Jump to content

Traditional Music And 'classical' Theory


keeper

Recommended Posts

"Skill" is a funny word. It takes a lot of skill to have enough technical facility to play a complicated arrangement of complex ("art") music with fluidity and control. It also takes a lot of skill to listen to what is being played while playing it, spontaneously adjusting by somtimes tiny amounts the speed, volume, "swing," type and frequency of variations, phrasing, articulation, etc. A good traditional musician will do all that and more, and much of it will be things that even a trained musicologist (or even the musician himself) can't put a finger on. But it'll put a smile on your face and set your toes tapping, whereas a "more skillful" musician who plays with more speed, more harmonic variations, a purer tone, more accurate intonation, and a more complex arrangement may be missing that living, breathing "something," and will leave people unmoved.

 

"Art" music and "Folk" music have very different aims. You can enjoy either one without necessarily understanding it in any deep way. But you can't "judge" one by the aims of the other.

 

Peter calls himself a "half-decent" musician because he's aware of his limitations, not because he's mediocre. I will buy a copy of his and Kitty's CD, I'm sure it will be the real thing.

 

M3838, I agree with you in a way that "traditional" music exists best when it is experienced, instead of just "listened to" as a modern concert audience would. To me, that's mixing up the aim of the music with that of "art" music. "Folk" music is made to be moved to, to be a part of life, not separated from life and appreciated like an oil painting in a frame in a museum. Although I can still appreciate CDs of traditional music -- I think many aren't made for the purpose of making money, they're made for the love of the music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Michael,

Is there a language barrier here? Some of your responses are just nonsensical.

 

You wrote...>>Me:

Do you imply that other kinds of music CAN be played without skill?<<

 

How could you possibly write this based on what I wrote? This makes no sense whatsoever. You don't think skill is relevant to a large subset of music, which is utter nonsense. I don't think anything of the sort and never so much as hinted I did. I never implied any such thing! Shame on you, what a cheap shot.

 

 

You wrote.....

>>Me:Should I find your opinion buffling and even a bit insulting?

As for musical opinion being insulting, this is some indication of seclusiveness.<<

 

Huh? You wrote.....>>Folk music, where there is a stage and people in the audience - is a joke.<< If you had said you don't like folk music when performed on stage, fine, that's your opinion. When you call it a joke, that's clearly an insulting way to put it, and I'm being generous here. I have lots of friends that play folk music on stage, and I've been involved with the same for many years. It's rude of you to call it a joke. I believe this was more than clear the first time around.

 

bruce boysen......sorry folks, I'll not post again on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter Laban
A constant stream of variation is exactly what I meant, we can be pedantic about it if we want to but anyone who has heard the recording of (piper) Johnny Doran playing Rakish Paddy will know exactly what I mean: a constant stream of variation,

 

Me:

I went to his website and listened to all mp3s and two video clips.

Awesome.

Doran is playing against the backdrop of his drones and a filldler. Together it creates powerful musical screen. Again, to me all his tunes sound alike, I get my kick out of mesmerizing screen of sound.

I think we would disagree on the amount of change depicting a "variation".

With music being so simple, it's easy to stear it left and right a little, without losing the tonic. To me it doesn't matter. It's how they play, that matters.

 

Interesting, Doran had an accident in 1948 which disabled him and eventually led to his death in 1950. The only existing recordings of his playing are a small number of acetate discs (seven in all I think) receorded in the Irish Folklore Commission.

Only on one selection a fiddler (fiddler and concertinaplayer John Kelly) is present. I don't really think there's a website you could call 'his' (other than the one maintained by Thomas Johnson at http://web.telia.com/~u46103557/jdoran.html ) and no 'videoclips' are known of Johnny Doran playing. Are you just taking the mickey here?

 

Assuming you aren't: from your 'Alll his tunes sound alike' I can't but conclude you're not a close listener in the sense I would understand the term.

 

I didn't mean this kind of recording. I assumed professional recording, with crews working shifts and a distributor. The cost of producing is high, it must make money to survive. It must be sold and it dictates the style of performance.

I guess I'm behind the progress a bit. It didn't occure to me that it's possible to make a quality CD in one's kitchen.

 

What do you mean 'that kind of recording'? You wouldn't believe (obviously) what you can do with a good sound engineer and a mobile studio. And I have done the sums, a certain number will have to be sold (depending whether we sell directly or through the distributor) to get the money back. I know exactly the sums involved. So there's no real new insight in what you are saying.

