Confusion on Cuts

[Mr.Gumby]

I'm siding with PCP here!

Unfortunately Rowsome's writings as PCP quotes them which have always struck me as an obligatory piece of formal music theory he used to introduce his tutor, ending up describing things no traditional player did or does, not even Leo himself.

His music collection and (other) pieces he wrote down for pupils give a far better insight into his actual approach.

[Peter Duggan]

Unfortunately you're siding with Rowsome's writing

I'm siding with PCP's statement that 'a cut is a gracenote'. But I'm also quitting this thread when nothing I say or do is ever going to be good enough for you...

[Mr.Gumby]

But I'm also quitting this thread when nothing I say or do is ever going to be good enough for you...

That's just plain silly.

Anyhow. There's more confusion lurking there, as I pointed out above. A good few people distinguish between 'cut' and 'gracenote' and others use both to describe the same thing. Which is fine with me as long as you are aware in a discussion as this one what the intended use is. Personally I like Ennis' approach because 'cut' as he uses it better describes the actual sound while his use of 'gracenote' describes a movement that can indeed add a sense of 'grace' to a note or phrase when used as he had it in mind.

I realise though it's all arbitrary, and relative to the use you want to adapt to to create clarity for yourself at least.

But as I also implied, for practical purposes there's nothing like sitting across from eachother and show what is done, how it sounds, regardless of terminology.

[Mikethebook]

Okay, I've done loads more research on this and this is what I've found. Repeating the quote from Grey Larsen, "the movement of the cut is a very small and quick lift of a finger completely off its hole and the immediate replacement of that finger." I think this is very important. The cut is both the lifting of the finger and the putting of it down again. The ornament is "cut" into the note. I get this from Larsen, my teacher, Blayne Chastain . . . even Cotter and McKenna (though her explanation appears to contradict itself). According to Cotter, a double cut or casadh, is identical to a cut but the first part of the cut is extended. So a a cut on A (AcA) the first A is lengthened. How she does this without giving it a time value is a mystery. But basically her double cut is a slightly lengthened cut. Nobody else apart from McKenna talks about casadhs but according to Chastain, a double cut is something advanced and very different.

So . . . according to all those teachers/writers, if you were to start a phrase with a B that you want to cut, it would look like BcB NOT cB. But differences occur when you are cutting a note that follows a different note. Cotter and McKenna don't go that far in their teaching. My own teacher and Chastain teach that you change note before you cut, so going from B to A and cutting the latter, you play B AcA. Larsen, as Peter pointed out, teaches a much more difficult technique whereby he lifts the cutting finger (let's remember the whole cut is just a blip on a note) at the same time as he changes notes. So in my example it would look maybe like B cA.

Apart from the mystery of the casadh, which actually differs between Cotter's and McKenna's explanations, and nobody else has heard of, and given two different approaches to the cut when changing notes, I feel there is a unanimity among all the writers and teachers I've come across.

[Mr.Gumby]

is identical to a cut but the first part of the cut is extended. So a a cut on A (AcA) the first A is lengthened. How she does this without giving it a time value is a mystery. But basically her double cut is a slightly lengthened cut

That would be what I would usually refer to as a 'delayed cut', or in Séamus Ennis' terms a 'gracenote'. I referred to that above but the 'delay' can vary with the effect the player wants to achieve.

But I'd like to stress again there are many variables and a whole scale of minute differences.

Some issues are discussed in this paper : Rhythm and Structure in Irish Traditional Dance Music

[Mikethebook]

Thanks for the link to the paper. I'm sure it will be interesting reading.

[cunparis]

Some issues are discussed in this paper : Rhythm and Structure in Irish Traditional Dance Music

Here is a link to a forum post which contains a link to part 1 of the article (the above is part 2) and also a link to some extra files:

http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/29605

[Mr.Gumby]

Sorry, I meant to link to Part 1

Here's a direct link

[Nanohedron]

It's crucual stuff since it affects rolls too and how we perceived the cut part of them.

