Is Irish Concertina Music Boring?

[m3838]

um....i personally find violin music BORING and saccharine-y in all genres but appalachian oldtime and traditional irish. but it wouldn't occur to me to make that a conclusive "objective" statement.

Please keep in mind that nobody claims these opinions to be objective and conclusive, except...you. Can you provide a reason why you concluded that abovemenioned opinions are what you think they are?

I like your style though, well written, but man, aren't you making sweeping generalizations, based on misreading the posts you reply to?

 

to express disdain that an instrument capable of playing chords would be used melodically in a given tradition shows some ignorance of ethnomusicology.

 

Nobody expressed any disdain, and you seem to be an expert in ethnomusicology, while onters, who prefer chordal playing, are ignoramus. Can you provide any evidence of the disdain expressed in terms, that would be stronger than yours?

 

a whacking great racket of chords and god-knows-what contrapuntal headache

 

Wonderfully expressed opinioin about music of Bach and other great contrapunctal composers, but what you describe, has as much connection to harmony, as scissors to a bycicle. Sounds like Tchaykovsky would be percieved as racket by your brain. I guess it happens. Or, perhaps, you may be a little ethno-exclusive, that happens too.

 

to my personal taste... the only way i find concertina beautiful or even bearable, is as a melody instrument

.

 

To my dismay I realized that I too, like concertina as a melody instrument better.

[m3838]

There is Russian proverb: "Measure 7 times to cut once"

And yet you, Mischa, seem to make a habit of, "Measure once, then cut/stab/attack seven times."

In some areas, but not others. But I'm more into shoot first, think later, you're right. Doesn't mean the proverb is wrong though, does it?

My 6 year old just told me the music is rhythm. Hmm. She strongly dislikes me playing my English, but jumps to dancing every time I pick up accordion or ukulele.

Doesn't surprise me. Here in the C.net Forums you've repeatedly made it clear that you dislike -- I might even suspect "despise" -- the EC and many things about it, while you strongly prefer the accordion. I would be surprised if that was not reflected in your playing or perceived by your daughter.

Actually, this may be a good thought. It may be true, that I'm trying to wrench something out of my EC, that it's not capable of delivering. I'm viciously recording myself and re-playing parts over and over, searching for something, that feels right and natural, but have great difficulties with it.

I'll think about it. It would be a pity to abandon EC, for it's layout just suits me like a glove.

There you have it. And who's to say that MY little one is wrong? Anyone to challenge her?

I won't say she's wrong... at least not about your playing.

Now that was good. Un-asked for, but good.

But she's certainly no more right than me.

You wish, my friend, you wish.

Be warned.

Warned? Of what? Are you planning to attack me over the head with a large accordion? Or maybe just play your EC at me?

 

Ah, a good idea! Be warned!

P.S.

Not the accordion, that was bad idea. The other one.

[m3838]

There is no need for mixed feelings. You do as you wish, but don't get surprized, when somebody says that Irish music or concertina is boring. It has become very difficult to find something different from that one Irish CD that you got 10 years ago.

 

???? Sounds like you just don't like Irish trad music at all, m3838. Methinks you should just avoid it ... each to their own. The best thing at the end of the day is to play your local music - the folk music and culture of that where you grew up and/or reside.

 

 

You are right in the second half of your sencence, but wrong in the first. I like all kinds of ethnic music, but i'm not immerced in Irish, why would I be? I'm personally dismayed (but not surprized) by the sheer number of mediocre wannabees with access to superb technology, and the energy, with which they play "me too" game. Bad taste and kitch, always prevalent, becomes a curse. It ruined Piano Accordion (Welk anyone?).

[m3838]

and this

I guess women are just inherently better than men.

[Mark Evans]

and this

I guess women are just inherently better than men.

 

Misha, you have hit upon an elemental truth! Women are better than men and I love it! As the old time song "There's a light in the window tonight" tells me, women are the reason most of us lads aren't hunched over barbarians!

Edited April 22, 2008 by Mark Evans

[m3838]

YES Everybody should be able to express him/herself, no frontiers.

