Bubbly fingerwork

[BMFW]

then your Da or Uncle Pat take you aside and say "Don't play that s**te. It goes like this."

I have neither a "Da" or an "Uncle Pat" but somehow I do have a constant stream of people telling me not to play that sh*t! :roll:

[Cathy Wilde]

then your Da or Uncle Pat take you aside and say "Don't play that s**te. It goes like this."

I have neither a "Da" or an "Uncle Pat" but somehow I do have a constant stream of people telling me not to play that sh*t! :roll:

Yeah, but they're your kids. Their musical tastes aren't mature enough yet.

[Baglady]

The Essential Guide to Irish Flute and Tin Whistle by Grey Larsen---

Not to discredit your contribution to the discussion but just an FYI: citing Grey Larsen will fall on some deaf ears around here... especially the initiator of the topic.

Cheers,
Aaron

That's too bad because he makes a good Uncle Pat.

[jGilder]

I love the "bubbly" sound myself. It's a result of a very efficient embouchure and tight fingering. The bubbly sound results from close fingering where in nano seconds an additional bump is added when your fingers return to the hole slightly before the next finger lifts. An example would be the melodic triplet going from B to d. The triplet is B-c-d; if you play a c-natural with your middle and ring fingers of your left hand, the fingering would be; B (index finger,) c-natural (middle & ring finger,) and d (all fingers except index.) When you run this triplet with close fingering you can have your index finger and your middle and ring finger down before you lift your index finger -- there's a “bubble” sound. This is what adds the bump. It only works if your embouchure is working really well, otherwise it just sounds messy. I play a c-natural for this triplet regardless of what key the tune is in.

Another example would be doing the cran on d with the index and middle finger of your right hand and have all other fingers down except your index finger of your left hand. There are other ways to get this effect on other notes as well. I like it because it adds definition and good punctuation. As with anything like this it can be over done and it needs to be added tastefully.

I think Molloy and Crawford are brilliant players hands down. I also love the way Harry Bradley combines the close fingering with his breath pulses -- it adds a chirp to the bubbles, not to mention great energy. There are loads of brilliant players in the scene today, and lots of different styles -- I like them all. It makes a huge difference to be in the same room, preferably at the same table with these players to truly appreciate what they're doing. Recordings can be very deceiving.

I also like the playing of the older fellas. I spent some time in Sligo during winter hanging around in Gurteen with some of these guys. I’ve also made it a point to meet older players, whenever possible, around other parts of Ireland. I learned a lot about the heart and soul of the music from these gentlemen, as well as enjoying some sweet and lovely playing. Some of these older players employ “bubbly” notes and use breath pulses etc, as well BTW.

I think people would gain more exploring and trying to understand the different styles and techniques instead of criticizing them. Often, we have a tendency to be drawn to the style we feel is within our grasp, and that’s fine, but we don’t need to dis other players just because their technique seems beyond our grasp. To criticize great masters, or young players that are very proficient and technical, isn't going to really contribute to our development as players IMHO. It’s better just to work towards what interests you and allow your tastes and direction to change at will. As you gain more abilities you might find that suddenly you like something you didn’t care much about before.

[Whistlin'Dixie]

Good comments, Jack

M

[Eldarion]

Personally what I dislike is not the technique per se, but rather that there are lots of bubbly players out there who are just bubbles and that's it. They simply lack character, there is no nyaah in the playing. Molloy and Crawford may be brilliant players but how many of their "followers" truely have that spark of creation and character? More often than not they just saw the technique but not the heart, took the technique with them and missed the whole point of it.

As a result they just sound boring, uninspired, like hacks under the shadow of a great fluter.

I think whatever style one chooses a good flute player must be well drilled in their fundamentals, having an efficient embouchure and what not. Its not something that is unique to people playing the "bubbly style". Where the bubbly style differs is in the fingerwork and choice of ornamentation. (and to some extent rhythm)

At my age I can say for certain that I can play bubbly should I put my mind to working at it, no problem. It is not beyond my grasp to pick up that technique should I want to. However I choose not to because I feel it is easier for me to express my individuality in the music if I worked towards a different style than what 75% of Irish flutedom is aiming for. Moreover the people who's music appealled to me most simply didn't happen to be very bubbly.