For what it's worth, a friend and neighbour is a tinwhistleplayer. She did a similar recording recently ( www.bridodonohue.com ). I don't see your problem.

 

 

But let me get this straight: as soon as an audience or a stage are involved this music becomes 'a joke' but you want your recordings 'professional', with a crew that works shifts ?

 

 

I have a feeling we are talking about very different things and call it "variations". I think we must be a bit more humble and not apply musical terms, that don't fit.

 

We are talking about very different things. I am using 'variation' in the sense any Irish Traditional Musician, or (ethno) musicologists dealing with this music for that matter, would use it.

 

I would recommend reading up on the subject in 'The melodic tradition of Ireland' by James R.Cowdery (ISBN 0-87338-407-5) for a thorough treatise on melodic music and the use of variation. Several examples, including some of Johnny Doran's playing are looked at it detail.

 

Here we return to the point I made in my first posts to this thread: you, the musician I assume approaching this from the classical/theoretical side of things, who is incapable (or bluntly refuses) to approach the music under discussion on it's own terms but approaches it from his own (with regard to this music: limited) point of view. Failing to recognise this, you turn on the condescension instead, claiming misuse of proper musical terminology. While I understand Beethoven's concept of 'variation', you yourself are apparently not up to speed when grasping the difference between variation in 'art' music and variation as employed in an essentially melodic music. The condescenscion seems utterly misplaced. Again: see Cowdery's book or if you want slightly less academic approaches works more aimed at a wider readership like some of Breandan Breathnach's.

 

To acknowledge that knowledge of one type of music is not absolute, that it may not necessarily fully apply when looking at a different type of music. To recognise there are differences and appreciate them for what they are, to give each their own. That would be true humility. So far I don't see you practice what you preach.

 

I think you'd be well off reading the article (by Pat Mitchell) I mentioned above, including the second part which deals with means of 'variation' in Irish traditional dance music.

Maybe we can continue the discussion when we're on the same page.

Edited by Peter Laban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the recording of (piper) Johnny Doran...,
I went to his website and listened to all mp3s and two video clips.
I don't really think there's a website you could call 'his' (other than the one maintained by Thomas Johnson at http://web.telia.com/~u46103557/jdoran.html ) and no 'videoclips' are known of Johnny Doran playing.

Maybe Michael doesn't realize that the piper John Doran isn't the same person as the actor John Doran :unsure:, who appeared in films long after the piper's death? Google turned up plenty of references to videos of the actor.

 

By the way, Tom Johnson -- who maintains the John Doran web site mentioned above -- is a Swedish piper. Quite likely he'll be at one of this week's local sessions. :)

 

Edited to add the "unsure" smiley, for added clarity.

Edited by JimLucas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irish music I'd rather classify as "chanting", where the same melody repeats over and over, untill you stop recognizing it as a music, ...

it's the Old-Timey musicians who repeat the same tune "over and over" all night long. ;)

 

Old Timey Music: It's better than it sounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, lots of interesting replies.

I think its a good thing to shake it up once in a while.

I'm sorry some people felt offended. I didn't see anything offencive in my statements, but may be I am not cencitive enough.

 

I think I can resume my position thusly:

Art music's aim is provoking an emotion in 'listeners'. This emotion must be sencere and expirienced by a composer and performer at the time of performance. Then it's art.

Entertaining value comes second.

Folk music's aim is provoking an emotion in 'participants'. It's art too.

"Fifth" wall that exists in Art music requires listeners behave and performer to be adequately skillful.

Lack of "Fifth" wall in folk music makes everybody involved and erases division between listeners and performers.

That's all, no rocket science.

A few side effects: Art music tends to be more elaborate, evoking complex emotions and especially complex moves and changes of emotions.

Folk music tends to be simpler, evoking simpler emotions with vewer changes to them.

Examples: Tragic symphony vs. doleful folk song.

Folk musicians may nof feel the need for proper musical education, their instruments tend to be smaller, portable cheaper, with multiple voices, smaller range, diatonic, but with easler fingering in few common keys.

Art musicians tend to be educated, trained, universal, their instruments may be bigger, more expencive, fragile, chromatic and with large range. Not easy to finger, but able to cover larger variety of genres.

 

Anyways, Id like to reply to few of the posts.

 

Boney:

"Art" music and "Folk" music have very different aims.