 

There is no free lunch and if you fool with decency, traditional values and common folks, there will and was and will be backlash. Then you'll be wondering why homosexuals, artisans and aristorcrats are hanging from the lamp posts? Reason and measure is the only tool for freedom and democracy. Including CD making and music.

We may not like the idea of self-discipline, but it's the only method of surviving.

The biggest danger of excesses of free speach is provoking the masses to long for a fascist. We all can either contribute to surviving and prosperity, or to destruction. In our own very little and harmless ways, of course.

[bill_mchale]

You are right in the second half of your sencence, but wrong in the first. I like all kinds of ethnic music, but i'm not immerced in Irish, why would I be? I'm personally dismayed (but not surprized) by the sheer number of mediocre wannabees with access to superb technology, and the energy, with which they play "me too" game. Bad taste and kitch, always prevalent, becomes a curse. It ruined Piano Accordion (Welk anyone?).

 

The thing about Irish Music, and I suspect any purely instrumental music, is that you have to be immersed in it to really get it. Otherwise, I think, you tend to just sort of hear the general of the music. Hence, lots of people will have one or two Chieftan CDs, but the number of people who actually buys lots of different ITM CDs is far smaller. The same I think is often true of classical, bluegrass, cajun, or whatever other instrumental tradition you care to name. But to the people who are immersed in a particular genre, well, a new world opens up.

 

--

Bill

[m3838]

The thing about Irish Music, and I suspect any purely instrumental music, is that you have to be immersed in it to really get it.

 

Wrong. Sorry. Just a myth. Sometimes self-justifying.

[bill_mchale]

The thing about Irish Music, and I suspect any purely instrumental music, is that you have to be immersed in it to really get it.

 

Wrong. Sorry. Just a myth. Sometimes self-justifying.

 

And your proof that it is just a myth is?

 

--

Bill

[m3838]

The thing about Irish Music, and I suspect any purely instrumental music, is that you have to be immersed in it to really get it.

 

Wrong. Sorry. Just a myth. Sometimes self-justifying.

 

And your proof that it is just a myth is?

 

--

Bill

 

My own experience. I can listen lightly and get bored, or I can listen intently, carefully following the lines and the rhythm, working with the performance, then I just don't have time to get bored. There is easy listening and more serious listening, easy music and more serious music. If the music is unfamiliar, it may take second intence listening, but that's all. Irish, chinese, japanese - you name it. Easy - peasy.

One can agrue the opposite is true: you can't percieve the beauty of your own language, you need the distance of second one to appreciate and compare. So Immersion in a particular style will hinder appreciation, as you'll be naturally biased.

And your prove that it's not a myth is?

[Henk van Aalten]

As "boring" is not an objective property of music, you can only speak of people that can get bored in a certain degree. I myself am (or get) almost never bored.

[bill_mchale]

The thing about Irish Music, and I suspect any purely instrumental music, is that you have to be immersed in it to really get it.

 

Wrong. Sorry. Just a myth. Sometimes self-justifying.

 

And your proof that it is just a myth is?

 

--

Bill

 

My own experience. I can listen lightly and get bored, or I can listen intently, carefully following the lines and the rhythm, working with the performance, then I just don't have time to get bored. There is easy listening and more serious listening, easy music and more serious music. If the music is unfamiliar, it may take second intence listening, but that's all. Irish, chinese, japanese - you name it. Easy - peasy.

One can agrue the opposite is true: you can't percieve the beauty of your own language, you need the distance of second one to appreciate and compare. So Immersion in a particular style will hinder appreciation, as you'll be naturally biased.

And your prove that it's not a myth is?

 

Simple, my own experience coupled with the experience of watching casual listeners in my local musical venues. My personal experience is, the more I listen to any genre, the more I usually learn to appreciate it (even if I am not converted into a fan of it) and to understand what the musicans are doing. Whenever I discuss predominantly instrumental music with others, particularly non-musicians, I find that far more often than not, the ones who don't actively listen to a particular genre regularly tend to view that genre as a single piece. Beethoven and Bach are dismissed as "Classical Music" and Irish Music is just that "didly stuff".

