumerism/ marketing/ technology - that's just silly.


In terms of your ideas about the evils of technology and modernism on the feel of traditional music - the players who made the first ITM recordings were in New York, a city unlike any place in Ireland, and were exploring and embracing new technology. The irony of this is that nowadays they're held up as 'the tradition' - this is what everyone must aim for. As I've said earlier, that's perfectly valid. But you can bet your bottom dollar than they weren't sitting there thinking, "Well, X from Ballyxxx never played with a piano/guitar/banjo, and Y from Ballyyyy never went near any of this newfangled technology stuff... I guess I'd better not make this recording with an accompanist then, because X and Y are the tradition". Likewise, ITM wasn't a group tradition until the Irish in the US realised that it was easier to be heard in a large dance hall (before the era of good amplification) with 10 musicians than with 2, and also started to incorporate harmonic accompaniment - piano, double bass, banjo - and jazz instruments - saxophone - as well as louder instruments, such as the accordion - which is considered by some people, even today, to be too much of a newcomer to really qualify as traditional. Yeah right. With that in mind, surely all of the groups now lauded as fine exponents of The Tradition are not actually traditional - because they're playing as groups. Yes? No? You decide.

For the record, I've just finished college; ITM sure as hell wasn't cool when I was in secondary school. It is still a marginalised form of music, but the integration of 'popular' styles, as well as production values, is winning over more and more people who would laugh at recordings of Jackie Daly or Patsy Hanly on their own.

I agree with Tyghress on all points, even if she was baring her fangs a little.

Deirdre

[sad-seamonster]

There is no reason at all to feel bad about appreciating the art of another culture.

[CHIFF FIPPLE]

Fancypiper: Jump through whatever hoops you must to ALWAYS have your own sound man run the rig - whether that rig is yours, or belongs to the venue. On the other road, there are dragons...
Best.
Byll

M'mm Run rig great band.
http://www.runrig.co.uk/

[Kevin L. Rietmann]

I only made mention of Irish music and culture to not be pedantic, or repetitious. Certainly what I'm talking about applied to a host of other cultures as well, I didn't want to go to the trouble of listing them, is all. Also I'm much more familiar with Irish music and culture than any other in the first place.
I DO have recordings of 19th century musicians, pipers such as Dinney Delaney and Patsy Touhey. They recorded in the 20th century but learned their music in the 19th. I never tried to put any sort of "rosy glow" on what these people went through; but it was considered remarkable at the time for all that how joyous the Irish were early in the 19th, in the midst of what many considered the worst poverty in Europe.
It's the discrepancy between this music's origins and the environment it's in now that intrigues me. It needn't put anyone off playing whatever they want to.
Although...the recordings you're referring to from the 20s with the big band lineups were innovations of the time, led by first generation emigrants like Paddy Killoran, who'd learned to play back home. No one knows precisely what went into putting together these ensembles with the saxes and banjos, etc. As I remarked above, they came long after the first recordings of ITM, which were cylinders made in 1899 at the Feis Ceoil. Patsy Touhey made many cylinders in the years after; the first "trad" Irish 78 is a banjo/accordion (!) duet from 1918, I think it was. It's considered traditional especially in contrast to some of the super stiff records made by note reading studio musicians of the time.

Has anyone else heard the "Secret Museum of Mankind" CDs released by Yazoo? These are great, early examples of recorded music by cultures worldwide.

[chas]

He spoke of how difficult it was when he was growing up, how unaccepted playing traditional music was, to the extent that at school he would get beaten up just for playing the stuff.
Now, this is drastically different from what obtains now. How many of you have gotten the crap kicked out of you for playing music?

Not beaten up, but mostly because I always eschewed those who beat others up. But, I did have the experience that people in college would come to my place to, uhmmm, alter their states at my expense, and would insist on listening to my roommate's records. I did lay down the law occasionally. Once I put on "Montrose" by Steeleye Span. It was a great hit, and they wore out my record, got another, and wore out that one. It wasn't that nobody liked folk music (or Gentle Giant for that matter) per se, they just didn't want anything unfamiliar.

Oh, and there were only like two people who would put up with my dulcimer playing.

[The Weekenders]

Yeah, I'd probly beat you up for the dulcimer playin' at that age.

I went to a folk festival thingie where our history band gave a presentation in kind of an open-mic order. I endured about 20 minutes of fancy folk autoharp that made me feel mean-spirited and cold-hearted to so dislike it! Way more annoying than dulcimer, which can after all, be narcotic in its effect.

[chas]

Hey, man, Mimi Farina played Autoharp to Richard's dulcimer. Small world.

[The Weekenders]

Yeh, I didn't like them either...grrrrr. But don't get the Weekender goin about collegy and collegy-appeal folksingers.....I still like that scene in Animal House with the guitar and the cherry song.