 

Me:

I disagree. My position is stated above. Can you elaborate on the particular aims of art and folk music?

 

Boney:

Peter calls himself a "half-decent" musician because he's aware of his

limitations, not because he's mediocre. I will buy a copy of his and Kitty's

CD, I'm sure it will be the real thing

 

Me:

Don't doubt it. I was just picking.

I myself would not make a CD of my playing. There are enough of great CDs without my input. One has to have quite an appreciation of oneself to make his/her activity known to the world. Perhabs Peter feels like his playing may contribute to the Irish music, or perhabs he was helping Kitty, to whom he has great respect.

I too, will enquire and if there is going to be some mp3 samples, the better.

 

Boney:

M3838, I agree with you in a way that "traditional" music exists best when

it is experienced, instead of just "listened to" as a modern concert audience

would.

 

Me:

Thank you. Totally agreed.

 

Boney:

Although I can still appreciate CDs of traditional music -- I think many

aren't made for the purpose of making money, they're made for the love of

the music.

 

Me:

I think I said money making CDs is the purpose of "professional Folk Music" performers.

If I was a professional folk musician, I'd make CDs "only" for making money. Why else?

For the love of music I'd play in the parks or pubs.

 

BruceB:

Michael,

Is there a language barrier here? Some of your responses are just nonsensical.

 

Me:

I was making a joke.

I thought you understood what I meant, when I said: "skill is not relevant to folk music". I didn't say "not needed", only "not relevant". to me, your jumping to "not needed" was rather buffling. Now you know what I felt when reading some of your responces.

 

BruceB:

It's rude of you to call it a joke. I believe this was more than clear the

first time around.

 

Me:

So a country singer in sparkling white hat, poorly emulating rural accent is not a joke to you? Or a Klezmer band, singing in Yiddish, where none of the musicians know a word in Yiddish is not a joke? Or Moyseev folk ansamble, where all of the dancers are graduates of Sanct-Petersburg's ballet academy?

I didn't offend you personally, did I? Contrary, I think you and Peter are true folk musicians. I'd disagree with "making CD for the love of music" concept, but that's not important.

 

Peter:

Interesting, Doran had an accident in 1948 which disabled him and eventually

led to his death in 1950. The only existing recordings of his playing are a

small number of acetate discs (seven in all I think) receorded in the Irish

Folklore Commission.

 

Me:

I just went to Internet, found Doran's website and downloaded a few mp3s, assuming it's his playing. OK, so we can't speak about Doran yet. Let me dig out those recordings. Any hints?.

 

Peter:

For what it's worth, a friend and neighbour is a tinwhistleplayer. She did a

similar recording recently ( www.bridodonohue.com ). I don't see your problem.

 

Me:

What problem are you talking about?

I listened to your friend's samples. Not bad.

I'd be hard pressed to buy one, but having met her in the park, I'd sit down and listen.

If you are making CD because you think your playing is of such value, it has to be shared with the World - fine with me. If you are trying to help Kitty - even better.

If it is to preserve yourself for your kids - with all my heart.

I was talking about "professional" performer's recording. Tell me, if you were a professional entertainer, wouldn't you make CDs for the money?

I'm sorry , but I think you are taking my words out of content.

 

Peter:

But let me get this straight: as soon as an audience or a stage are involved

this music becomes 'a joke' but you want your recordings 'professional', with

a crew that works shifts ?

 

Me:

No, I don't even understand how did you arrive at these conclusions.

The phenomena known as "folk music" simply disappears, when there's an audience and a performer onstage. It doesn't matter in what style a performance is. Rules of performance are different, if you are onstage, as compared to sitting around the dinner table with friends, or playing for dancers on the weekend.

 

Peter:

you, the musician I assume approaching this from the classical/theoretical

side of things, who is incapable (or bluntly refuses) to approach the music

under discussion on it's own terms

 

Me:

I'm not a musician, I'm an artist.

The discussion was not about Irish music.

It was about use of classical training for folk music. It assumed that the language of all music is the same. It is the same. There is no separate thing called "variation" in Irish music vs. classical music.

You tend to focus on Irish music as though it is governed by entirely different laws of nature. Anything studied by classical musician is applied to Irish. Music is music. My point has always been: it's irrelevant how much you know, compared to how much talent you have. It's not the constant stream of whatever you call "variation" that makes Irish music interesting, it's the talent of performers. Same in Art music or in French Muzette.