[Wormdiet]

Good comments, Jack

M

+1


About the Molloy/Crawford clones having no "nyaah". . . one could probably find the same faults in followers of most styles.

[Denny]

So...

Can we agree that there are two elements to playing any instrument, in any genre?
Technical proficiency and
Inspiration/Creativity

...and that technical proficiency can be taught/learned.

...and that the other is a bit trickier.
There are many professional musicians that are technically competent but have no spark, no nyaah , no soul.
A bit useless without the chops, though!

[AaronMalcomb]

As I pointed out with the reference to the early recording of Molloy, his playing had nyaah without the proliferation of technique in the tune.

But I think the point of the debate is the question of how much are new players listening beyond the technical.

How much does technique contribute to the indescribable character of great music that is what we're calling nyaah?

If a tune can be played without a lot of technical flourishing and still have that character, don't all of the pyrotechnics become trivial?

Even if a player has both the nyaah and the technique, is there more to artistic style than just whether embellish a note or leave it plain?

Or is all of this examination overkill?

Cheers,
Aaron

[jGilder]

Or is all of this examination overkill?

I think the critique is, but the question about what the technique is exactly is perfectly legitimate. Being critical of players like Molloy or Crawford is pointless because they are obviously the state of the art. Talking about young hotshots is pointless because each of us discussing this don't know who they are or what they sound like (with the exception of the one who started the thread.) I have heard lots of younger players that I think are brilliant, and I've heard a couple that might be over the top with some of these techniques, but I admire them for even being able to do it. I give them the benefit of the doubt that their playing will mature as they do. I would also tend to give more credence to any critique of the technique if it came from people who could actually do it before they criticize it.

Just like with what I've noticed about concertina critics, it tends to be the people who can't do it that are most critical of it. I have heard some of the masters criticize other techniques and demonstrate the problem by playing it themselves, and it’s very interesting. Then I’ll hear students of theirs echo their sentiment, but I listen closer to the people who have actually accomplished the technique and are successfully using it for the rebuttal – and I try to keep an open mind.

Having said all that, I do have players I prefer to listen to over others for a variety of reasons. It doesn’t always have so much to do with technique as it does with the soul of the music. Technique is a great tool, but the music itself remains the most important element. I think the most important skill of all is expression. Even with few or weak techniques, if you have expression your music will be evocative and moving and you will enjoy playing it as much as others enjoy listening to it.

[Kevin L. Rietmann]

Maybe the 'bubbly' is a combination of fingering and... vibrato! (gasp!).

Many old players did use a constant chest vibrato - Larsen covers this in his book. I like this sound, and use it myself.

[nitterwhiskers]

Somewhere there is a quotation in reference to flute players in the late nineteenth century, where elaborate ornamentation was the fashion, an old hand is harking back to the simpler days and remarks 'By playing everything they play nothing!'

Personally I find the indulgence in bubbles a distraction and occasionally an annoyance.

[scheky]

Well, I'll just dive right into the argument here.

I don't personally like the bubbly sound. I am VERY into Micho Russell's sound, the same sound that Mary McCarthy has on the concertina.

With them, the music seems slow and steady. It seems to ramble along at it's own pace. Ornamentation is sparse (at first listen, there is a lot more going on then one realizes at first). To me, that's what makes the music come alive. They don't force the music, they seem more driven to allow the melody itself to lead them along.

Of course, it's all in taste. Noel Hill (a great player by anyone's regard) is much more "bubbly" in his concertina playing (I can hear it in other instruments). However, he does it with a firm grounding in the music and it still works. Still, I'd rather listen to Mary....

I guess it all boils down to this: "Does the player have enough grounding to make the ornaments work?:". Technique be damned. You can be the best player in the world, but if you don't really feel the music, you won't sound right.


Of course, my flute skills, quite simply aren't. I'm still trying to get my M&E to blow properly on a consistent basis. At least I have the Whistle and Concertina to fall back on.