hjcjones

I think it's all part of the process of learning an instrument. We live in a culture where we tend not to rely too much on our memory - we can write things down, or look up information in books or the internet. So it takes time to train the memory to retain tunes and songs (actually, the memory probably always retains them, the problem is retrieving what's in the memory). The more you do it, the easier it becomes. This is how actors can memorise long speeches, and singers and musicians can remember long songs or pieces of music. Similarly to Al, with a lot of tunes I don't have to remember in detail how to play them, in the sense of remembering all the fingerings. All I need to do is remember how the tune goes - I then have a lot of fingering patterns which over time have become hard-wired and which I can call upon to reproduce the tune. ( Sometimes this catches me out - a tune pops into my head and I start to play it, only to realise half-way through that I usually play it on a different instrument and/or a different key and that the "standard" fingering patterns don't work. Then I have to bluff my way through!) It's different with those musical phrases which can't be played with these standard fingerings - those I do have to think about, practice and memorise, and when I come back to a tune after a long interval I may have to struggle to recall the fingering I'd worked out. But the rest of the tune I can play by ear, I don't have to memorise the fingering for every note. I can concentrate on practising and memorising just the difficult or unusual bits. LDT, at your early stage of learning this probably sounds impossibly difficult and almost Zen-like. But it come down to practice and time. In time, if you work at it, you'll become so familiar with the instrument that you'll have the fingerings for common phrases hard-wired into your brain and will be able to call them up, and even decide between alternative fingerings, almost without thinking. And practice and repetition makes it easier to remember.

My impression (highly personal, subjective and unscientific!) of Anglo players in England, playing English music, is that most are men, although there is a sizeable minority of females.

Having re-read what I've written today, perhaps I've come across as more dogmatic than I intended to be - in my defence I was snatching moments at work and probably hadn't composed my thoughts as carefully as I should have done - always a mistake. I don't doubt Peter's knowledge and experience of the situation in Ireland and I'm more than happy to defer to him on this. I also agree with him that the heart of traditional music lies in the community - professional traditional music is (for me at least) a welcome addition, but the music could function and thrive perfectly well without it. However Ireland is in a somewhat privileged position, and for those of us who don't have such an active tradition around us (including possibly ITM outside Ireland where musicians aren't in direct contact with the traditional sources) the professionals do have a bigger part to play. Professionals are not the only influences, perhaps in some cases they are not even the major influences, and they are not always the best musicians. Nevertheless, they do reach more people than most of the rest of us, and in that respect their influence cannot be ignored. That is why in my opinion it is interesting to look at the emerging professionals - that's not to say that other musicians are not worth of consideration as well.

That's my point - how many people ever heard Martin Rochford play? It took a professional, Martin Hayes, to carry that sound to the world True, and no doubt I expressed myself badly. The point I was trying to make is that professionals often develop a distinctive personal style which is then copied by others. Of course that's not to say an amateur won't develop a personal style, but it's unlikely to be widely copied, unless a professional takes it up and disseminates it. Perhaps this is less true of Irish music, where I get the impression (it's not really my field) that a high value is placed on authenticity of style. In English music, instrumental styles on both concertina and melodeon have moved a long way from the traditional styles. The developments in technique and raising of standards generally have been driven largely by the professional and semi-professional players. Whether this is a good or bad thing is open to discussion, but perhaps not here!

I'm not even sure they are as opposed as seems to be coming across. What I'm talking about is influence, which is entirely different from whether or not they are better musicians. I'm not saying that the players Peter is talking about are any less deserving of attention than the professionals. But unless they are travelling, recording or broadcasting widely their influence is unlikely to extend much beyond their local communities - and if they are doing these things, the chances are they are being paid for it at least some of the time. What makes the professionals different is that their influence does extend much further beyond their local communities. It is therefore especially interesting to look at the emerging professionals in particular. Who will be the next Noel Hill, John Kirkpatrick or Alistair Anderson? I don't know. However I do know it's unlikely to be someone who plays only in their local community for the love of it. That's not a value judgement, it's simple reality.