If nuances that you hear (being skilled listener) are so important, why there are good and bad irish musicians? With patience even a bad musician can 'learn' to employ those nuances. It dosen't matter. You can't learn talent.

You claim it takes learning and expirience to listen to Irish music. To me, nothing can be farther from the truth, then this statement. It didn't take me years to start liking Irish music, done well. I'm sure it won't take you years to learn to hear russian music or classical. I am buffled in my tern, at how did you arrive at this assumption. And it's rather exclusive too.

Now, I'm not Irish. I approach Irish music from a consumer point of view. Give me talented performer, I'll buy tickets. I'll never play irish tune among my friends, it'd be silly.

BTW.

Did you look at the web addresses I provided?

I supplied examples of Diabelli Variations by Beethoven, offered to supply address for Russian folk music tutor done by classically trained profesional and a critique of this tutor. Or you listen exclusively to Irish?

You by-passed these arguments completely.

Why?

 

My best wishes. I think you are a good guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have followed this thread for a while and my blood pressure has increased sufficiently for me to realise that I will have to add my first - and last - post to this thread in order to bring it down again.

 

The thread started as "about use of classical training for folk music" but slided into Irish traditional music and that is where I started to listen.

 

I have listened to (and attempted to play, but that's irrelevant here) Irish music for close to 30 years. Lately - the last 4-5 years - I have realised that it has become a constant, stable source of pleasure, joy and passion - something I wouldn't, couldn't be without.

 

In other words: it's getting better all the time. I get the same kicks out of hearing new tunes as I got years ago when I heard Mary Bergin the first time, Noel Hill and Tony Linnane the first time, Matt Molloy the first time - the list is long.

 

I also find that I go back to records I bought 25 years ago and suddenly understand them - Jacky Daly's first record, Johnny O'Leary's "Music for the Set". So somehow I have learned and experienced something along the way.

 

During this afternoon's Google hunt for Johnny Doran MP3s and video clips, I stumbled into Custy's (Traditional Music Shop), got sidetracked by finding all the CDs I wanted, and finally ended up with a video clip with Kitty Hayes.

 

And that put everything in order: there is no master plan, no aim, no analysis, no entertaining, no professionalism. It just is - and luckily, I am able to enjoy the simple emotion it creates in me. No rocket science here. The less discussion, the better.

 

/Henrik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I can resume my position thusly:

Art music's aim is provoking an emotion in 'listeners'. This emotion must be sencere and expirienced by a composer and performer at the time of performance. Then it's art.

Entertaining value comes second.

Folk music's aim is provoking an emotion in 'participants'. It's art too.

"Fifth" wall that exists in Art music requires listeners behave and performer to be adequately skillful.

Lack of "Fifth" wall in folk music makes everybody involved and erases division between listeners and performers.

That's all, no rocket science.

If that's the point you've been trying to make all along, why did you include the word "theory" in the title of the thread? What has this to do with theory?

 

And please learn how to use the quoting mechanism. It's difficult to parse some of your posts because it's not always clear where your comments begin and someone else's end. Just click the ["Reply] button and edit out any text you don't want. For subsequent quotes within a post, use the icon that looks like a comic book quote balloon. Copy and paste text between the quote and close quote tags. Then you can add the person's name in the same format as the first quote in the post (quote name='m3838').

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's the point you've been trying to make all along, why did you include the word "theory" in the title of the thread? What has this to do with theory?

 

He didn't start the thread.

And for the record, I find his posts as easy to read as most others... I don't understand why some posters have felt the need to take a condescending tone about his posting/language ability. I think it's rude, whether they agree with his points or not.

 

Edited to add: I myself don't mean to come off harsh. I have enjoyed following this thread for the most part, but I just feel like people might sit back and take a deep breath before they respond or something. I think it's easy for anyone to forget to do this, hence this edit. Anyway, it's probably harder to get your point across to another if you've got your back up.

Edited by gretchen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it seems that my first thread has engaged some of the C-net populace quite deeply. I will say again that I am very grateful to those who took the time to tell us how they came to learn what they have learnt as players and (an - unexpected bonus this) as listeners. These (usually brief) posts don't form a good statistical sample but I think that I glean the following:-

 

People who have had a formal training have found that it added value to learning traditional music. When the training came after the learning, it lifted a veil. If it came before, it speeded the process. Yes, the contrary opinion has ben expressed in this thread but mostly from people who can only assume that they know what they have missed. Few who actually had formal training said that it was of no use.

