Eoin Dillon on RTE

[billh]

Old tunes used to be new tunes. Avoiding new tunes, IMHO, could lead to a stagnant art. ...

I think the trend, and the danger, is in going too far the other way. While it's true that the union/pastoral/"new" bagpipe was itself novel in its day, the pace of musical change today is swift indeed. I think that one of the attractions of playing "traditional" music is its role as an antidote/alternative.

I agree that art stagnates when no one is creating it, even if many are conserving it. But IMO playing the "old" repertoire is itself a creative act. I have a hunch that conservatism/conservation of that extreme form is more or less impossible on the pipes given the demands of the instrument and limitations of existing "historic" material. Until very recently even sound recordings failed to capture the sonic experience of a live performance sufficiently for a skilled performer to "recreate" it. Every performance is an interpretation, you don't have to go looking for new thrills to avoid fossilization. Change will happen naturally, even if you don't seek it. I seems to me that such an "evolutionary" pace is the best for a traditional art.

Bill

[Joseph E. Smith]

It seems to me that such an "evolutionary" pace is the best for a traditional art.

Bill

As you pointed out, things are moving much faster today. Back then, information (ie tunes) traveled at a very slow pace. It seems to me that if art/tradition cannot keep pace with a modern world society, it may very well stagnate and eventually disappear... kind of like the popularity of Opera, for instance.

It very nearly happened to the Union Pipes.

[billh]

It seems to me that such an "evolutionary" pace is the best for a traditional art.

Bill

As you pointed out, things are moving much faster today. Back then, information (ie tunes) traveled at a very slow pace. It seems to me that if art/tradition cannot keep pace with a modern world society, it may very well stagnate and eventually disappear... kind of like the popularity of Opera, for instance.

It very nearly happened to the Union Pipes.

Interesting, but then again opera was popular culture of its day (and socioeconomic group). I can't agree with your suggestion that Union Pipes would have fared better had they been quicker to acclimate over time. If they had, in some parallel universe, we might not even recognise them from where we stand now.

Even when the pastoral/union pipes were new, the repertoire was backward-looking, with an emphasis on "ancient melody". Such a perspective could have the opposite effect from what you suggest, helping insulate the art from the vagaries of fashion by emphasising continuity. When an art places high value on the oldest parts of its history and tradition, the criticism that something is "outdated" loses its force.

Bill

[Joseph E. Smith]

The comparison between Opera and the Union Pipes is a stretch I suppose. But the instrument nearly vanished as I understand it.... which admittedly, isn't as much as I'd like or need to.

I really do not disagree with you on any particular point. But if it weren't for modern things moving faster, like tape recorders, television and film, I have to wonder: would the world outside of Eire even be aware of the Union Pipes today?

[billh]

The comparison between Opera and the Union Pipes is a stretch I suppose. But the instrument nearly vanished as I understand it.... which admittedly, isn't as much as I'd like or need to.

I really do not disagree with you on any particular point. But if it weren't for modern things moving faster, like tape recorders, television and film, I have to wonder: would the world outside of Eire even be aware of the Union Pipes today?

Maybe not; for that matter much of Eire seems unaware of their existence, except as some dimly nationalist exotica Many Dubliners have never seen a set - or perhaps, never noticed if they did happen to pass one - so yes, I certainly agree with your sentiment there.

The dissemination of Irish Traditional Music outside Ireland is a paradoxical and double-edged thing - as could be said for any aspect of any traditional culture that gets transplanted, transferred, or commercialized.

Surely what is usually called the "popularization" of the pipes has contributed greatly to the currently robust state of the art. Some folks nonetheless worry that what is being so saved isn't the right stuff, e.g "the pure drop", and I think this is a reasonable question and a valid concern. Personally I think Riverdance and Titanic have done more good than harm and are the 'hook' that started many people on the road in to the wellsprings of the tradition. As were the Bothy Band, Planxty, Moving Hearts, and Davy Spillane before them, and perhaps the Afro Celts as well.

I don't mean to suggest that we should be exclusive or narrow, but I do think that new pipers owe it to themselves to get acquainted with a bit of old piping lore and history, and to listen carefully to those few recordings we have that offer windows into the world of piping past. By that I mean not just, say, Clancy, but through Clancy's tales and recordings we can try to catch a glimpse of Garrett Barry, as Willie did from his father Gilbert - to cite one example. This means that a good bit of effort should go into learning to listen in a particular way. And we who have been at it awhile longer than the newcomers owe it to them, I think, not just to wave our hands and vaguely say "Clancy", "Doran", etc. but to actually point to specific tracks, phrases, aspects of those historic figures which we've learned to love - and which we've studied. The pipers in the "modern" or "popularized" bands I mentioned in the previous paragraph arevery vocal about the extent to which they revere their piping mentors and models, even though those pipers may have had little contact with those musical role models while they were alive.


