Dynamism??

[BoneQuint]

It seems to me that those who consciously try to innovate are, as a rule at least, doomed to aesthetic failure because they are putting the cart before the horse.

Excellent point. Music (and art) at its best is about touching something deep in us in a way that words can't. To create "a new style," then decide how to use it, is like deciding what colors to use in a painting before you know what the subject is. An interesting experiment maybe, but not the way to best serve the subject (assuming you have something interesting and heartfelt to say about it).

What generally touches us deepest is what comes from the unconscious, filtered through our years of experience, our emotions, our life -- that's the artist's realm. To "innovate" from there means to get out of the way of yourself, to allow a style to develop organically. Not to intellectually mandate an "innovative" structure, which will almost necessarly be artificial and shallow.

[Mongoose of Righteousness]

I always felt that a lot of Horslips stuff was done tongue-in-cheek. I suspect it's true of a lot of old Irish stuff. Examples: Jig of Slurs or John Ryan's polka. The Irish sense of humor seems to come out in the music.

[emmline]

To create "a new style," then decide how to use it, is like deciding what colors to use in a painting before you know what the subject is. An interesting experiment maybe, but not the way to best serve the subject

What if the colors are the subject?

[Hiro Ringo]

Do you mean that there is no point in further recordings (after 1962?) Or that new recordings should be performed in a style that stays close to the original?Or that any recording made after 1962 will be of only transient interest?

In early 1960's, stereo recordings had been being common and the sons(successors) of the people which embodied 19th century were still alive(although they were dying,some of them lived long until the late 20th century). Plus,there were still many musicians who was the sons and who didnt performed their arts in the context of 'how we should sound the best on recordings' and those performings were luckily recorded.

1960's was also the turning point when big and high economic growth in Europe occured ,which had been changing many things so rapidly. People became so rich that even person who had never been interested in music started to 'listen to' /'play' some music. And the economy in those days wanted to fill the demands in more easy convenient ways. And the people got used to those easy convenient ways and had affect on the economy depending on them and the musicians depending on the economy was affected by the people,most musicians had to(or was destined to or wanted to) adapt themselves to the people's newly made up taste. I dare to call it Commercialism.
Keep in mind that I wont say commercialism is bad. This can even be one of the arts.And I think there must even be things which made much better with that art.

At least I know that some talented people speak differently on the recording tape and taking notes when journalists try to record what they are saying. Some people's best arts can be performed their much better when 'taking notes' not when 'recorded'. If violating this rule,the arts boil down to being 'inferior' to something else suited for recordings. Actually I personally feel most traditional music world wide are not suited for recordings. Most recordings of traditional music are valuable only as materials,and with all my natural acoustic experiences,I mean,if I use my educational guess and imagination,some of them can even be inspiring and I might even be able to grub something good out of them.But basically they are all just materials(yes,to me). Because their best arts cant be on condition that the arts will be recorded.And some of the traditional arts are not even for listening,they are for us to play with them good or bad.This is important especially to avoid vandalism.

sorry,emmline,I know your questions are to Peter. But hey,look at what you are saying. Interesting. Why we tend to think like 'new recordings should be performed' is the important theme for us in 20th and 21th century(I think).

[Cayden]

Do you mean that there is no point in further recordings (after 1962?)
Or that new recordings should be performed in a style that stays close
to the original?
Or that any recording made after 1962 will be of only transient interest?

Sorry, missed that one at the end of the page yesterday.

No ofcourse I don't mean anything more recent isn't valid. I was illustrating my point that all these innovators that have come along to save the music from oblivion are now by and large outdated and stale while the very music that they tried to enhance still sparkles and is as fresh, alive and valid as it was on the day it was recorded.

[BoneQuint]

What if the colors are the subject?

Sure, pick apart my analogy! It's easy. But, did I make any sense, do you think? Slo much style without substance...

[GaryKelly]

I think music has much more in common with language than with 'art' (painting, sculpture, a pile of soiled nappies in the Tate Modern etc).

Language does evolve, but slowly. Sometimes a "new generation" attempts to introduce a language that only 'they' can understand; keeps us old farts at a distance and gives them an 'identity' in their struggle to be 'different' (even though of course they all dress the same, talk the same...blah blah). Usually the 'new' language is nothing more than the old one with a bunch of made-up words thrown in (or words that are given an entirely new meaning, usually the opposite of the dictionary definition..."That's wicked!" for example).

But the root language continues on and the new language, like the fashion of the day, fades and is largely forgotten.

The root language, though, continues to evolve too, but much more slowly. Today's English, for example, would be understood by Victorians, just as we can understand Victorian English, although we no longer speak or write as they did. (Which is something of a shame, I think, because the likes of Dickens could express a world of emotion in a sentence breathtaking in its brevity). The same perhaps can't be said so readily of Chaucer's English, though, so far has the language evolved.