 

There is no prevalent approach to learning traditional music but...

 

...individual, existing performers have been more influential on learners than broader, 'schools' or styles. This still worries me, to be frank. I find existing masters to be insiprational but I would hate to have learnt from the 'you only play it this way' school of excessive confidence. It takes an initial confidence of one's own to put such assertions in true perspective. However, it seems to me that many concertina players come to the instrument as adults so there is hope that they take all initial advice with a 'pinch of salt' and reach their own conclusions.

 

Individual performers have 'taught' as an outcome of their performances, not as their prime aim. This also worries me. I spent several years as a music lecturer. It has its own best practice which produces its own improved results.

 

I guess I could have deduced many of these conclusions but I have learnt many other unexpected things from this thread:

 

I have learnt that terminology can divide as well as unite. A benefit of formal training is that the common language that is used reduces the confusion that exists when trying to force local words into global concepts - 'variation' has been a good example in this thread.

 

There are those who still think that theory is an obstruction but there are differences as to what it is that is obstructed. For some, it hampers performance. For others, listening enjoyment. For others, playing enjoyment. It reminds me of the story that, if a bee knew how it was able to fly, it would fall down in shock. I don't see it that way. I think that, if a bee knew how it was able to fly it would get a kick out of being more efficient than a fighter 'plane. I would say that anything that produces confidence is beneficial and theory can only be positive from that point of view. True, many classical players say that nerves are an asset when performing because they focus the mind on the job in hand. Personally, nerves have always been a performance barrier for me and I do not welcome them. When I hear a nervous, traditional musician these nerves do seem to get in the way of their own enjoyment and the quality of the performance. So, I do concur that traditional music requires a spontaneity that is not such a strong feature of art music. But I still don't see what this has to do with knowing or not knowing the theory. Performance is an activity - theory is a state: they don't exist in the same time-frame. One does not compete with the other for mental 'elbow-room.'

 

I liked Kurt Braun's analogy of the canoe and the Queen Mary (see thread). If I read him correctly, he compares a complex vessel like an ocean liner to a complex piece of art-music, the canoe standing for a simple, traditional tune. I cannot claim to know how to build a (musical) Queen Mary but my training does allow me to read the blueprints. That knowledge would allow me to see the big, load-bearing structures as well as the small details. And my musical training allows exactly the same insight to traditional music. This benefit of being able to transfer knowledge from style to style is not the same as trying to see all styles from a single perspective. I only see what is there in the first place. For example, I have never seen a passamezzo structure in a traditonal piece so that particular aspect of music theory is not applicable. But I have seen a pazzamezzo chord sequence in traditional (English dance) music; so knowing where it comes from, historically and how it was intended to be performed, assists me to choose the right performance practice in that traditional context.

 

Much of the thread has been instrument-specific. Okay, it's a concertina forum. But I would point to the violin as (arguably) the core instrument of both classical and traditional music in the western canon. I hope that any musical examples that have been presented by posters could be stress-tested against that instrument.

 

My music school had a well-developed ethnomusicology department but it only studied existing traditions - it did not teach them. I believe that someone somewhere in England is working on performance examinations for concertina. I expect that these will require some theory to support elements like sight-reading and aural tests. This theory will probably be the generic classical theory used for exsiting instruments. But who will teach this theory and who is teaching the instruments? I would like to contribute to this development if anyone can point me in the right direction as I think that theoretical issues, such as selecting appropriate pieces for sight-reading, or for harmonisation, or similar could be enhanced by having a working knowledge of concertinas, certainly at higher grades of examination. If not me, then someone nominated by the concertina community, whatever that is.

 

I don't think that threads actually die on this forum but I feel that we have had thesis, antithesis and synthesis, at least to my satisfaction. Thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone.

I re-read my post, where I said that folk music with stage and performer is a joke and thik I really overstated the obvious. To an extend that in the heat of point making I'v made a moron out of myself.

OK, I take this line back and wish I never was posted. Sorry.

What I really meant was nicely stated by another poster as "Folk music is best experienced, when participated, then listened to at a concert".

My apologies.

Doesn't excuse me, when people feel offended. Didn't mean the harm, but harmed nontheless, deeply sorry. Specifically to Peter Laban and Bruce and many others, who perhabs, felt the same way.

My fault.