Bill

[Joseph E. Smith]

Yes. One really cannot see where they're going, unless they can see where they've been.

So, like, how old was Davy Spillane when the likes of the Bothy Band and Planxty started recording?

[fgibbons]

Old tunes used to be new tunes. Avoiding new tunes, IMHO, could lead to a stagnant art. ...

I agree that art stagnates when no one is creating it, even if many are conserving it. But IMO playing the "old" repertoire is itself a creative act.

...

Every performance is an interpretation, you don't have to go looking for new thrills to avoid fossilization. Change will happen naturally, even if you don't seek it. I seems to me that such an "evolutionary" pace is the best for a traditional art.

You both make valid points (above, and earlier, Joseph & Bill), and no-one would argue that the pipes have a large established repertoire that is pretty much inseparable from the instrument.

The original question knocking around in my head though was this: what should a professional musician working in the ITM idiom be doing over and above performing? I don't see composition as being in any way in contradiction with conserving the idiom. After all, during the last period of history in which it was possible to play ITM professionally, the late seventeenth century, with the blind harpers, composition of new tunes in honour of the host was a big part of the job.

I agree that something new can come out of established material, through the artistic interpretation of the performer. And it is true that new som material is being composed in the ITM idiom, by both amateurs and pros.

But I would argue that it should be the role of professionals to "take it up a notch", to be not just quantitively (i.e., faster, louder, bigger repertoire, etc), but qualitatively different from amateurs, in the sense of doing something that amateurs don't or can't do. In the words of the character on Saturday Night Live: Take it to the H-N-L (whole-nother-level)

It seems like we've entered a time when a substantial number of people can make a living from ITM, but for whatever reason (conservative audiences, conservative ethos in the ITM community) shy away from composing. To take the evolutionary metaphor, the "conservative gene" served the music well in getting through the last few hundred years. But now that that bottleneck has been successfully negotiated, it seems to me it is once again possible to let the hair down, branch out, try new things. That doesn't mean old things have to be thrown away, just that the community may now be big enough to admit more biodiversity.

I'm not even talking about radical changes, say like Moving Hearts were in the 80's, or the Afro Celts in the 90's. Think about the Cape Breton community, in which thousands of tunes (or at least it seems that way!) were composed by people who are within living memory. They don't break the traditional mould, they're still strathspeys, reels, etc. But they're newly composed strathspeys and reels.

Anyway, this all started because I thought it was great that Diarmaid Moynihan was writing new tunes that fit very well into the traditional idiom. From what I hear/read on this BBS, Eoin Dillon is doing the same. I, for one, will be checking it out.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

-Frank

[KAD]

I do think that new pipers owe it to themselves to get acquainted with a bit of old piping lore and history, and to listen carefully to those few recordings we have that offer windows into the world of piping past. By that I mean not just, say, Clancy, but through Clancy's tales and recordings we can try to catch a glimpse of Garrett Barry, as Willie did from his father Gilbert - to cite one example. This means that a good bit of effort should go into learning to listen in a particular way. And we who have been at it awhile longer than the newcomers owe it to them, I think, not just to wave our hands and vaguely say "Clancy", "Doran", etc. but to actually point to specific tracks, phrases, aspects of those historic figures which we've learned to love - and which we've studied.
Bill

I couldn't agree more; thank you very much for saying so. It's hard to learn to understand what you are hearing -- but it is a skill, and it can be taught. Without that skill, listening to the old masters is like being in a museum, looking at paintings on a wall, without knowing anything about art history. I can admire a painting for itself, certainly, and I might have an emotional reaction to it, but I get a lot more out of it if someone explains that the particular use of colors or perspective was new for its day, or that the choice of subject matter was influenced by a certain previous artist/contemporary cultural event/life trauma, or that I was meant to react to it in a certain way.

Breaking down and analyzing older recordings for newer pipers is something I wish instructors would do at every tionol. Emmett Gill gave a workshop at the Killington gathering last summer, trying to demonstrate what contemporary players and recordings influenced Willie Clancy's own music. It was fascinating and enlightening, but just the tip of what I'm sure is a very large iceberg.