The first cassette tape I ever owned was "Switched on Bach"...which in its day was 'revolutionary'. JS Bach played on the Moog synthesiser...well, it helped introduce me to Bach and allowed me to appreciate much better the organ in the school chapel. For a while back there in the early 70's, everything *had* to be played on a Moog. Yet JS Bach continues, and eventually synthesisers learned their place.

[BoneQuint]

What if the colors are the subject?

Hm, my answer reads as snippy to me, even though I just meant it literally. So I'll persume you're not just trying to pick apart my analogy, and give an answer assuming I didn't make sense earlier.

I feel the best art (paintings, music, whatever) has something to say, it comes from something the artist feels strongly and wants to express. So the "subject" is what you're trying to express. "Red" (for example), isn't a feeling or emotion that one feels a burning desire to express (although playing with red for the sake of its redness could be an interesting experiment, as I said earlier). But if part of what you're trying to express involves anger, or dynamism, or heat, or whatever, then you may need red.

If the best art communicates something, then it follows that you need something to communicate before you start creating the art. Otherwise, it's like starting to talk (maybe using your favorite words) without having anything to say. Oh no, another analogy. Sorry. But, that's they way I feel about creating a "style" for no reason other than you want something different or "innovative." "This is new" or "isn't this weird" is not a very compelling artistic "subject" to me -- it's not something that comes from the heart, through your depth of life experience, introspection, observation, and honesty.

[waitingame]

The first cassette tape I ever owned was "Switched on Bach"...which in its day was 'revolutionary'. JS Bach played on the Moog synthesiser...well, it helped introduce me to Bach and allowed me to appreciate much better the organ in the school chapel. For a while back there in the early 70's, everything *had* to be played on a Moog. Yet JS Bach continues, and eventually synthesisers learned their place.

Was that the Walter/Wendy Carlos album?

If so I think it was actually a milestone in the development of modern instruments and certainly not frivolous in any way. Personally I enjoy seeing (and hearing) musicians experiment even if the results are less than perfect.

[Darwin]

If the best art communicates something, then it follows that you need something to communicate before you start creating the art.

Nicely put.

Of course, there's the opposite problem. One can have something to say that doesn't fit the medium. Ever seen "Socialist Realism"? I had to read lots of Chinese magazined during the mid-70s, and got really tired of Chinese water colors depicting the proletarian vanguard, marching arm-in-arm through the countryside, with their red flags flying and a huge factory in the background.

I lost interest in Joan Baez when her music became political--not because I disagreed with her politics, but because the music became boring to me. (Of course, a friend of mine who repaired guitars for her benefited greatly when she lost interest in folk music and gave him a large part of her collection of old recordings, including 78s of Blind Lemon Jefferson and Flatt & Scruggs. I even ended up with an LP of Roscoe Holcomb and Wade Ward, with a little note from John Cohen on the cover.)

Otherwise, it's like starting to talk (maybe using your favorite words) without having anything to say.

It's good that no one on C&F ever does that.

[Wombat]

This is a really interesting topic. I just have a couple of thoughts on it which might get someone thinking constructively, more questions and observations than answers.

First, I think that we are a little too close to the huge upsurege of interest in ITM that has occurred in the last 20 or 30 years to really have a clear view of what will or won't last. I'm sure that innovators like Paddy Canny will last, so long as there remains an audience for what we tend to call pure drop, but I think that's a safe bet. As for playing the ITM repertoire in a band setting, in concerts and so on, I have a feeling that it's here to stay but will develop parallel with the solo and duo tradition with a lot of musicians making a contribution to both.

Which bands get to be regarded as ITM and which pop or rock or fusion is another matter. If I'm right, bands will innovate in ways that might not have any influence on solo performance but will on other bands. People often talk as though Moving Hearts were a failed experiment who developed a style of fusion that died with them. I regard them as a successful experiment (in places) but not really as being in the tradition so much as an offshoot. I actually think, far from being dead, they actually have an indirect influence on contemporary bands that might never have heard of them—Kila for example. I don't see this stuff as any threat at all to the pure drop or band styles of ITM.

How do you tell when something that incorporates outside elements is part of the tradition and when it is not? I simply don't know. The field recordings Bartok made ar clearly part of the Hungarian folk tradition. So are the modern versions of those tunes by the band Musikas. But Bartok's own reworking of folk themes in his own compositions seem to me to be fusion and not at all part of the Hungarian folk tradition, even though I regard that stuff as marvellous art music. Having a good ear for folk traditions is something I look for in a concert music composer. But take blues compositions by, say, Duke Ellington, to be played by his orchestra—say 'Black and Tan Fantasy' and 'Ko Ko.' The Ellington band recordings seem to be clearly art music and clearly blues, ie part of the blues tradition, even though it would seem a bit odd to call them folk music. I don't know what to make of this.

