Grey Larsen on ornamentation... Really?

[straycat82]

I am not a flute player. I play only whistle and I cut with whatever note I feel works for that tune. I think the main benefit to this (I'm not sure if it's been mentioned already or not) is that differents cuts give you a different emphasis and perhaps an entirely different feel to the tune. If I'm playing an air, I will usually use a soft cut (using the next note up) but on most jigs and reels I like the harsh emphasis of a cut two or three notes up. I think that it couldn't hurt to learn this way. The one or two finger cut would indeed be easier to learn but I personally feel you are limiting yourself by doing what's easier versus what could add a little extra flavor to your playing.

[Jason Paul]

After thinking about it, I don't think I use just the first or third finger of the top hand for cuts. I think I may use whatever seems to work.

I also noticed that cutting the D or E with the note immediately above it does produce a softer cut.

I guess the issue is finding a balance between academics and fun during the learning process. And of course determining how much of the academics will lead to increased fun in the future.

Thanks,
Jason

[bradhurley]

I've told this story here before, but it's worth hearing again:

An accordion-playing friend of mine had a lesson once with Joe Derrane. My friend was playing a tune and used a fingering for one passage that had been taught to him by another player, when Derrane jumped up and said "don't do it that way, it's not right." A few months later my friend was working on the same tune under the tutelage of Paddy (Offaly) O'Brien, and he brought up Derrane's reaction, asking O'Brien whether he thought it was an acceptable technique. O'Brien stared in disbelief and said, "Acceptable technique? This is peasant's music! Just play it!"

I don't think O'Brien or any other traditional musician would say that "anything goes" when it comes to technique, but it's true that there's a lot more leeway than many people who approach this music from the outside might think. Many of the nuances come down to personal taste; others come down to efficiency and ease of fingering. For example, I might like hearing high cuts on the whistle and flute for their crispness; others might prefer softer cuts so they'll cut with one note above. Both approaches are "right," it really depends on what you prefer.

[Jayhawk]

That's a great story Brad...and so very true.

Eric

[Tia]

Hi, I was just wondering what a cut is, so would someone please be so kind as to either explain or direct me to a site? Thanks

[Bloomfield]

A cut is a way of articulating a note by playing a tiny blip, right at the start of the note. It's done by flicking a finger above the first open hole on the whistle. Which finger that should be, is open to debate.

A cut (or tap or strike or pat), is away to articulate a note with a tiny blop below the note, done by throwing down one or more fingers to cover the open holes on the whistle.

[Tia]

thanks, so is it kind of like orintation..adn i know i spelt that wrong but i hope its close enough to the real word, or kinda if you were playing a G to play an F really quickly before that?

[johnkerr]

I'm a flute player myself, not a whistle player (although I do own a few). I made these comments about cuts recently in a response to a thread on the flute forum, but I think they would apply equally to the whistle. So pardon me while I repeat them here.

Addressing your question about which finger to use for cuts, the answer is that there is no hard and fast rule. Keep in mind that when cutting a note, your goal is not to produce a melodic note but rather an articulation, i.e. a blip of sound that ornaments the tune for a rhythmic purpose. In other words, a cut is not the same thing as a melodic grace note as used in classical flute playing. Therefore, it need not have any particular pitch, as a grace note would.

To produce the articulation of a cut, then, you can use any finger above the note you are cutting. In other words, if you're cutting an E you can use any of the three fingers of your left hand (assuming you're a right-handed player) or the index finger of your right hand. To cut an F#, you have available any of the three left hand fingers, and so forth. Some players will always use the same finger for cutting no matter the note, while others will always cut with the finger right above the note being played (e.g. the right hand index finger for E, the third finger of the left hand for F#, etc.). And some players use a combination of these two approaches. (Of course for the notes A and B you have only one choice, which is to cut with your right hand index finger.)

So what approach should you take, then? Avoid any proscriptions from Larsen or anyone else, and experiment around on your own. Try different fingers and see which one produces the crispest cuts for you, on your instrument and with your anatomy, and then do that. Remember the goal - a crisp, clean rhythmic articulation, not a note - and then do whatever it takes to get there.

This is my big problem with the likes of Larsen. Flute playing, indeed any instrument playing for that matter, is a very physical thing that is tied closely to the player's anatomy and physical makeup. Flute playing probably moreso than any other instrument, what with the breath, the embouchure and fingering all having direct physical connections. And every flute player's physical makeup is absolutely unique, so what works for one may not work for another. Thus there can be no hard and fast rules on how to play, yet Larsen has written a book full of them. My advice would be to ditch the book, and instead start listening and practicing. Do what you need to do to get the sound you want. This is not to say that you shouldn't seek out the advice of other players, either here on C&F or better yet in person. And of course, if you have a teacher nearby take advantage of that. But don't ever think you can learn anything about how to play the flute from a book!

[gallant_murray]

And of course, if you have a teacher nearby take advantage of that. But don't ever think you can learn anything about how to play the flute from a book!

I think that is kind of an exaggeration. Certainly, you can't learn everything from a book, but if there is no way to get instruction from a good teacher, just listening to good players doesn't cut it. To me, my book is my substitute to having a teacher, because getting a teacher is not possible for me. I also listen to as much good playing as I can. Before I got the book, I did learn some of the simpler onramentation by ear. But I cannot imitate the really complicated stuff without some kind of instruction, wether written or spoken.