KAD

[fgibbons]

I do think that new pipers owe it to themselves to get acquainted with a bit of old piping lore and history, and to listen carefully to those few recordings we have that offer windows into the world of piping past. By that I mean not just, say, Clancy, but through Clancy's tales and recordings we can try to catch a glimpse of Garrett Barry, as Willie did from his father Gilbert - to cite one example. This means that a good bit of effort should go into learning to listen in a particular way. And we who have been at it awhile longer than the newcomers owe it to them, I think, not just to wave our hands and vaguely say "Clancy", "Doran", etc. but to actually point to specific tracks, phrases, aspects of those historic figures which we've learned to love - and which we've studied.
Bill

I couldn't agree more; thank you very much for saying so. It's hard to learn to understand what you are hearing -- but it is a skill, and it can be taught. Without that skill, listening to the old masters is like being in a museum, looking at paintings on a wall, without knowing anything about art history.

I agree with what you're saying, KAD, and with Bill's earlier sentiments, but I guess I just took it as given that if someone is a professional musician, they are already well inside the tradition. They've absorbed the culture, they know the colours that are available from their instrument, when to use them, and to what effect.

Granted, especially here in North America, most UP players did not grow up in an environment where they could absorb the culture of the music, since we're almost all adult learners. As Bill points out, there are many people who've lived their entire lives in Ireland, and may have heard of the UP, but are not really sure what it is, looks or sounds like. But generally, if you meet an uilleann piper in Ireland, chances are they've been playing since they were ten.

Breaking down and analyzing older recordings for newer pipers is something I wish instructors would do at every tionol.

Everyone must find their own approach to any music, of course. There's certainly a lot to be gained by listening to the "old masters". But I think the danger is that, since they're all dead, there may be a tendency towards sanctifying their playing. Listening to the playing of Willie Clancy, for the echoes of Garret Barry, a man he'd never met and whose playing he knew only through the descriptions of his own father? It's a fascinating exercise to be sure, but I'm not sure that's how you sustain a musical tradition that can continue to grow.

Tracing this thread of tradition is important, and you can do it with modern-day players too. Still, sometimes I think too much importance is placed on provenance in Irish music, or culture. I have grown tired of live musical performances that consist of little other than a recitation of the history of the tunes played, and how it came into someone's life. ("I'd like to play a few reels for ye now, from the Donegal fiddle tradition. I got from the playing of Tommy Peoples.") Such performances are by no means universal, of course, but sometimes provenance can be a crutch. I just feel that in a performance, I want more than a description of where the tune came from. Indeed, I want more than a program consisting entirely of tunes I already recognise.

I tracked down some recordings of Eoin Dillon's last night, and I do find it a bit too modern for my ear. It's a little difficult to follow the rhythm on some of them, at least first time around. Not because of his playing, just because he goes outside the usual boundaries for ITM. I find Moynihan's approach a lot more evolutionary, Dillon's a bit more revolutionary. Still, I think there's a place for them both, and if either one is reading this, keep on doing what you're doing.

-Frank

[Ceann Cromtha]

To take the evolutionary metaphor, ...

I was thinking the same thing, but only with regard to human languages. I suppose that one way to divide them is to say that they are:

1. Living/Extant: English, Kirundi, Mandarin Chinese, Tagalog, etc.

2. Dead/Extinct: Dalmatian, Prussian, Gothic, Linear B, etc.

3. "Zombie": Latin, Old Church Slavonic, Byzantine Greek, etc.

The structure and status of living languages are maintained by speakers, often guided by prescriptive norms (grammar rules, etc.), in order to make sure that it remains a "common currency" for all its users. This is an interchange or dialectic driven by the former (speakers), but steered by the latter (rules). If the latter had absolute control, languages would never change. Living languages are dynamic and innovative.

"Zombie" languages are resurrected languages, which are used in a much narrower context and are much more strictly regulated by established rules. Liturgical languages are prime examples, but, there are also those which are revived after teetering on extinction. For example, Classical Arabic is used in the mosques, scholarly writing, etc., but remains an ideal or even an abstraction for the vast majority of speakers of Arabic "dialects." "Zombie" languages tend to be extremely conservative and static.

I suppose ITM is somewhere in between living and "zombie," if I follow this discourse correctly?

