Highly important "technical" question!!

[Will O'B]

Is it traditional in our music? Maybe. I've never met anyone yet who can show me proof that it wasn't performed down the ages on the flute or whistle.

Some of the things that are not traditional in our music are low whistles, the manner in which whistles are manufactured, the way the music is mechanically and digitally altered, recording the music and sharing it over the internet, television and radio. And some of the tunes are questionable as to their exact pedigree. Some even argue that O'Carolan's music, though it is beautiful and he was Irish, is not Irish in the tradtional sense. His work was influenced during his travels around the continent.

Does this all mean that none of these things should be done? I guess that's a personal choice. My Dad taught me there is something to be said about tradition. But my Dad also used to say that you have to be willing to change with the times unless you are big enough to change the times.

[rance]

Tony Hinnigan used a quena (kena) on Braveheart.

[Bridges-PdP]

Is it traditional in our music? Maybe. I've never met anyone yet who can show me proof that it wasn't performed down the ages on the flute or whistle.

Some of the things that are not traditional in our music are low whistles, the manner in which whistles are manufactured, the way the music is mechanically and digitally altered, recording the music and sharing it over the internet, television and radio. And some of the tunes are questionable as to their exact pedigree. Some even argue that O'Carolan's music, though it is beautiful and he was Irish, is not Irish in the tradtional sense. His work was influenced during his travels around the continent.

Does this all mean that none of these things should be done? I guess that's a personal choice. My Dad taught me there is something to be said about tradition. But my Dad also used to say that you have to be willing to change with the times unless you are big enough to change the times.

What he said. Except to ask, 'What is traditional?' Does traditional (in the context of ITM)reference a particular time period?

[Daleth]

It seems to me that you're making a bit of a mistake, trying a little finger vibrato and deciding that, because it sounds bad, you won't do it. It's like ornamentation - it takes time to develop good finger vibrato technique and get it sounding right. If you decided that, say, cuts sound bad early on when you're not able to do them properly, and so you never bothered to learn them properly, you'd be missing one of the basics. It's essentially the same here. It's something you have to work at, if you want to be able to make it sound good.

Finger vibrato is traditional because much of whistle playing mimics the pipes, and on the uilleann pipes, the only way to get vibrato is with finger vibrato (or are they able to do it with the bag, too? In any case, we can't mimic that). However, I don't think that limiting OUR instrument to the capabilities of another instrument just because it's what everybody says is traditional isn't doing our instrument justice. I don't object to people using throat/diaphragm vibrato, as long as it's well done and well placed.

Which brings me to my final point: any vibrato should be used sparingly, in my opinion. If you play an entire tune, whether dance tune or slow air, and have vibrato on every note, I don't think it sounds very good. Vibrato should be used on a few notes here and there, to accentuate the emotion of the tune.

[arnie]

there seem to be two sort of whistlers as I can see on the board, the traditional whistlers and the progressive whistlers. The traditionals say respect tradition, there's one way of playing a tune, the progressive whistlers seek for new ways to play and do things that do not occur in traditional playing (like the triplet playing of Brian Finnigan). It's, I think, not a question of right or wrong, it's the of creating music, in either way.

[lyrick]

The 'what's traditional?' discussion comes up a lot. Here's an interview with Martin Hayes in which he talks about it from the perspective of someone who grew up in the tradition and has also experimented with it. Whether you like his music or not, I think he gives a very thoughtful and balanced view that carries a little more credibility than most of the opinions expressed on C & F (my own included...).

http://www.ceolas.org/artists/Martin_Ha ... rview.html

[Guinness]

MH is one of those few musicians who can bring a tear to my eye but funny enough, he's not all that traditional sounding to me. For example he often plays in C and F, uses a lot of dynamics, long smears, staccato bowing and vibrato. But his expressiveness has captured the imagination of many ITM players and listeners and consequently his approach is accepted as part of the genre.

If you can make the different kinds of vibrato work for you, more power to you.

[lyrick]

No, Martin Hayes doesn't sound very traditional to me, either. Some of the elements are there, though. I hadn't listened to him for a couple of years, and recently I put on one of his CD's. I was pleasantly surprised by how much I could hear his pure-drop traditional roots in a lot of the details. Not all those slides, but something in his phrasing, his swing, lift, his timing on rolls, etc. I hear his traditional roots a lot more than when listening to some of the 'ITM' bands. Not saying it's better or worse or good or bad, it's just what I hear.

[pancelticpiper]

"The traditionals say respect tradition, there's one way of playing a tune".
This seems to be mixing or confusing two issues. Part of respecting the Irish tradition is respecting the tradition of variation, the fundamental idea that there IS NO SUCH THING AS ONE WAY OF PLAYING A TUNE.
This is often, quite incorrectly, interpreted by some as meaning "anything goes". What it means is that "anything that is idiomatic to the tradition goes" which is something else again.
Jazz players can't just play anything, they are restricted to the motifs and styles which are idiomatic to jazz in general and their instrument in particular. Likewise Irish musicians have a tremendous range of freedom within the tradition but good players know what the parameters are, and specifically the parameters of their particular instrument.
But anyhow about vibrato, finger vibrato simply "sounds right" on Irish pipes, whistle, and flute. I myself use finger vibrato 90% of the time on whistle but as I said I will do the occasional throat (billy goat) vibrato to make certain high notes really sing out and the occasional slower "diaphragm" vibrato on low notes.

