Dance tunes, tradition vs. inovation?

[Mark Evans]

"This is probably a discussion for a different thread, if someone wants to start it. I've had this debate with Danny Chapman, who holds pretty well the exact opposite view to me. He holds (if I have it right) that once a tune is let loose on the world then a person playing it has absolute right to play it as they wish, in order to express whatever artistic vision they have for the tune. People may choose to criticise the performance on artistic grounds but not otherwise.

 

My position is more pragmatic in that I believe these tunes are functional, and if in your performance you push them too far from their function, which is that of dance music, then you do not serve the tunes well. In fact I believe they lose a lot. What they mostly lose by being played fast (I would say too fast) is melody, rhythm, subtlety and grace, whatever they may gain in "excitement".

 

I suspect these points of view may be reconcileable, but that the holders of these views rarely are."

 

Chris

 

 

I am grateful there are Dannys and Chrises. As the question posed to Cotton-eyed Joe, if we do not honor our traditions, keeping them alive, in tact and vibrant, then how can we know from whence we came? If on the other hand we cannot encourage innovation and artistic creativity, then where are we going?

 

Both are needed.

 

Without traditional dance, sonata-allegro form would most likely have either not developed or taken a very different path. It in turned birthed other developments....and the beat goes on.

 

Seems to me traditional dance forms proved their worth as function and an inspiration for inovation.

Edited March 12, 2009 by Mark Evans

[Mayofiddler]

This thread has got to be flame bait :-)

 

As I've mentioned before I'm a trad <insert the "N" word here> so innovation needs to be shot and then run over with tanks to make sure it's dead. However, if innovation must happen then I have no issue as long as people clearly state that what they play is not under any circumstances to be considered as traditional. That way legions of people in other countries don't get to think their favourite "Celtic" recording artist is in fact playing trad music rather than pop/jazz/classical/Irish fusion. If it's honest fine, if it's destroying a heritage in order to make money then it's not. There stands my opinionated opinion. And in fact this thread can only produce opinions as the gap will never be closed between the soon-to-be-warring parties if this thread takes off :-)

 

Sorry, three threads I've replied to today, must be my day for spouting off :-(

Edited March 12, 2009 by Mayofiddler

[LDT]

Quite frankly I don't care....as long as its pleasant to listen to its fine by me.

[Mayofiddler]

Tell me that in 5 years time LDT

Edited March 12, 2009 by Mayofiddler

[Mark Evans]

This thread has got to be flame bait :-)

 

And in fact this thread can only produce opinions as the gap will never be closed between the soon-to-be-warring parties if this thread takes off :-)

 

I guess you are right. Put it down to doubling down on my beta-blocker this moring against my better judgement and fishing into an invitation Mr. Timson himself is clearheaded enough not to start. One of the bonus side effects of a beta-blocker overdose is a warn n' fuzzy feeling which bathes me in the belief music is a wide river, an unlimited connection expressing humanity's creativity...blah, blah, hippy-dippy-doo-dah!

 

First guy to cut me off in traffic this morning will blow that nonesense out the tailpipe.

[Mike Pierceall]

Tell me that in 5 years time LDT

Innovation begins with tradition and tradition begins with innovation.

[bill_mchale]

Here is my humble opinion on the whole issue.... It depends. Mostly it depends on the context in which which the person is playing. If you are playing in a traditional music session or playing for dancers, then your innovation should well be tempered by the context you are playing in. the tune should remain recognizable and any innovation that is added should blend well with the basic tune.

 

If you are playing solo, or in a concert with other musicians, then as far as I am concerned, you are free to do what you want with the tune, just as long as I am free to walk out if I find the result to be less than thrilling.

 

I would also point out that not liking an arrangement of a dance tune because it has taken all the dancability out of the tune is critiquing it on artistic grounds as far as I am concerned. I personally believe that traditional dance music (regardless of genre or nationality) is some of the most engaging music going. It does little service to the music, from a listening perspective if that engagement is removed because someone thought it would be fun to mess with the time signature, or whatever.

