Is Irish Concertina Music Boring?

[bill_mchale]

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.

 

 

Actually, it doesn't prove that my statement is a myth. You are applying rules of mathematical proofs to observations in the real world. In the real world, we first have to understand the reason for the discrepency. Ultimately, the single biggest factor in all of this is probably observer bias (which I will admit, neither of us has made any real attempt to adjust for observer bias. The very fact that you believe you can understand everything going on in a CD after two listenings might in fact prevent you from hearing more.

 

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.

 

Who is talking about being immersed in the life? I am talking about being immersed in the music. Listening to it over and over until you really understand what is going on.

 

I will grant that different genres just seem to grab different people so that they do immerse themselves.

 

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 never said you had to be immersed in Irish Culture, I said you had to be immersed in the music. Listen to it over and over again until you understand what is going on.

 

I would also say, that generally a professional or even an amateur musican probably better listeners than non musicians simply because they need to listen better. Indeed in Oral traditions like Irish Music, the musicians need to be excellent listeners. That being said, I will agree that many non musicians are excellent listeners.. but even they will have to immerse themselves in the music to really understand it.

 

--

Bill

[bill_mchale]

I lost my reply.

Ok.

It divided violinists into four groups.

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

 

Its not a flaw; its simply the methodology that is used to sort the data.

 

If you disagree with the methodology, that is fine, but you need to specify why the methodology is flawed, and further, how you would go about to perform the survey in a more valid method.

 

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.

 

Talented amateurs was simply a used as a measure of achievement. The other categories were specified with a presumption that they have achieved a minimum level of proficiency. I.e., a professional musician is likely to be more talented than a semi-professional and a professional at the top of their field (like a soloist) is going to be more proficient still.

 

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.

 

Lets see, you have never read the study, but without understanding the methodology, you are attacking it? I haven't read the study either, but I think it is probably pretty easy to see that 20 is around that age where a musician has to decide what role music will play in their life. If you are going to be a professional playing in an Orchestra, or even more a soloist, you will probably need to be accepted into a top flight music school like Julliard or the Peabody. When you are 20 and decide you will never be more than an amateur, you will almost by definition spend more time on other pursuits than you might have before.

 

There was a direct linear correlation.

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

 

So now, let me understand this; you have never read the study, you have never looked at the data, but since it disagrees with your perception of the world, you are accusing it of falsifying the data!

 

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.

 

Well, I certainly would not, myself, say that talent plays no role. But I think I personally think it is one of several ingriedients necessary for success. I think what Edison said about Invention is true for muical proficiency as well; 1 percent inspiration, 99 percent persperation.

 

Further, I doubt you can force someone to practice that much; it can ultimately only come from passion. Few people without that passion would practice the average of 24 hours a week (Between the age of 4 and 16) that 20,000 hours would require.

 

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!

 

I am glad you live in such a world. But the rest of us live in a world where kids are often discouraged by parents (who are unwilling to make the sacrifices that a kid having such passion requires), peers, etc. I will grant that many will drop out because of the fun of the Wii, or playing football with the guys, but in a house where music is not valued, it is likely that there will be subtle queues that the kids will pick up on that their music is not valued.

 

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.

 

I will agree with you here that talent is a factor, but it is but one factor in the measure of sucess. There are probably lots of people out there with talent who never put in the time or eneregy necessary to develop their talents.

 

I also agree that talent is involved in politics, and I am sure Bill Clinton, but the practice of it is more natural since it comes from dealing with people every day. Though at the same time, I would say that G.W. Bush is proof that talent is not necessary for success; having talented people working for you can make up the deficit.. particuarly when your opinions are not extraordinarily talneted themselves.

 

--

Bill

[Phantom Button]

This thread, as popular as seems to be, is a waste of time and pointless IMHO. Since it is an unwarranted attack on Irish concertina music I will put it bluntly.

 

Some people realize they're never going to gain the mastery they might hear on a given instrument and either keep trying anyway for the fun and enjoyment (like me)... or they give up and change their objective to something more within their reach. Then there are others who when realizing they will never attain the extremely technical playing they're hearing from the masters will find it necessary to tear down the art so they can give up on their attempt without having to admit to their own shortcomings.

 

Having said that I will add that there are many different Irish concertina styles to choose from; some more demanding than others, but none are boring to people who love ITM on concertina. If you find it boring -- play and or listen to something else.

[JimLucas]

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?

Not at all. ... But maybe I should start wearing a bulletproof vest?

 

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

Ah, there's your problem... you're supposed to have your hands outside the concertina, not inside!

 

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.

I'm looking forward to it.