"Ceilidh" is Scottish Gaelic, and "ceili" is the Irish. In England we have adopted the Scottish word, but as I explained above use it rather differently from its original meaning. (The Anglicised plural is "ceilidhs" - I've no idea what the Gaelic plural would be, but no doubt it includes most of the alphabet* ) This can be a source of confusion, especially amongst expat Scots, and it is often referred to as "English Ceilidh" or simply "eceilidh" *English spelling is of course invariably simple, consistent, logical and intuitive!

I entirely agree with your final paragraph. One of the things I value about folk music is that sense of involvement at all levels, and that there are so many wonderful musicians. I also value that the majority of the well-known players, professional or not, remain rooted in the tradition and that both amateur and professional players find it quite natural to be playing alongside one another. Ireland is undoubtedly fortunate in having a strong living tradition and developing players are not isolated from this. But Noel Hill, for example, give classes all around the world, and many of his pupils outside Ireland will not have the same opportunity. For myself, I had been involved in folk music for more than 10 years before I came across a "source" musician. I had unthinkingly bought into the widespread assumption that the English tradition had more or less died out at the time of Cecil Sharp. All my early influences were revival musicians, with the sole exception of the William Kimber LP. Now I have much greater access to traditional sources, both recorded and live, but the professionals remain my biggest influences, especially regarding instrumental technique. There is a small group of people who have chosen to make a living, or part of it, from folk music. There is a much wider group of equally competent musicians who for various reasons have chosen to make their livings in other ways. I'm not saying the latter are any less important, simply that their sphere of influence is smaller - they play to fewer people and are geographically more restricted.

I'm not suggesting they do. What I'm saying is that having sought out people to learn from, professionals then develop it and disseminate it to the rest of us. People all over the world learn from Noel Hill, but only a minority of his pupils will be in a position to seek out the traditional sources which influenced him, especially if they haven't recorded and are playing only within a relatively confined community.

Peter, they may have influenced you but their sphere of influence was largely limited to those communities they played in and those who were able to seek them out within those communities. You are also fortunate in living in a culture where the tradition continues. For most of us that is not the case. The professionals (among whom I include part-timers who also have "real jobs") both draw on tradition and add to it, and are able to reach out further as they travel around, and also through their recordings. For those of us who don't have an active tradition around us, they tend to be the biggest influences.

Nevertheless, it is the professionals who inspire the rest of us. There are undoubtedly many excellent amateur players in all traditions, but their influence is inevitably limited. It is the professionals who by their live performances, recordings and workshops drive up standards and increase the repertoires of the ordinary players. I think that was the point of the OP, not simply spotting the next "star".

With the usual I-am-not-a-lawyer disclaimer, my understanding of English contract law is that if someone has said "Yes I will buy your concertina" AND the parties have agreed the price, then a contract will arise. Offer, acceptance and consideration. I suspect that other legal jurisdictions work in a similar fashion. If one party then fails to perform, there is a breach of contract - whether that can be effectively enforced is another matter. However, if all you have done is expressed interest in the instrument then there is no contract and the vendor is free to deal with someone else. How they go about that may be more or less ethical, but that's how a free market works. It may not always be pretty, but on the whole it's proved to be better than the alternatives.

Be careful you don't limit yourself geographically by accident. This happened to me - I quoted shipping costs to UK but not for other regions, and failed to notice that ebay had interpreted this to mean that I was only willing to sell in the UK.

Be careful you don't limit yourself geographically by accident. This happened to me - I quoted shipping costs to UK but not for other regions, and failed to notice that ebay had interpreted this to mean that I was only willing to sell in the UK.