 

--

Bill

Edited March 12, 2009 by bill_mchale

[DavidFR]

I would also point out that not liking an arrangement of a dance tune because it has taken all the dancability out of the tune is critiquing it on artistic grounds as far as I am concerned. I personally believe that traditional dance music (regardless of genre or nationality) is some of the most engaging music going. It does little service to the music, from a listening perspective if that engagement is removed because someone thought it would be fun to mess with the time signature, or whatever.

 

--

Bill

Bill makes a really great point. I know some folks who are individually and collectively great musicians and wonderful folks, who like to play contras together. Unfortunately, they like to go off on solo riffs and improvisations while playing, which might sound great in a concert setting, but completely destroys the rhythm and danceability of the tunes.

 

I think experimenting with traditional tunes is fine, to me part of the beauty of the folk lexicon is that people can do what they want and are less hampered by copyright etc, but you should be clear and honest about what you're doing AND the more historical versions/ideas should be preserved.

[wally]

This idea of 'tradition' as proposed in relation to a folk tradition has caused me some confusion. How can we be so sure of how the composer, of a particular piece of music, intended it to be performed. Surely much of what we call traditional music has passed through generations of musicians whose point of reference would have been the previous generation. Over time the original will have been subjected to numerous nuances and interpretations that would render it a completely different entity to the original concept. Surely modern instruments add their own subtleties to the original piece. There must be many variations of a tune that could claim to be traditional rather than a narrow, one truth, version.

 

(light the fuse and retire to a safe distance)

[Mike Pierceall]

I would also point out that not liking an arrangement of a dance tune because it has taken all the dancability out of the tune is critiquing it on artistic grounds as far as I am concerned. I personally believe that traditional dance music (regardless of genre or nationality) is some of the most engaging music going. It does little service to the music, from a listening perspective if that engagement is removed because someone thought it would be fun to mess with the time signature, or whatever.

 

--

Bill

Bill makes a really great point. I know some folks who are individually and collectively great musicians and wonderful folks, who like to play contras together. Unfortunately, they like to go off on solo riffs and improvisations while playing, which might sound great in a concert setting, but completely destroys the rhythm and danceability of the tunes.

 

I think experimenting with traditional tunes is fine, to me part of the beauty of the folk lexicon is that people can do what they want and are less hampered by copyright etc, but you should be clear and honest about what you're doing AND the more historical versions/ideas should be preserved.

Well, in the broader context, that is, the evolution of music, I suppose we would agree; however, I've been dancing a lot longer than I've played an instrument. When the rhythm changes from one to another, we call that a challenge

[Hereward]

I think tradition may only make sense in the context of a traditional society, and we are a long way from being one of those in industrialised nations.

 

However, this is a vexed question and I am not sure.

 

Ian

[Mayofiddler]

There must be many variations of a tune that could claim to be traditional rather than a narrow, one truth, version.

 

(light the fuse and retire to a safe distance)

 

I agree Wally, for sure that is the truth. But I *think* (well, that's how I interpreted it anyway) that we are talking about innovation outside of the accepted bounds of a tradition. For example the box and concertina players that started with the Sharon Shannon era that throw weird accidentals into tunes that would never have been heard in such a tune before. Or maybe some series of notes that "fit" with the tune after a fashion but just aren't "right". They make you jump when you hear them and think "What the **** was that?"

 

Yes we can argue the definition of right all day too, but I think most people will get what I mean. If you're not particularly a trad-head you still are able to tell the difference between the standard forms of jazz, country, rap etc. In the same way you can tell whether something in a trad tunes fits with what has gone before, or with the idea of what has been traditional before. The question is, should these changes become the norm and "evolve" the music or are they devolving it instead, and making it part of the grey mush of trendy world music?

Edited March 12, 2009 by Mayofiddler

[Steve Mansfield]

My 0.02P is that if you are playing for dancing, then you are playing for dancing, e.g. the primary function of your music is to provide a shape and foundation, and an aural and rhythmic context for the dance you are playing for.