 

After Irish Music forming the background music of my life (both my parents being off the boat from the West of Ireland, it was often the only Music played regularly in our house) I thought I knew it pretty well until I started learning to play it. Even now, after playing the stuff for 6 years, I can still pick up a CD I have listened to a dozen times and hear new things. It has improved my ability to listen to other instrumental genres, but I think it would be very bold to say I "get" them.

 

I would also argue that your analogy with language is flawed. One doesn't really understand a language unless one is immersed in it. There are exceptions, but the great literature in any language is usually written by those who have spoken it all (or at least most) of their lives.

 

--

Bill

[m3838]

Simple, my own experience

 

Which proves that i'm correct.

If you state that 1+1=2, it must be correct in all ocasions, and you will be required to prove it time and time again.

But to disprove it, I only have give one example, where it doesn't work.

If my experience differs from yours, the theory is flawed, and your statement is a myth.

Of course I can't sufficiently prove that I'm onest, and so can't you.

So it'll be fair to say that to ME it is a myth, and I have enjoyed many folk genres without been immersed in them.

 

the more I listen to any genre, the more I usually learn to appreciate it

 

This is very different statement from your earlier. The more you listen, the more you appreciate - agree. But you don't have to be immersed.

There is an ocean of difference between listening to the opera and been immersed in opera life.

Granted, professionals understand nuances, that are absent for bystanders, but sinse there is no such thing as "fully understand" and professionals may be less talented listeners than bystanders, we can't argue that to really appreciate and understand Irish music, one has to live in Ireland, speak Gaelic and play concertina. Now to present Irish music it can be argued, that one has to fit all of the above parameters.

[chiton1]

YES Everybody should be able to express him/herself, no frontiers.

 

There is no free lunch and if you fool with decency, traditional values and common folks, there will and was and will be backlash. Then you'll be wondering why homosexuals, artisans and aristorcrats are hanging from the lamp posts? Reason and measure is the only tool for freedom and democracy. Including CD making and music.

We may not like the idea of self-discipline, but it's the only method of surviving.

The biggest danger of excesses of free speach is provoking the masses to long for a fascist. We all can either contribute to surviving and prosperity, or to destruction. In our own very little and harmless ways, of course.

 

I am only referring here to cultural expression (All the arts with a big A or with a small a). I have no problem with self discipline (the word self is important though), but why do I always get the impression you want to impose discipline on others. And who will be the judge? You? Me? Self imposed reason and measure OK, imposed by others and goodbye to freedom and democracy.

[chiton1]

Simple, my own experience

 

Which proves that i'm correct.

If you state that 1+1=2, it must be correct in all ocasions, and you will be required to prove it time and time again.

But to disprove it, I only have give one example, where it doesn't work.

If my experience differs from yours, the theory is flawed, and your statement is a myth.

Of course I can't sufficiently prove that I'm onest, and so can't you.

So it'll be fair to say that to ME it is a myth, and I have enjoyed many folk genres without been immersed in them.

 

the more I listen to any genre, the more I usually learn to appreciate it

 

This is very different statement from your earlier. The more you listen, the more you appreciate - agree. But you don't have to be immersed.

There is an ocean of difference between listening to the opera and been immersed in opera life.

Granted, professionals understand nuances, that are absent for bystanders, but sinse there is no such thing as "fully understand" and professionals may be less talented listeners than bystanders, we can't argue that to really appreciate and understand Irish music, one has to live in Ireland, speak Gaelic and play concertina. Now to present Irish music it can be argued, that one has to fit all of the above parameters.

 

I agree that to listen and appreciate any kind of music you not necessarely have to be immersed in it (although it can help to understand it better), but to play it well enough with a some degree of credebility a certain immersion is needed. You do not need to live in Ireland, speak Gaelic and play the concertina (it surely will help, but there are other ways).

[hjcjones]

I don't normally get worked up about threads on this forum. however....

 

If Irish music on concertina is considered boring because it does not use hormonics enough, frankly I think the argument is weak.

