Anyway, back to the topic.
Firstly, you asked me for the meaning ofthe word progressive. OK!
Progressive means to make use of new ideas , findings or opportunities. Modern piping is surely progressive in this sense of the word. It has made its way from existing solely in the Irish tradition to entering into disparate and sometimes more challenging musical realms. It has become more tuneful to the ear, and whether you like it or not, hearing is a sense which you can choose to hone or not.
John, I have just spent much of my previous posts advocating listening to players, as many as possible! I think people should be listening to more pipers.Why wouldn't I like people listening to a piper... any piper!? Piping may have become more 'tuneful' to your ear, others would disagree. Get over it.
It has become more rhythmical with the effective use of punctuation on certain notes, creating a particular dynamic.
I don't agree that it has become 'more rhythmical'. I would perceive it as being probably less rhythmic, or that the rhythms have become more standardised and rigid, that 'certain dynamic' is maybe a bit too certain throughout the modern piping world for my tastes, an alternative or two would be nice. There was another rhytmic option used by older players to varying degrees (Touhey was one of them) where a bounce was created by accentuating the backbeat, this is quite prevailent on some of the 78 disk recordings. It has almost completely gone from piping and the music in general. What are these new punctuations that you talk about?
If this sort of progression is your nemisis then...(I'm lost for words).
It is not, I didn't say that it was, and you do not seem to be lost for words yet. I was making the point that 'progression' is a word used by people doing all sorts of things and by some who are trying to pull wool over people's eyes (as are the terms 'Traditionalist' or 'Purist' of times) . To the eternally defensive self styled innovators (like innovation in Irish music is something new!) it is the tonic to those crusty old 'Purists' who hate change, don't like bongos and are probably fascist in outlook. The truth is that innovation runs much deeper and further back in many subtle ways at the very heart of the tradition. Subtlty does'nt seem to sell these days though. So I am not apologetic for questioning the nature and quality of change, progression does not simply equal good all of the time as history regularly proves, things can change for reasons which people don't like sometimes and it rarely does not have a cost. Progress has a habit of disappearing up it's own orifice as well if the changes are solely determined by market forces and transient popular fads .
Secondly, I don't think you can discern an influence in a pipers style that easily. I made this point earlier but I don't think you grasped it. Let's say, for example, that you had never heard of the relationship between Clancy and Doran before. Would it then be so easy to detect the influence of Doran on Clancys' style?
Erm... yes. We are talking about the same Willie Clancy, right?
As I said before, the two styles are completely different.
There is a tape you should hear made, I think, in the 1950's when Clancy was really emulating Doran. It might change your mind somewhat if you heard it. It highlighted to me just how much Clancy had taken from Doran.
Today, many pipers borrow from a wide range of sources (Doran I'm sure being one), taking the best bits, as they see them, and dropping them into there own style. Because these borrowed bits are not in your face, doesn't mean they're not there. As well, in a lot of the older styles, over embellishment was prominent, so much so that at times it interferred with the flow of the melody. Modern players, I think, are more aware of this, preferring a more sensitive or subtle approach to ornamentation.
I'm sorry John, but there's an awful lot in Doran's (not to mention others) that is not in my face these days, it's just not there. I'm surprised to hear a self confessed Doran fan criticise 'over embellishment'. Was'nt he fairly 'in your face'?
And lastly, I don't think anybody's being unfairly judgemental. The 'dance' music these older pipers played is more or less the same dance music a lot of us are playing today. You, yourself should know that almost all trad tunes have a swing, groove, rhythm etc to them. Good players feel this - great players add flair, style, technique and personality. It's not all that different now to how it was then. Even back in the 20's you had the likes of Morrison and McKenna swinging the music with flair and passion.
Clumsyness was not part of their repertoire.
I've got a handful of tracks of each that, by the way you are talking, would turn you white, and there are plenty of fluff ups in other tracks besides. They all had their off days, but they didn't seem to beat themselves up about it too much (maybe they enjoyed themselves too much?).
I can certainly see the importence of these older 'master' pipers and indeed I enjoy and respect their music but have they been elevated to greatness just because they were instrumental in keeping a dying tradition alive?
John
I'm sad to hear you say that, John.
You tell me. Should Doran only be remembered for 'keeping it alive'? Should Mc Kenna, Morrison, Clancy, Ennis, Touhey?
Why does it seem that the more "succesful" the music becomes the less it values itself?
Regards,
Harry.