[Denny]

John, in all fairness to Grey, I think someone should note that in the book, in the sub chapter on the hows and whys of his choice of how to cut a note it reads.
"...I use somewhat different fingerings than most players do. There is actually quite a bit of variance among players in their choice of cut fingerings."
He then goes on to explain why he prefers his method before explaining how it is done.

[Bloomfield]

John, in all fairness to Grey, I think someone should note that in the book, in the sub chapter on the hows and whys of his choice of how to cut a note it reads.
"...I use somewhat different fingerings than most players do. There is actually quite a bit of variance among players in their choice of cut fingerings."
He then goes on to explain why he prefers his method before explaining how it is done.

I have to tell you, though, that overall Grey's didactic tone turns me off. It's like he has academia envy and couldn't decide whether to write a tutor or a treatise. (He talks about "the literature" of whistle tutors ---- and gets it wrong, sheesh). There is an air of pedantry and narrowness about the book and although I bought one second hand to check out, I've never worked with it.

That said, the transcriptions and portraits of musicians in the back of the book are nice, and good for him to have included them.

[bradhurley]

I have to tell you, though, that overall Grey's didactic tone turns me off.

Wow, we must be reading different books! I thought Grey did a good job at explaining that he's an outsider to the tradition and thus brings an outsider's perspective; I don't think he ever claims that his way is THE way to do it. But he has thought deeply about these things and in most cases he explains why he advocates a particular technique versus another. There are plenty of things I disagree with in his book, but Grey himself is not a didactic person and I don't feel his book comes across that way either. But I'm probably a bit blind to that -- my own "Guide to the Irish Flute" is certainly didactic in more than a few places!

I do think for beginniners in particular it's best to not overwhelm them with choices, and to lead them firmly down one path. Just think about the computer for example -- on the Mac (and Windows) there are often at least three or four ways to accomplish a particular command like "cut" or "paste" -- by using a menu, by using a combination of keys, by using a function key, and by using a toolbar. If you give a beginner all those choices, it's usually too much for them. The people I've trained on the Mac have all preferred to use just one method (typically the menu) at first until they've grown comfortable with it, and then they can start exploring alternative methods. It works that way in music learning too: most beginners want a firm, authoritative teacher who guides them down a particular path. Then after they start to understand the music or when they're exposed to different teachers, they can see which things they disagree with and which things they want to do differently. But you can't make those choices in the very beginning, which is why books like Larsen's can be useful.

[Denny]

He did Bachelor in Music at Oberlin before he quit academia.

[Cynth]

I have to tell you, though, that overall Grey's didactic tone turns me off.

Wow, we must be reading different books! I thought Grey did a good job at explaining that he's an outsider to the tradition and thus brings an outsider's perspective; I don't think he ever claims that his way is THE way to do it. But he has thought deeply about these things and in most cases he explains why he advocates a particular technique versus another. There are plenty of things I disagree with in his book, but Grey himself is not a didactic person and I don't feel his book comes across that way either. But I'm probably a bit blind to that -- my own "Guide to the Irish Flute" is certainly didactic in more than a few places!

I do think for beginniners in particular it's best to not overwhelm them with choices, and to lead them firmly down one path. Just think about the computer for example -- on the Mac (and Windows) there are often at least three or four ways to accomplish a particular command like "cut" or "paste" -- by using a menu, by using a combination of keys, by using a function key, and by using a toolbar. If you give a beginner all those choices, it's usually too much for them. The people I've trained on the Mac have all preferred to use just one method (typically the menu) at first until they've grown comfortable with it, and then they can start exploring alternative methods. It works that way in music learning too: most beginners want a firm, authoritative teacher who guides them down a particular path. Then after they start to understand the music or when they're exposed to different teachers, they can see which things they disagree with and which things they want to do differently. But you can't make those choices in the very beginning, which is why books like Larsen's can be useful.

You are so exactly right about a beginner needing to have a firm starting point. That, in my opinion, is the one disadvantage of a forum like this. Every possibility in the world is presented and then one simply cannot figure out what to do. You just get paralyzed. Everything you do is wrong according to someone. If I try to be a peasant, I will do that wrong too.

Yes, listen. I really do understand that and I do it too. And I very honestly believe that this is the most important thing. I did not understand why at first, but I really do now.

But when you do not even have a concept of what physical action would cause a certain sound, you really have to have some sort of guidance. If there are no proper whistle players or proper teachers around, a book like Grey Larsen's with photos and very unambiguous language (yes, you have to work through the explanations, but they can only mean one thing) is extremely helpful. He goes to great lengths to distinguish ornamentation from articulation. Not something I've come across in any other book. And darned if he doesn't play every cut known to man from slow to fast---does anyone have a problem with how those cuts sound? You can't hear the darn things on fast tunes well enough to even know what is happening when you are starting out. He never says that his way is the only way. He always explains why he does it and why he thinks it is a good idea.

Everyone is saying oh, just make a cut however you want to to get the right sound. If I did that, the next thing would be well no one who plays Irish music would make a cut that way and the sound is not Irish at all.

Bloomfield, I don't know what the "literature of whistle tutors" is that he got wrong---I'll take your word for it. But I just can't get the "narrowness" thing. Maybe it is like Lattimore smelling of the classroom or something? Grrrr. Maybe you don't care for the book, fine, but I don't think thoroughness is a sign of "academia envy"---sheesh!!!!

This is an interesting thread. I don't intend to sound angry, I just have some strong feelings about all this.

[gallant_murray]

But when you do not even have a concept of what physical action would cause a certain sound, you really have to have some sort of guidance.

That is a very nice way to say what I meant in my post. Thanks. I can relate.