[PeterT]

But maybe I should start wearing a bulletproof vest?

You do tease, Jim. Maybe the time to get worried is when m3838 says nice things about your playing.

[Cogsey]

Just read Ptarmigan's comments which I probably should have read before I went off on my rant. I agree fully.

 

I also gave up the wet sounding PS box - some 20 years ago - in favour of a honey toned Jeffries.

 

Ciaran

[viejomc]

Many analytical minds here. I'm way to simple to understand what most of you are talking about. I find no music boring. Some genres move my soul more that others, some make me want to dance. I attempt to play Irish Anglo becasue it's fun and the instrument feels good in my hands. It's also fun to watch egos puff up like a toad on this forum. You all amaze me.

[chiton1]

Many analytical minds here. I'm way to simple to understand what most of you are talking about. I find no music boring. Some genres move my soul more that others, some make me want to dance. I attempt to play Irish Anglo becasue it's fun and the instrument feels good in my hands. It's also fun to watch egos puff up like a toad on this forum. You all amaze me.

 

 

So this topic serves a purpose after all

[bill_mchale]

Many analytical minds here. I'm way to simple to understand what most of you are talking about. I find no music boring. Some genres move my soul more that others, some make me want to dance. I attempt to play Irish Anglo becasue it's fun and the instrument feels good in my hands. It's also fun to watch egos puff up like a toad on this forum. You all amaze me.

 

Ribbet.

 

--

Bill

[Henk van Aalten]

Many analytical minds here. I'm way to simple to understand what most of you are talking about. I find no music boring. Some genres move my soul more that others, some make me want to dance. I attempt to play Irish Anglo becasue it's fun and the instrument feels good in my hands. It's also fun to watch egos puff up like a toad on this forum. You all amaze me.

I say:

AMEN!

[m3838]

You are applying rules of mathematical proofs to observations in the real world. In the real world,

I don't see any problem with this. Why shouldn't we? If you make a statement, and it doesn't work for me, it means the statement is not universally truthful, or wrong.

 

The very fact that you believe you can understand everything going on in a CD after two listenings might in fact prevent you from hearing more.

Where have I said that?

 

I will grant that different genres just seem to grab different people so that they do immerse themselves.

In that sense I will agree with you.

 

 

I never said you had to be immersed in Irish Culture, I said you had to be immersed in the music. Listen to it over and over again until you understand what is going on.

If I remember correctly the tone and phrazing of your initial statement was that you really have to be into the style, to appreciate it and go beyond the "Tiddly-Diddly", and it was a response to my complain, that it has become very difficult to shuffle through hundreds of CDs, put out by "wannabees", whose music is indistinguishable from each other and, besides "me-too" attitude, doesn't present anything new to the listener. Especially in toaday's Irish music, with it's repetitiveness and obsession with speed and unnecessary ornamentation. You replied in defence of your passion, because you don't find these piles of CDs boring. Which means you are heavily biased towards Irish Culture. My reply was that you don't have to be afficionado to understand the spark of talent and sift if out of the rest. Usually it helps to get back to the beginning of the discussion. Yes, the more you listen, the more you understand, but guess what? The more you listen to mediocracy, the better you understand the lack of content, and for a good listener twice is usually enough. I just got a CD with Moor Music, with two wet tuned accordions, banjo and concertina. First time aroiund I got tired from all that rackett, but my curiousity was satisfied. Second time around I have adjusted myself, and close to the end of the CD I found my listening "niche". I think it's a good CD, a keeper. Not the best, but a keeper, worthy getting into. It's usually the trend with me. OK, take three or four times, is that enough? After Fourth time am I allowed to decide that such and such player or group is just make-belief?

 

I would also say, that generally a professional or even an amateur musican probably better listeners than non musicians simply because they need to listen better.

Agree to that too.

[tamborileru]

Well, I don't think that Irish music is bored. I am not Irish, I'm Spanish, but I love Irish music., and I think that it's a wonderful music.

 

I had read some of yours posts, and I think that the problem is that in the sessions the music seems the same, and the differences between the diferents groups are not big because the rythms are the same: reels and jigs.

 

However, I think Irish musics must be more "rich" (is this expression correct?) than balads, reels and jigs, but is necesary to investigate, to search deeper into the traditions of Irish people.

 

I compare the "Irish case" with the "Spanish case". When I wrote in this forums the first times, when Juliette Daum talked us about her "Mallorca, dulce y picante", I said that most of times from Spain only were known, from tradicional music, "flamenco" and "sevillanas". Is the "label" of Spain: flamenco, sevillanas, Sun, paella and bulls. But, if you can visit Spain and you have enought time, you can see than Spain is much more than this.