To make for it, I'll learn a set of reels from tune-o-tron page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

m3838 - guessing from your examples etc., are you Russian? Maybe part of the tangle here is the interpretation of the English word "skill". My Russian dictionary gives variously "isskusstvo", "umyeniye", "lovkost' ", "masterstvo" and "snorovka" (I'm using the Latin alphabet as I don't know whether my Windows Cyrillic will come out on your Linux system). I know enough Russian to see that these each have very definite and different connotations. I would probably agree with you that traditional music does not benefit from the addition of "isskusstvo" (like the Moyseyev ensemble), but I would say that "masterstvo" and "umyeniye" are integral to playing any instrument and any style ...

S uvazheniyem

Samantha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Russian is my mother tongue.

I think I use the word "skill" correctly. You're right though, these words do mean different things and if this discussion was held in Russian, there would be much less mis-interpretaion. I think in English we have "skill", "craft", "art" and more.

I'd say, in folk music "iskusstvo (art)", "masterstvo (crafsmanship)", "umenie (knowing how to)" are not as important as "lovkost (cleverness)" and "snorovka (experience, habit)". All this is not set in stone, of course.

I agree with Kurt Brown with his canoe example.

And I can't agree with Keeper, who says: most posters with training think the theory is good, while posters without training think it's redundant.

I think your training denominates the way you look at things. If we could take classically trained folk musician and 'untrain' him and then ask, whether he finds the theory useful, then we could have some tangible answer. But it's impossible, so we must rely on common sence and there is nothing to add after Kurt has expressed it.

I changed my veiws on folk music after watching some russian folk ensembles performing onstage. The music was simple, but the complexity of sound was such, that it allowed them to repeat the same phrazes over and over many times and there still was something to listen to: so many notes, drones, rhythm patterns. It was basically one chord, but with 7ths jumping in and basses dropping, then basses joiniing and 3ds dropping (grasping for air) and joining again. It was like one big complex object, constantly changing, rotating, with sun reflecting off it's rims. The only end to this carnage came after the dancers were out of breath.

So I thought: "hm, interesting". And forward came my assumption.

Another good post was stating that attractivness of folk music comes from it's simplicity. it looks like some people perceive "simplicity" as bad quality and try to prove that their beloved folk music (Irish in this case) is nothing, but simple. As though by proving it, they prove it's good. I think they take things upside down.

It is simplicity, that's appealing to people. It's music of the masses.

No matter how rigid the tradition is, how stricktly it is learned from an acclaimed master, the simplicity and easiness to understand and whistle to, makes it very democratic. Not "liberal", which is the quality of high society, but "democratic" - widely available, inexpencive and inclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you about training dominating the way you look at things. I would perhaps widen that to your experience dominating the way you look at things: a classically trained musician hears what s/he identifies as a classically defined chord sequence in a traditional piece - but which came first, the chord sequence or the definition? Or a traditional musician hears a string of notes written by Bach and plays it as a reel. There's nothing wrong in either of these approaches, they each arise from the experience of the individual concerned and, as far as I'm concerned, that is part of the beauty and variety of music-making.

As for the merits of simplicity with minimal variations giving the "shimmer" to a performance, that's not exclusive to "folk" music - think of Cage, Gorecki, Arvo Part to name but a few.

Samantha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you about training dominating the way you look at things. I would perhaps widen that to your experience dominating the way you look at things: a classically trained musician hears what s/he identifies as a classically defined chord sequence in a traditional piece - but which came first, the chord sequence or the definition?

I've just returned home from another evening of traditional Swedish music (I wish I could remember those tunes the next day), which leads me once again to suggest that "music theory" does not universally cross genres. While "classical" -- or even "Classical" -- music theory might be able to dictate interesting and even pleasant harmonies to the melodies I heard this evening, I doubt very much that it would prescribe the harmonies that were actually played against them. I further suspect that a "classical" analysis of the traditional harmonies would label many of them as "wrong", rather than explaining why they are what they are.

 

I think the harmonies traditionally used with contra dance and Morris dance music have more in common with classical music, and so classical music theory is more likely to be helpful with those sorts of music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter Laban

I think this can go round in circles for a long time, with essential points conveniently ignored.

 

I am not making the point irish music is a more complex music, compared to art music in order to make it more respectable. Obviously isn't, my argument is that while a simple music it has it own intricacies which I think (and as far as I can see it fair to say Jim Lucas is making the same point to an extend in his comment on the use of harmonies in swedish music) are not fully covered by 'classical' knowledge and should be taken at their own terms.