[boyd]

Personally I think Riverdance and Titanic have done more good than harm and are the 'hook' that started many people on the road in to the wellsprings of the tradition. As were the Bothy Band, Planxty, Moving Hearts, and Davy Spillane before them, and perhaps the Afro Celts as well.


Bill

Horslips and The Chieftains

and early Clannad [ ]

were my "hooks" when I was young




Boyd


http://www.horslips.com/

http://www.horslips.ie/

[KAD]

Everyone must find their own approach to any music, of course. There's certainly a lot to be gained by listening to the "old masters". But I think the danger is that, since they're all dead, there may be a tendency towards sanctifying their playing. Listening to the playing of Willie Clancy, for the echoes of Garret Barry, a man he'd never met and whose playing he knew only through the descriptions of his own father? It's a fascinating exercise to be sure, but I'm not sure that's how you sustain a musical tradition that can continue to grow.

Tracing this thread of tradition is important, and you can do it with modern-day players too. Still, sometimes I think too much importance is placed on provenance in Irish music, or culture. I have grown tired of live musical performances that consist of little other than a recitation of the history of the tunes played, and how it came into someone's life. ("I'd like to play a few reels for ye now, from the Donegal fiddle tradition. I got from the playing of Tommy Peoples.") Such performances are by no means universal, of course, but sometimes provenance can be a crutch. I just feel that in a performance, I want more than a description of where the tune came from. Indeed, I want more than a program consisting entirely of tunes I already recognise.
-Frank

I agree entirely with this last point! I always appreciate it when performers play tunes I've not heard before (although, given how recently I started piping, that's not too hard to do!).

Just to clarify: I think we're actually talking about two different things. If I read you correctly, Frank, you are talking about how and why you approve of innovation and composition by the folks who have been playing since they were ten. And you are tired of the same old emphasis on provenance. Right?

I am not interested in provenance, really, either, when it comes down to it. I am talking about how I wish the folks who have been playing since they were ten, the folks who understand what made the auld fellas so terrific, would teach us newbies how to listen to that older material in a way that helps us to understand it more fully in our turn. I'm looking not for "where did he get this tune," but "how is his ornamentation and phrasing in this particular tune influenced by such-and-such or so-and-so." It's the opposite of sanctification, in a way -- to use a metaphor, it is the "Protestant" approach to the canonical text (in which you are given the tools to understand the canonical text yourself), rather than the "Catholic" approach (which asks you to trust your priest to tell you what is important and what is not and how it should be interpreted). Emmet Gill, for instance, was trying to demonstrate how Willie had been strongly influenced by Johnny Doran and by various recordings that were on the radio in Willie's day -- a rather refreshing change from the Garret Barry story, at least for a relative newcomer like me.

Either way, we're expecting a lot of these folks who have been playing since they were ten! Hope they don't feel too weighed down by all our expectations.

Cheers,
KAD

[No E]

-- to use a metaphor, it is the "Protestant" approach to the canonical text (in which you are given the tools to understand the canonical text yourself), rather than the "Catholic" approach (which asks you to trust your priest to tell you what is important and what is not and how it should be interpreted)...
Cheers,
KAD

I get (and agree with) your point, but can't say that I find your metaphor apt or accurate.

No E

[fgibbons]

It's the opposite of sanctification, in a way -- to use a metaphor, it is the "Protestant" approach to the canonical text (in which you are given the tools to understand the canonical text yourself), rather than the "Catholic" approach (which asks you to trust your priest to tell you what is important and what is not and how it should be interpreted).

I think you may have offended some other readers with that metaphor, KAD, but yeah, my argument is that we need more musical "protestants". (Keep an eye out for my 95 theses nailed to the back door of the Fern Cliff lounge Actually, I feel like many of the teachers out there these days _do_ give students the tools to understand it in their own way.

Emmet Gill, for instance, was trying to demonstrate how Willie had been strongly influenced by Johnny Doran and by various recordings that were on the radio in Willie's day -- a rather refreshing change from the Garret Barry story, at least for a relative newcomer like me.

I wish I had been there for that - it sounds very interesting. I'll have to get more details from you at the Fern Cliff. (As an aside, given recently voiced objections regarding the tionól's proximity to the Atlantic, perhaps we should call it the Fern Cliff Tionól? I'll run it by Suzanne....)

All the best,

-Frank

[Ceann Cromtha]

Some would argue that the solo scriptura approach is why there are so many different denominations within the Protestant faith (e.g., Frank Schaeffer).