 

Reffering to traditional music, in Salamanca (Spain) we don't dance sevillanas, we have (in music) 4 traditional rythms: "pasacalles", "charro verdadero", "charrada" and "jota". And Salamanca is only one of the 50 "provincias" (states?) of Spain.

 

Well, to finish with my post, I think that Irish music isn't bored, is a wonderful music.

[m3838]

If you disagree with the methodology, that is fine, but you need to specify why the methodology is flawed, and further, how you would go about to perform the survey in a more valid method.

The valid method should have been to figure out how many different groups of violinists there are, and research accordingly. Otherwise the study is not sophisticated enough to pass the treshhold of becoming scientific.

 

a professional musician is likely to be more talented than a semi-professional and a professional at the top of their field (like a soloist) is going to be more proficient still.

This logic leaves out the common truth, known to everybody above the age of 7: that cocial success comes to smooth shmoozers, not necessarily to the more talented.

Vice versa, the more talented you are, the more likely you are to be misunderstood and feared by your superiours. Top flight academic musicians are not the most talented musicians, they are the best employees.

 

20 is around that age where a musician has to decide what role music will play in their life.

It's a bogus concept, because life is far more complex than that. The study, from your words, focuses on bystander's perseption that music is learned in the conservatory and performed in top music halls. It is not true. It only considers technique and gives too much (un-earned) respect to officialdom.

 

 

There was a direct linear correlation.

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

 

So now, let me understand this; you have never read the study, you have never looked at the data, but since it disagrees with your perception of the world, you are accusing it of falsifying the data!

 

Yes, precisely! There is no, and cannot be a simple linear correlation in statistics, based on such primitive approach. Why should I spend my time reading such "data"?

 

Well, I certainly would not, myself, say that talent plays no role.

Well, actually you did. But I'm glad you take it back.

Further, I doubt you can force someone to practice that much; it can ultimately only come from passion.

It goes without saying.

 

Nobody I know or imagine can say to a child that he/she has no talent and should drop out. It's unheard of!

I am glad you live in such a world. But the rest of us live in a world where kids are often discouraged by parents (who are unwilling to make the sacrifices that a kid having such passion requires),

My pity to the rest of the world then. If such is the common practice, Josef Brodsky is right, saying that "only 5% of people deserve to be able to read and write"

[m3838]

But maybe I should start wearing a bulletproof vest?

You are wearing it quite professionally.

 

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

Ah, there's your problem... you're supposed to have your hands outside the concertina, not inside!

Ah, I see. No wonder...

I'm looking forward to it.

Working on it. But the moment I turn the recorder on I am forgetting where the buttons are inside of that glove...

[bill_mchale]

You are applying rules of mathematical proofs to observations in the real world. In the real world,

I don't see any problem with this. Why shouldn't we? If you make a statement, and it doesn't work for me, it means the statement is not universally truthful, or wrong.

 

The problem is that Mathematics is not about perception. We have no way of knowing if you really understand what you hear well enough to make a judgment on it. As far as I know, you could believe that Edel Fox, Tim Collins and Micheál Ó Raghallaigh fall under the list of "wannabees". Such a belief, in sharp contrast to that of Irish Musicians whose opinions I value very highly would certainly suggest that perhaps you are not quite as capable of distinguishing the good stuff as you think (Though in fairness, I have not heard you express that opinion, I am using this as a hypothetical).

 

The very fact that you believe you can understand everything going on in a CD after two listenings might in fact prevent you from hearing more.

Where have I said that?

 

It certainly seemed to be what you were implying in post #100

 

I will grant that different genres just seem to grab different people so that they do immerse themselves.

In that sense I will agree with you.

 

 

I never said you had to be immersed in Irish Culture, I said you had to be immersed in the music. Listen to it over and over again until you understand what is going on.

If I remember correctly the tone and phrazing of your initial statement was that you really have to be into the style, to appreciate it and go beyond the "Tiddly-Diddly", and it was a response to my complain, that it has become very difficult to shuffle through hundreds of CDs, put out by "wannabees", whose music is indistinguishable from each other and, besides "me-too" attitude, doesn't present anything new to the listener. Especially in toaday's Irish music, with it's repetitiveness and obsession with speed and unnecessary ornamentation. You replied in defence of your passion, because you don't find these piles of CDs boring. Which means you are heavily biased towards Irish Culture. My reply was that you don't have to be afficionado to understand the spark of talent and sift if out of the rest. Usually it helps to get back to the beginning of the discussion. Yes, the more you listen, the more you understand, but guess what? The more you listen to mediocracy, the better you understand the lack of content, and for a good listener twice is usually enough. I just got a CD with Moor Music, with two wet tuned accordions, banjo and concertina. First time aroiund I got tired from all that rackett, but my curiousity was satisfied. Second time around I have adjusted myself, and close to the end of the CD I found my listening "niche". I think it's a good CD, a keeper. Not the best, but a keeper, worthy getting into. It's usually the trend with me. OK, take three or four times, is that enough? After Fourth time am I allowed to decide that such and such player or group is just make-belief?