[BoneQuint]

there IS NO SUCH THING AS ONE WAY OF PLAYING A TUNE. This is often, quite incorrectly, interpreted by some as meaning "anything goes".

I agree -- traditional players aren't "traditional" because they're imitating or "staying pure to" what was done in the past. It's because they understand what Martin Hayes calls in the interview above "the inspiration of generations combined." You have to learn the wisdom that has evolved in the music, not just the techniques, but many other things, even the intentional limitations, that make it "work." You can't out-think hundreds of years of collective inspiration, intuition, and time-tested experience.

Here's another part of the interview which is very germane:

"You can't go to the personal expression in the music until you've gone through the broader, more common approach to it. It's not like you could just take this up and decide to be an individualist with this music, unless you had gone through the mill, found at least the common expression in music, and at least a familiarity with the language of the music and the tones played. I just think you have to go through that point and then you have to really understand that very, very well before you can become personally expressive."

If you want to ignore the essence of the music and treat it like a grab-bag of tricks and tunes, and just do what you "like" and who cares what other people think, then you are not playing traditional music. You're throwing away what makes it traditional, the attitude of learning from what has gone before with some humility, of "standing on the shoulders of giants."

Or as Martin Hayes said, "If pride takes the place of humility in music, it's lost." I recommend reading the entire article.

[Will O'B]

there IS NO SUCH THING AS ONE WAY OF PLAYING A TUNE. This is often, quite incorrectly, interpreted by some as meaning "anything goes".

I agree -- traditional players aren't "traditional" because they're imitating or "staying pure to" what was done in the past. It's because they understand what Martin Hayes calls in the interview above "the inspiration of generations combined." You have to learn the wisdom that has evolved in the music, not just the techniques, but many other things, even the intentional limitations, that make it "work." You can't out-think hundreds of years of collective inspiration, intuition, and time-tested experience.

I agree, too. I don't know if anyone really believes that "anything goes." At least I hope not. I like MH's analogy to language. How we play our music is an expression. As with language, new words and idioms are used to give it flavor, but if it's not done in accordance with the rules of the language then it will never work, or we begin to create another language altogether. "Traditional" music is the same way really. I have no doubt that the music is played somewhat differently today than it was 700 years ago. Nor do I have any doubt that each time someone would try something new with ornamentation, timing or instrument there were plenty of his neighbors who said, "That's not how its done." And there was, of course, something to be said about that phrase, "That's not how its done." Because doing it the way its always been done is how we learn. But over several generations, more and more musicians would incorporate the new technique into the tried and true style until it finally became part of the "tradition." And I want to point out here that I am not saying, "Anything goes." The conversations in this thread, though interesting and important, are nothing new. They, and conversations like them, are as old as humankind.

Our music, like language, does, and is, changing. We may have to look back on it from several generations into the future to see it, but it is changing. That's not to say that is good or bad. It simply is. [I believe that it still retains its "traditional" status.] While we may like to think that we, the performers, control its direction, that's not entirely true. [MH may have said this in his interview. It's been a while since I read it and he seemed to echo many of my feelings. If I'm rehashing his words then I'm sorry.] Unless we play in solitude for our own personal satisfaction, there is the listener, the audience, who will accept or dismiss these changes. That, I believe, is what guides the direction of any art form because art exists as much for the audience as it does for the performer.

[Doc Jones]

I play in my bathroom all the time just to get the reverb sound! (when there's no one home of course)

Playing Irish music in the bathroom is certainly not traditional. Please cut it out immediately!

Doc

[Bloomfield]

there seem to be two sort of whistlers as I can see on the board, the traditional whistlers and the progressive whistlers. The traditionals say respect tradition, there's one way of playing a tune, the progressive whistlers seek for new ways to play and do things that do not occur in traditional playing (like the triplet playing of Brian Finnigan). It's, I think, not a question of right or wrong, it's the of creating music, in either way.

I don't think this is a fair representation of what "traditional" whistlers on this board have said. As long as I've been I've never seen anyone who understood the traditional idiom claim there was only one way to do play or do things. Quite the contrary. The triplet playing of Brian Finnigan is a good example since there are traditional players who have used triple tonguing on the whistle before Finnigan was born (like Packie Byrne).

... traditional players aren't "traditional" because they're imitating or "staying pure to" what was done in the past. It's because they understand what Martin Hayes calls in the interview above "the inspiration of generations combined." You have to learn the wisdom that has evolved in the music, not just the techniques, but many other things, even the intentional limitations, that make it "work." You can't out-think hundreds of years of collective inspiration, intuition, and time-tested experience.

On IRTRAD someone just recently said that traditional players follow the "old" ways not because they are old but because it turns out to be very difficult to change the idiom without taking more away from the music than you are adding to it.

[Cayden]

the exact quote was:

it is a great challenge, nearly impossible, to gain more asthetically than one loses in transmogrification, which is as true here as with any music

I'll say no more.

[MTGuru]

it is a great challenge, nearly impossible, to gain more asthetically than one loses in transmogrification, which is as true here as with any music

That is a bit more optimistic, since it implies that the gain and loss may be equal. And equality may be enough to foster experimentation with change.