In England, "ceilidh" and "barn dance" are probably interchangeable. Someone within the folk scene would probably refer to a ceilidh (although the term is widely understood by non-folkies). Someone organising a dance for a non-folky audience eg a school PTA is very likely to call it a "barn dance". Apart from the barn dance being likely to attract a number of of people in checked shirts and cowboy hats, there's probably very little difference. My band describes itself as a "ceilidh band" but plays for events called by both names, but we don't alter what we do. "Country dance" means a specific style of dancing eg Playford. "Contra", as Richard suggested, is American in origin and similar to ceilidh in many respects.

Sometimes, but not always. Many hornpipes are undotted. The meaning of "hornpipe" varies over time and locality. Some are fast, some are slow. Rhythmically, tunes like the well-known "Sailors Hornpipe" and, say, "Gypsy's Hornpipe" have almost nothing in common. Not very helpful if you're trying to grasp the differences between the rhythms or work out how to accompany them, but that's how it is.

Richard's equation of "ceilidh" with the US "house party" is only partly true. That is the original sense of the word, and how it is used in Scotland, where it originates. However it has been appropriated by the English dancing community to mean something different. The differences in terminology are subtle, overlap, and vary locally. so it's all very confusing. But nowadays, in England, "ceilidh" means dancing, in a hall, with a live band and caller. The distinction is partly due to historical differences in the UK folk movement. About 30 years ago the folk dancers tended to dance in a certain way - walking rather than stepping, more interested in complex figures and often doing "composed" dances rather than traditional ones. The music didn't seem to be very lively or even very important - often they would dance to records rather than live bands, the important figure was the caller. A younger generation came along, often with a background in folk song and morris rather than social dance, saw these as old fuddy-duddies and wanted to liven things up. It was partly non-specialist dancers just wanting to have fun, but there was also a movement who wanted to rediscover the traditional dances and the old ways of doing them. So the "ceilidh" movement emerged, distinguished from "D4D" ("dances for dancers") by being more lively, involving more stepping, and crucially, relying on live bands. The bands themselves became hugely important, and the leading bands all have their own very distinctive styles, and followers. However callers are also important, and there are a number of "star" callers who are not tied to particular bands. A useful rule of thumb is: if the band is sitting down, playing from music, and includes an accordion, it's probably D4D. If the band is standing, playing without music, and includes a melodeon (and possibly sax, electric guitar or other non-folky instruments) it's probably ceilidh.

Like Peter, I support the right end and pump with the left. I don't think I consciously thought about this when I started, it just seemed natural. I share Peter's view that it's helpful to support the hand doing the more complex fingering, which in my case is usually the right. I tend to avoid complicated chords and often fudge the simple ones , so unlike Al I don't feel the need to support the left hand. I'm playing standing I'll often tuck in my right elbow to give some support, or even brace the instrument against the top of my thigh. However the point behind my original question was why the Irish players seem to sit the way they do. Does it come from the much more structured system of tuition they have there? Is it someone's idea of good style, which is passed on through the schools, or is it simply the the natural way to hold the instrument if you're playing in that style, which musicians have arrived at instinctively and independently? It doesn't look very comfortable to me, but it doesn't seem to hold them back!

Well its certainly snowy here, in the Cheshire Peak District, and a lovely sunny day with it. Beautiful!

Looking at the photos of many young players on the "Next Generation" thread, I was struck by the similar posture most of the Irish players adopt - slightly hunched, elbows tight in to the sides, knees together. Most English style players of my acquaintance seem to play with a more open posture, and elbows out! Is this because CCE teaches this, whereas most English musicians are self-taught and don't think too much about it? Or is it because the different styles make different physical demands? Just curious.

I manage to "stream digital output" to my home stereo by using a lead from the back of the computer to one of the inputs on the amp. Cost a bit less than $400.