 

My point was and remains this. You seem to believe that regardless of how familiar you are with the genre, that you are capable of sifting out the people who are truly talented in that genre of music. Without being fully familiar with the musical genre, without listening to it frequently and intently, I just don't see how anyone can be an adequate judge of how good the musician is, or the music on it. Each musical genre has its own language; no one is qualified to understand all of them. I can no more sift out the most talented Moorish Music than I could sift out the most talented French Poetry. As a result, I am incredulous to anyone who claims to be able to spot talent whether it be in music or poetry in genres/languages they are not intimately familiar with.

 

Granted, the speed of modern Irish Music, and its emphasis on ornamentation may not be your cup of tea, but they are the features of the Tradition as it stands today. Your very dislike of those features of the music might in fact predispose you to not see the talent when it is standing right in front of you.

 

--

Bill

Edited April 23, 2008 by bill_mchale

[bill_mchale]

If you disagree with the methodology, that is fine, but you need to specify why the methodology is flawed, and further, how you would go about to perform the survey in a more valid method.

The valid method should have been to figure out how many different groups of violinists there are, and research accordingly. Otherwise the study is not sophisticated enough to pass the treshhold of becoming scientific.

 

With respect, I think this says more about your view of what is and what isn't scientific than it does about the study. Simply put, no matter how many groups of violinists you care to specify, you could always claim that some groups are left out until you end up creating a set of groups that is equal to, or even larger than the total number of violinists in the survey. Science routinely must simply the selection set to basic, usually fairly broad categories. This is particularly true when dealing with human populations where perceptions can be skewed by cultural bias.

 

a professional musician is likely to be more talented than a semi-professional and a professional at the top of their field (like a soloist) is going to be more proficient still.

This logic leaves out the common truth, known to everybody above the age of 7: that cocial success comes to smooth shmoozers, not necessarily to the more talented.

Vice versa, the more talented you are, the more likely you are to be misunderstood and feared by your superiours. Top flight academic musicians are not the most talented musicians, they are the best employees.

 

Well lets see, we are discussing neither social success, nor the ability to get jobs as "academic musicans". We are discussing performing musicians. Yes, there are possibly some exceedingly skilled musicians who can't make it to the top because of social faults, but top flight orchestras become top flight orchestras because they get the best musicians and the best artistic directors and the best conductors. Indeed, it is often the case that famous musicians are often not as socially adept as those successful in other fields.

 

20 is around that age where a musician has to decide what role music will play in their life.

It's a bogus concept, because life is far more complex than that. The study, from your words, focuses on bystander's perseption that music is learned in the conservatory and performed in top music halls. It is not true. It only considers technique and gives too much (un-earned) respect to officialdom.

 

I see you have a great amount of confidence in your own ability to judge talent, but not in anyone else's. I doubt you will find many who truly listen to classical music who believe that the musicians who play for the New York Philharmonic, the London Symphony Orchestra or the Boston Pops did not get there by talent; there is a reason why if you go looking for Classical CDs, that the "top-flight" orchestras tend to predominate; they are better. People who buy those CDs listen to classical music a lot, and they know the music and they know what is good and what isn't.

 

In any case, the specific study addresses classical music; age 20 is a reasonable cut off for this study for the reasons given above.

 

There was a direct linear correlation.

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

 

So now, let me understand this; you have never read the study, you have never looked at the data, but since it disagrees with your perception of the world, you are accusing it of falsifying the data!

 

Yes, precisely! There is no, and cannot be a simple linear correlation in statistics, based on such primitive approach. Why should I spend my time reading such "data"?

 

 

And your qualifications for making such a statement? You don't even know what the approach was! Yet you are sure that it was primitive. Sorry if I remain unconvinced by your argument.

 

Well, I certainly would not, myself, say that talent plays no role.

Well, actually you did. But I'm glad you take it back.cp -pr paris /dp_small/home/delabeau/

 

Further, I doubt you can force someone to practice that much; it can ultimately only come from passion.

It goes without saying.

 

Perhaps, but such passion and hard work are at least as important to success as raw talent.