 

With that in mind there is vast room for flair and excitement and a sense of fun and even a fair bit of adventure - but if your dancers fall over or don't get up for the next dance, you've failed them and you've failed in your primary purpose, which is playing for dancing.

 

If you aren't playing for dancing you can pretty much do what the heck you want to a tune. I might not like it, I might not enjoy it, I might not 'get' it, and I might in extreme cases decide to avoid ever going within five miles of anywhere that might possibly expose me to the faintest danger of ever hearing it ever again - but that's just me, with all my personal tastes and prejudices ...

[CaryK]

"

 

My position is more pragmatic in that I believe these tunes are functional, and if in your performance you push them too far from their function, which is that of dance music, then you do not serve the tunes well. In fact I believe they lose a lot. What they mostly lose by being played fast (I would say too fast) is melody, rhythm, subtlety and grace, whatever they may gain in "excitement".

 

I suspect these points of view may be reconcileable, but that the holders of these views rarely are."

 

Chris

 

Even though I didn't grow up in anykind of dance culture, I can appreciate that many forms of traditional music functioned (and still do) to support dance. But sometimes the same tune for dance lends itself to other, not so danceable, tempos and still sounds wonderful; though the function of the music is now different. I don't refer here to tunes played too fast for tradtional dance steps, but music played much more slowly than its danceable counterpart would be. Being still a relative beginner, by necessity, I still play many tunes below their dance tempo. I am gradually coming up to tempo on many tunes, but I do find that some tunes sound as good or better, when played at a moderate or even slow tempo, than their dance rhythm calls for. You do lose some of the energy of the tune, but you gain some subtle nuances and ability to accentuate certain phrases differently. This is not strictly traditional, but when done well it still is very nice, listenable, music. Call these tunes Variations on a Tradition, but still solidly based on the traditional tune itself. At what point it stops being "tradtional" is probably an exercise in semantics (ducking for cover, now). A CD I've enjoy listening to called "Slow Play: Jigs, Reels, & Hornpipes" has some great examples of this.

[hjcjones]

We cannot ignore the fact that we are exposed to a wider range of music than our predecessors and that this shapes our tastes and prejudices. For example, until we can educate our ears we find it difficult to listen to tunes which aren't in a "standard" tempered scale.

 

It was commonplace among many traditional English melodeon players to use the bass buttons simply for rhythm, with little regard to harmony. In a tradition which did not put much value on harmony, this is understandable. To modern ears, accustomed to hearing harmony (and unconsciously adding it if it is absent) this is a challenge. Modern melodeon players delight in exploring the full range of harmonies possible within the limited range of the instrument. Not traditional, perhaps, but moving the tradition forward in a modern musical context where people have different expectations.

[Jim Besser]

Seems to me traditional dance forms proved their worth as function and an inspiration for inovation.

 

Yes, as long as we remember that in playing for dancers, the dancers come first, our own musical egos a very distant second.

 

Big Nick Robertshaw was an incredible improviser as a Morris dance player, but whatever he did started with his desire to enhance the dance and complement the dancers. The musos for Orion sword in Boston are amazing, the music they play sounds fabulous, but it's also obvious that they put the dancers first.

 

But I've also been around Morris players who are more interested in how their music sounds than in how it dances. Bad, bad bad.

 

I've also played with Morris musos who strip the music down to the barest skeleton and claim that's ideal for dancers. "The more notes you take out, the better" was what I was told when I started playing Morris, but fortunately I heard Big Nick and quickly came to my senses.

[michael sam wild]

When I'm playing on my own at home I will take tunes and play them in any fashion I like and get much more insight into them. Jigs that are ordinary become lovely waltzes or airs and 4/4 hornpipes become exciting dotted tuhes and v.v.

 

Who would remember 'The Maids of Mitchelstown' as a fast reel as opposed to the Bothy Band version? (Steps back!)

[catty]

One of the bonus side effects of a beta-blocker overdose is a warn n' fuzzy feeling which bathes me in the belief music is a wide river, an unlimited connection expressing humanity's creativity...blah, blah, hippy-dippy-doo-dah!

 

Give me what that guy's having..