Obviously, music will survive if it has something that seems to reach out beyond the conventions of the time. Even the best music can have elements that remind us of its historical location. My early joke about Bridie Lafferty is that she sounds to a lot of us to be a bit out of place on an otherwise timeless record, but someone at the time must of thought she belonged. From classical music and jazz we know that music from the past will go in and out of fashion and I would expect that to happen with old recordings of ITM.

[Darwin]

I think music has much more in common with language than with 'art' (painting, sculpture, a pile of soiled nappies in the Tate Modern etc).

Language does evolve, but slowly. Sometimes a "new generation" attempts to introduce a language that only 'they' can understand; keeps us old farts at a distance and gives them an 'identity' in their struggle to be 'different' (even though of course they all dress the same, talk the same...blah blah).

It appears that the urge is not so much to be different from from the preceding generation as it is to increase social cohesion with the group that really matters--their peers.

That may sound like a subtle difference, but it's not limited to generational differences. William Labov's study of accents on Martha's Vineyard is quite famous, and demonstrated that such changes can be largely-unconscious reflections of changing social stratification. (A good summary is in Historical Linguistics, by R.L.Trask.)

Usually the 'new' language is nothing more than the old one with a bunch of made-up words thrown in (or words that are given an entirely new meaning, usually the opposite of the dictionary definition..."That's wicked!" for example).

But the root language continues on and the new language, like the fashion of the day, fades and is largely forgotten.

And yet "dork" is still going strong, 44 years after I first heard it. "Cool" is still current, while "real gone" is really gone.

One thing that shocked me many years ago was how many terms that I thought of as "modern" and "trendy" showed up in Shakespeare's plays. I wonder if they were new to him.

[Wombat]

"Cool" is still current, while "real gone" is really gone.

'Cool' is really funny. Sometimes it's hot to be cool. Sometimes it's cool to be hot. But it's never hot to be uncool. And it's never cool to be not too hot.

[Darwin]

This is a really interesting topic.

Isn't it?

How do you tell when something that incorporates outside elements is part of the tradition and when it is not? I simply don't know. The field recordings Bartok made ar clearly part of the Hungarian folk tradition. So are the modern versions of those tunes by the band Musikas. But Bartok's own reworking of folk themes in his own compositions seem to me to be fusion and not at all part of the Hungarian folk tradition, even though I regard that stuff as marvellous art music. Having a good ear for folk traditions is something I look for in a concert music composer.

I have an LP called Swedish Folk Fiddle, consisting of two players, one playing a set melody, and the other improvising against it. When I listen to it, I often imagine that the "classical" composers must have been immersed in this kind of music, because the sounds seem so familiar.

But take blues compositions by, say, Duke Ellington, to be played by his orchestra—say 'Black and Tan Fantasy' and 'Ko Ko.' The Ellington band recordings seem to be clearly art music and clearly blues, ie part of the blues tradition, even though it would seem a bit odd to call them folk music. I don't know what to make of this.

Just before I read this, I was thinking of the transition from Robert Johnson to Muddy Waters or, more extremely, from Bukka White to BB King. These seem to be clear examples of organic growth involving significant changes in the music.

The almost single-handed invention of Bluegrass by Bill Monroe is another example. He didn't combine blues, swing, and Old-Timey music just to be doing it--he did it because he had them all in his head, and he couldn't help himself. He did try some conscious innovations, too--including electric guitar, accordian, and electric organ(!)--but discarded those that didn't fit his vision.

And how about Jimmie Rodgers, combining blues, Swiss yodeling, and Hawaiian slide guitar? What a mish-mash of unrelated elements! The yodeling seems to have pretty much dropped away (though you can hear some aftereffects in Chris Isaaks and Jewel), but the other two are still staples of C&W.

[RonKiley]

I find it very interesting how somethings evolve and become popular and others evolve and die. I used to be a real fan of old time music(american). Bluegrass developed and it is my second favorite music. Modern "country" music evolved and I can't even listen to it. I can not believe that modern country is even related to old time music.

I like the more traditional Irish music. Some of the new forms I can listen to but do not enjoy. I listened to the school children from Clare that Peter posted last fall. It sounds like they are learning and playing the same way people have been learning and playing in Clare for generations. It was great to hear.

I lose all interest in folk music when electronics are introduced as a vital element of the music. Perhaps this is because my entire career was in electronics.

Unfortunately I think the motivation for much of the music produced today is money. If it doesn't sell find a new way to do it. If the teens buy it it must be good.

Ron