[fluter_d]

I DO have recordings of 19th century musicians, pipers such as Dinney Delaney and Patsy Touhey. They recorded in the 20th century but learned their music in the 19th. I never tried to put any sort of "rosy glow" on what these people went through; but it was considered remarkable at the time for all that how joyous the Irish were early in the 19th, in the midst of what many considered the worst poverty in Europe.
It's the discrepancy between this music's origins and the environment it's in now that intrigues me. It needn't put anyone off playing whatever they want to.

Sorry, Kevin. I have to disagree. I don't think that 'joyous' enters into it. The tunes in the tradition are mostly dance tunes, which by definition have to be fairly fast and bouncy in feel. I think that you're projecting something that doesn't enter into it onto the Irish dance music tradition - putting 'feeling' into your playing, in the sense of emotion. People learned to play because many people could dance. and wanted to, but they needed music. Dancing was the driving force behind the playing of Irish traditional music until the 60s, when it became a much more social event in its own right, rather than as an extension of a dance gathering. And ITM was always a powerful indicator of identity, most especially in the 19th century, when so-called 'cultural nationalism' became more prominent - playing an instrument or dancing well was an expression of Irish-ism, not just a pastime. I don't believe that it's either helpful or accurate to project emotions or ascribe feelings to an entire culture, as it existed more than a century ago, based on a few field recordings of ITM.

You are free to disagree, of course - but this is my opinion as an Irish citizen - and musician - today.

Deirdre

You are, of course, right in saying that a discrepancy exists between the cultural situation of the music in the 19th century and today - but (to me) that simply illustrates the strength of the tradition - had it remained tied to its 19th century geographic location, instrumentation, and styles, it would probably be heard today ONLY when those early field recordings are played. And, in fact, probably the biggest discrepancy is actually the separation of the music from dancing, rather than any geographical or technological changes.

[spittin_in_the_wind]

More thoughts on the subject...

Consider, in America the community orchestra was not uncommon even in very small towns as late as the 1940's. This was because the elder generation at that time had been raised with little access to recorded and broadcast music, and because music was still strongly supported in the public schools.

Now, it is actually fairly rare to meet an adult under forty who took band through four years of high-school and rarer still to find one who continued to play after graduation.

I dare say that even most of us on this board play infrequently with others or for anything other than our own enjoyment (with perhaps tolerance from the immediate family).

John

I guess I should feel lucky....my region has a community orchestra and numerous free public music events of various kinds. Our high school has a grammy award winning music program, and is on the lower end of school costs per pupil. I would say that among the people I know, there is a reasonable representation of ex band-nerds, some of whom still play. My 30-40-something neighbor has frequent rock jam sessions in her home...I can hear them from my house. And I could play a lot more often with other people if I had the time.

I don't see the domestic music environment being as dire as you represent.

Robin

[Baen]

And what was Dancing used to express?? Perhaps using the word "joyous" is not the best word, but they sure weren't just shaking their groove thang...Dance is expression, as music is expression. We can ask "expression of what?" I would think that some of that expression would include joy, or some emotions that could be at least in some way connected to that. It's hard, as modern people, since we may use not only words, but also perceptions, philosophies, etc., that really wasn't part of the inner world of someone in a different culture in a different time. BUT, that said, I think that most human beings share certain common emotions--the experience of those emotions and the expression of them may be different, but they can still be seen to be related. I would think "joy" is an emotion of the human family, even if it's experienced or expressed differently. One of the definitions of "joy" in the dictionary is "the emotion evoked by well-being, success, or good fortune or by the prospect of possessing what one desires" (Mirriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary--tenth edition). Sounds pretty modern, but I would think that even in traditional agrarian societies there were times when those emotions were felt, although the reasons for them were probably very different than what we experience today.

Another aspect is that not all Traditional Irish music is dance music--there are also airs, laments, etc. I would say that listening to tunes such as "Blind Mary", or "Bantry Girls Lament", one is filled with a sense of deep grief and melancholy, but overall of deep feeling--if those tunes are not about feeling, then I don't know what is. Music was a form of communication, not so much of ideas, but of stories, feelings, moods, and so forth. Our modern vocabulary just doesn't work in talking about it. The music spoke for itself, it was a strong voice of the people, and a way to tell their story. It's difficult to talk about it without sounding like one is idealizing it, but to say that it wasn't about emotions isn't entirely accurate either. Even the most unemotional synth-pop music is trying to express something about both those who produce it and those who listen to it. I don't see how music can't be about emotions, although, again, trying to describe it in modern terms probably doesn't do an adequate job of it. It's worth talking about, though.

Thanks for starting this thread, Kevin. I find it particularly interesting.