Here's my two-penn'orth: 1) It is up to the vendor to decide what price they want to achieve. If people choose to sell to players rather than collectors, or to accept a lower price to support a developing player, that's their choice, but it is not immoral to want to get the best price, and people shouldn't be criticised for that. 2) It's up to the vendor to decide how they want to sell their instrument. It's no different from advertising in the local paper. All sorts of factors may influence the vendor's decision who to sell to, and it may not be the first person to make an offer, or the highest offer. Provided the reasons are not immoral or illegal (on grounds of race, for example) then that's the vendor's choice. Just because you're in the market and prepared to pay a good price, it doesn't mean you're entitled to buy the instrument. 3) Both parties should always act honestly. 4) At some point, the law of contract will apply (whose law, on an international forum, is another question). Once a deal is made, both parties have an obligation to complete it. 5) Both parties should act fairly. The problem is, different people may have different perceptions of what is "fair". If you feel you've been treated unfairly in a transaction, then I think it's reasonable to raise this on the forum, and for the other party to put their point of view. People can make up their own minds whether they'd want to deal with either party in future themselves. But at the end of the day, if more than one buyer is interested then most will be disappointed. 6) I think it's good practice for the vendor to clearly set out the rules for their transaction, and stick to them. But unexpected circumstances can arise eg a buyer willing to buy a job lot. Ultimately, it's the vendor's decision whether to sell.

It would be ideal, but the nature of the instrument dictates against it. Perhaps playing single-note style there's more opportunity to use alternative buttons to change direction, rather than use the air button. Playing chords, you're up against two problems - firstly, you're letting more air in or out than when playing a single note, so you run out of bellows more quickly. Secondly, chords played in different directions don't always contain the same notes and may have a different character; you may therefore want to play a phrase in a particular direction even if there is an alternative, because it sounds better. The only way to get around this is to use the air button. Good air button use really is the secret to good anglo playing. It was a revelation to me to realise that, as I pointed out earlier, you don't have to wait for a pause in the music to grab some air, you can do it while playing. I don't find the position of the air button to be awkward, but depending on your instrument and size of your hands, it can be awkward for some. Some people also find it difficult to move the thumb sideways when their other fingers are moving differently. It's all a question of practice.

I disagree. Of course, better at the end of a phrase than in the middle, but you still end up with a gasp of air and possibly also lose the rhythm of the tune. I use the air button at the same time as playing the notes. It may be necessary to increase the bellows pressure to maintain the volume, but with practice this becomes instinctive. By doing this, and using the air button little and often, I can keep the bellows where I want them, without running out of air in either direction. I also use cross-rowing to give me the option of playing the notes in the other direction. My advice is: little and often use the air button while playing, rather than waiting for a space where you can grab some air.

Yes, it's a great tune but that B music is a bit of a bugger! Howard

All I'm saying is that someone with natural ability at something still has to put in the work to develop that ability. Perhaps it's self-defining - surely "talent" is having the ability to rise above the average. Look at what happens in classical music, where there is a well-established training process, from Grade 1 leading up to the conservertoire. Clearly, anyone going through this process has musical aptitude and intelligence, and sufficient love and understanding of music to wish to submit themselves to a demanding regime. At the end of the process, the vast majority will turn out to be sufficently accomplished musicians to earn a living. However, only a tiny minority will have the something extra which enables them to become stars. Is that simply because they've worked harder than the others? I don't believe it - I think their study and practice will have been more effective because they have talent which the others lack. Absolutely, and more so in some genres than others. But I suspect it is not possible to sustain a succesful career on bullshit alone. Even those "celebrities" who seem to be famous for being famous have a talent of sorts, even if it's only for self-promotion. It depends how you approach it. If you believe that by continually striving to improve you'll get better, that's positive. But if you end up believing that the reason so-and-so is a star and you're not is because he's been luckier than you or that all you've got to do is to work harder, you'll end up disappointed - unless you do have talent yourself. Well of course, talent is only recognised after the fact. It takes success, whether financial or merely acclaim, to reveal the talent. Some people have talent, the way some people have charm. Hard work and application can go a long way to disguising the fact that one has neither, but are ultimately no substitute for the real thing