 

Nobody I know or imagine can say to a child that he/she has no talent and should drop out. It's unheard of!

I am glad you live in such a world. But the rest of us live in a world where kids are often discouraged by parents (who are unwilling to make the sacrifices that a kid having such passion requires),

My pity to the rest of the world then. If such is the common practice, Josef Brodsky is right, saying that "only 5% of people deserve to be able to read and write"

 

How many kids actually ever receive music lessons? Even one? I would say there are far more homes where live music is never performed than homes where it is performed. I agree it is sad that not all kids are given such opportunities. But then again, I am not going to judge the parents; having such a kid, practicing 3-4 hours a day, every day, paying for music lessons, etc, well, that can be quite a strain on a household.

 

--

Bill

[Dave Higham]

You still there Howard, or have you gone to bed and buried your head under the pillow? I'd just like to say that I'm one of the minority who agrees with your original post. I also love some Irish music but I have to say that Irish on Anglo doesn't do anything much for me.

We met briefly last year at The Royal at Dungworth in the Sunday lunchtime session. There was a very good Irish Anglo player there who left my wife totally unimpressed. But when, near the end of the session, you played a lovely Elizabethan air (I think it was Packington's Pound) she insisted I ask you what the tune was called, and asked me why I didn't play beautiful tunes like that! I owned up and told her it's because I'm not good enough.

[m3838]

.Science routinely must simply the selection set to basic, usually fairly broad categories.

But it doesn't create field of study out of blue. There are no such thing as four groups of violinists, end of question. Where have you seen those groups? Do they exist or is it accepted to divide the violinists by 4?

How about we divide them to 7 groups?

From your description the study is arbitrary and the results predictable. There is no need for study to prove that practice makes perfect.

We are discussing performing musicians. Yes, there are possibly some exceedingly skilled musicians who can't make it to the top because of social faults,

There you have it. So it is possible that best of the best are left out, and instead of 4 groups we could have had 5, including the group of the most talented, but out of job.

Perhaps they didn't study as many hours?

but top flight orchestras become top flight orchestras because they get the best musicians and the best artistic directors and the best conductors.

You obviously are not into this kind of listening.

Those musicians ver top professionals, granted. Conductors? -mm, probably yes, sometimes not, shmoozing takes larger part in getting larger job, which is reflected in many performances, which often are quite mediocre in interpretations.

 

I see you have a great amount of confidence in your own ability to judge talent, but not in anyone else's.

You make interesting assumptions.

I was only saying, that, again, with the raw talent an individual jumps ahead of everybody, no matter how technically skillful or not he is in the field, where he has that talent. That's all. It's the matter of fact.

I'm in the agreement with Leo Tolstoy, whose opinion was that Art schools actually hinder the development of talent, because they teach to master already existing methods, teach to repeat, copy, to be close-minded. My personal experience with Art school seconds that.

 

In any case, the specific study addresses classical music; age 20 is a reasonable cut off for this study for the reasons given above.

OK, I'd agree with this.

And your qualifications for making such a statement?

Very conviniently the study concludes banal truth.

And linear correlation is unlikely.

From your words the study focuses on proving the lesser importance of talent, and emphasizes the hard work - truly capitalist myth, mixed with "feel good" leftists agendas across the Globe. We all are equal and we just need to work hard.

Nope! Some have to work harder.

You don't even know what the approach was! Yet you are sure that it was primitive. Sorry if I remain unconvinced by your argument.

Actually you changed your standing about "talent is a bogus concept".

 

Perhaps, but such passion and hard work are at least as important to success as raw talent.

Litsen, if you have no talent, but passion, you will never get there. You do need a talent, that can't be taught to you. And if you have a talent, too much practice can kill it, as you inadvertenly practice somebody else's approach.

The correlation here is zig-zagging and loop-de-looping, not straight.

How many kids actually ever receive music lessons? Even one?

What do you mean "even one?"

I live in San Francisco, Richmond district, in the area, predominantly populated by Chinese and Russian immigrants.

You walk down the street, and out of 3 houses you have one, where you hear either violin or piano.

I don't buy this heart-break story about strain on the household.

And besides music there are other talents to develop.

And if you ask a teacher, one hour a day, but cleverly, is not just enough, but any more is harmful.

Where did you get 3-4 hours a day before the age of 20?

 

I agree we have to be familiar with the genre.

But we are talking about Irish, fairly familiar to everybody involved in a discussion.

Not obscure japanese music from some distant island.

What's so difficult and foggy about it that needs such involvement to be understood?

Aren't you over-stressing it's uniqueness? It's been played and listened to for about 15 years across the Globe now.