That was never may principal argument. My main reason is a sense that the music doesn't seem to flow as well from concertina as it does from other instruments. It doesn't help that I prefer the harmonic sound from a concertina, but that wasn't my main argument, and I wasn't advocating that ITM should be more harmonic. I was simply explaining that this is an additional factor which hinders my appreciation of it.

There are many different species of concertina player out there. Dare I suggest that you do some more research before concluding that Irish concertina music is boring?

Perhaps I will.

[michael stutesman]

While talent certainly plays a role (i.e. some people simply can't play a concertina well, and some people can't play any instrument well), I would say that many have a moderate amount of talent.

Well, talent is not "certainly plays a role", but is the most cruicial element in everything.

And if you disagree, try going back to that restorant for lunch, that you have been avoiding. Like for a week, and try to see, if the food gets any better, if you really try to get used to it.

Should that talent be nurtured at a young enough age, and should the player be dedicated enough,

OK, yes, I misspoke. I agree, that talent should be spotted and the doors opened. I meant someone without talent can't develop talent in others. And that talent usually resists such "development" and either dies, or overcomes it.

 

I think there is enough evidence to show that there is a strong correlation between the level of work, and the level of skill.

Practice makes perfect. But it has only very marginal relation to the amount of talent, and even to it's presence.

(in fact, I remember a study that was published a couple of years ago that showed that amongst classical musicians there was a direct correlation between the amount of time spent practicing and the level of success they achieved.)

Rubbish completus. Thousands of highly skilled pianists and guitarists, whose only chance is a career of a one-on-one teacher, could have used that study appropriately, if the paper was soft enough.

 

That study you dismiss so easily was quite elegant in my opinion. It divided violinists into four groups. The first group were professionals at the top of their field, the second group were professionls, the third group were semi-professional and the fourth talented amateurs. They then interviewed them and found out how many hours they had practiced their insturment before the age of twenty. There was a direct linear correlation. The top professionals had put in 20,000 hours of practice by age twenty, the next group 15,000, the next 10,000, the amateurs 5,000. If there is any talent involved it is a talent for single mindedness and perserverence that determines who becomes a world class musician. Thousands of children have been labeled as 'untalented' by idiots who think they know something and unfortunately many children take this to heart and never attempt to make music again. Music is a learned skill like anything else. In my opinion, with the rare exception of a true prodigy, most wonderful musicians got that way by hard work and practice!! Inborn talent is a bogus concept.

[m3838]

I lost my reply.

Ok.

It divided violinists into four groups.

Why only four? Are there only four groups of violinists? Flaw number one.

The first group were professionals at the top of their field, the second group were professionls, the third group were semi-professional and the fourth talented amateurs.

Only "talented" amateurs? Very clever to leave out "untalented" amateurs. But it doesn't say anything about whether professionals were "talented"? Flaw number two.

They then interviewed them and found out how many hours they had practiced their insturment before the age of twenty.

Why 20? Flaw number three.

There was a direct linear correlation.

Exactly! Direct and very linear. How convinient! Flaw number four. (Or falcification).

If there is any talent involved it is a talent for single mindedness and perserverence that determines who becomes a world class musician.

Certainly! If only a child is forced to put 20000 hours of practice before the age of 20, he can become Yasha Hayfetz. Familiar motive. It was used ironically in the book "Wondering Stars" by Sholom Aleyhem. And by the way, flaw number five.

Thousands of children have been labeled as 'untalented' by idiots who think they know something and unfortunately many children take this to heart and never attempt to make music again.

Wrong! Kids drop out not because they believe they have no talent, but because it's hard work, and they envy their peers, who they percieve as having good time. Nobody I know or imagine can say to a child that he/she has no talent and should drop out. It's unheard of!

most wonderful musicians got that way by hard work and practice!! Inborn talent is a bogus concept.

You are simply kidding yourself.

The study is an attempt to get government grant and eat free bread.

There are thousands of such and they prove anything for whoever pays them.

And by the way, how many hours before he age of 20 did practice G.W.Bush and Clinton?

Or politics is not like music, it's not learned skill, but talent? So how much talent these two guys have? So much for justifying worthiness those at the top.