I gave examples of highly skilled musicians who were at a total loss outside their own discipline to illustrate the point. This point has not been addressed.

 

..individual, existing performers have been more influential on learners than broader, 'schools' or styles. This still worries me, to be frank. I find existing masters to be insiprational but I would hate to have learnt from the 'you only play it this way' school of excessive confidence. It takes an initial confidence of one's own to put such assertions in true perspective. However, it seems to me that many concertina players come to the instrument as adults so there is hope that they take all initial advice with a 'pinch of salt' and reach their own conclusions.

 

I think this example is again an 'outsider's' perspective. Literally thousands of young children in Ireland have taken up the concertina in an upsurge of popularity over the past ten years or so (in fact ten to fifteen percent of the population of my son's primary school plays the concertina). Tuition is (relatively) widely available. I don't think there's much to worry there.

 

There's a high percentage of people who come to an instrument in adulthood on the internet. Don't mistake that for what is going on in the real world, where the musical tradition is more alive than ever and being handed on from one generation to the next, developing and changing on it's own terms as it goes.

 

For some examples of teaching Irish music and it it's background at an academic level it may be worth looking at work being done at The World Music Centre at the University of Limerick : www.ul.ie/~iwmc/ and at a new third level institute which is being set up in my own locality, Oidhreacht an Chlair: www.oac.ie

Edited by Peter Laban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Literally thousands of young children in Ireland have taken up the concertina in an upsurge of popularity over the past ten years or so (in fact ten to fifteen percent of the population of my son's primary school plays the concertina). Tuition is (relatively) widely available. I don't think there's much to worry there.

 

I am truly happy to hear that, Peter. I play in the English tradition in England and I do not see the equivalent activity. This is not to say that the activity is absent but I think it is more noticeable by its absence than its existance.

 

But I confess to feeling rather hurt that Peter thinks my views express those of an outsider's perspective. I am not hurt for my own sake, it's just the whole idea that a music of the people can have outsiders. One of the interesting aspects of a tradition that has no recognised development systems is that participants are always reliant on other people's sufferance as to whether they have 'paid their dues' or not. I rather hoped that this thread might throw-up synergies between genres but it may have achieved the exact opposite. Readers might like to note that I came to all music after being an untrained, 'couldn't read a note' jazz pianist for several years. So, does that put me one step nearer the sainted vaults of 'keep it real' credibility as a 'fellow' player from an aural heritage, unspoilt by the evils of understanding, or does it push me further away as a dreaded jack-of-all-trades?

 

I have tried very hard to say that I am not restricting the concept of music theory to that of classical music but it seems that this point keeps being overlooked. My original post asked where people get their theoretical training for traditional music. It did not ask where they get their theoretical training for classical music.

 

I propose that a theory for each traditional music does exist but the one for western traditional music is characterised by being owned at a local, personal level (example coming up) and is thought so sinful and academic a concept that it may not speak its own name. Here's the example: I played for a morris side last week; as I was playing with them for the first time I asked what chords we used for a certain tune. The existing players were adamant that certain chords were 'not appropriate' to morris. We did not have time to discuss why this was as it was a practical, playing session. But such a clear and inflexible view suggested a set of rules which, if codifed, would constitute a theory for that genre. The words one might pick to record that set of assumptions/requirements might well be the common coin of a different, well-developed genre (high/low, quick/fast, smooth/staccato, accelerando/morendo, open/closed, etc). BUt that is not saying that the thoery is the same.

 

Jim Lucas posted...

I've just returned home from another evening of traditional Swedish music (I wish I could remember those tunes the next day), which leads me once again to suggest that "music theory" does not universally cross genres.

 

There is a highly codified music theory that comes from pre-classical, western art music in the form of pitch-modes from early monophony. (Very) basically, this allowed a much wider set of scales than we commonly use i art music today. This wider set of scales might well contain one which was a good 'fit' to the music that Jim describes (okay, I am speculating here as I have not heard Jim's pieces. But the point I am seem to be unable to convey is that the concept of a useful theory is not one that requires the imposition of classical theory. Theory exists in a wide range of musics. I just happen to know classical theory [amongst others] and I remain struck by the similarities with diatonic, strophic western traditional music. Yes, the joy lies in the differences, but when someone comes to music for the first time, you don't start by teaching them differences or what your tradition is 'not'. And without a set of basic, accepted building blocks applicable to the genre in hand I contend that things remain harder to learn.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...