I'm not getting how names are crucial at all. Where you apply a cut (the term I've always understood to be the use of a "blip" note from above the main note however you do it; placement is another thing) is of course important, but as Mr.Gumby pointed out, there's no point in getting tied down to terminologies when in an aural tradition no such unity of terminologies exists in the first place. Not every teacher WILL put things the same way. Being published, or an All-Ireland champion, does not mean one's terminologies codify things for the rest of us once and for all. If having such solidities makes you feel better, that's another thing. What is important is that you know what THAT particular teacher or musician means by his or her choice of terms, because another teacher or musician will put things differently, and no question. And then you will have to adjust to that, because at the end of the day, it's just one person's manner of speaking. Again, what's important is that you know what THEY mean.

If a "cut" is only supposed to be called that if it cuts the main note (e.g. AbA), then what I want to know is what DO you call an initial cut, then (e.g. bA)? Which is what I call it, BTW, and despite the suggestion that it can't be done (or even shouldn't be done - which, frankly, I find to be a curiously shortsighted proposition), I use that technique pretty regularly myself. It's part of my personal style, and it definitely exists within the tradition sure enough, so I guess name mavens had better call it something. But just don't expect it to be called the same thing by someone else wherever you go.

At the bottom of the page in Mr.Gumby's last link, I was delighted to find that in Fig. 10 there are four instances of cuts (as I call them all): dC, AbA, dC, and AbA. I ask again: what do we call dC, then? As I mentioned earlier, I've always called it an "initial cut", just to give it a name for my own reference. Granted, dC is not the easiest to do on a whistle (it being an easy enough thing on the pipes), but the illustration is there to be seen, and in the same ornamentive spirit, bA, aG, gF, fE, and eD are all definitely easy enough to do on a whistle or flute.

Here's something actually crucial: you'll also note that in Fig. 10, the phrasing of the AbA formation is in fact A | bA, so the second A (which is the downbeat, and this is important) is marked with emphasis thanks to the b cut, which at the end of the day is thus arguably an "initial cut" (there's that term again ) by virtue of its timing, placement, and therefore its function. After all, if you briefly rest after the first A, or tongue the b cut, there you have it. Ignoring for a moment in the following the question of how you separate the first two A notes - or don't, for that matter - you could do it A | AbA, but that's simply an option. In all cases, timing is everything.

[Peter Duggan]

Okay, I've done loads more research on this and this is what I've found. Repeating the quote from Grey Larsen, "the movement of the cut is a very small and quick lift of a finger completely off its hole and the immediate replacement of that finger." I think this is very important.

And (sorry I'm back when I said I was out of it!) I think you're misinterpreting Larson. So of course you have to lift a finger that's normally on to put it back down, but he also says (in the Essential Guide anyway), 'Though a good cut doesn't seem to have a pitch, it in fact does, and that pitch is always higher than that of its parent note.'

The cut is both the lifting of the finger and the putting of it down again. The ornament is "cut" into the note. I get this from Larsen

So the cut according to my Larsen quote is a single note (though he claims that it's not a note at all) and you're not getting this from Larsen!

even Cotter

Likewise I say you're misinterpreting Cotter.

So . . . according to all those teachers/writers, if you were to start a phrase with a B that you want to cut, it would look like BcB NOT cB.

No, not according to all of them!

Larsen, as Peter pointed out, teaches a much more difficult technique whereby he lifts the cutting finger (let's remember the whole cut is just a blip on a note) at the same time as he changes notes.

And it's really not 'much more difficult' when there's no logical reason why timing the movement my way should be any more difficult than timing it yours if you're good enough to time it accurately in the first place (FWIW, Highland pipers do it all the time).

Also noting that even Mr.Gumby's now linking to the written word!

[Mr.Gumby]

At the bottom of the page in Mr.Gumby's last link I was delighted to find that in Fig. 10, there are four instances of cuts (as I call them all): dC, AbA, dC, and AbA. I ask again, what do we call dC, then? As I mentioned earlier, I've always called it an "initial cut", just to give it a name for my own reference. Granted, dC is not the easiest to do on a whistle (it being an easy enough thing on the pipes), but the illustration is there to be seen, and in the same ornamentive spirit, bA, aG, gF, fE, and eD are definitely easy enough on a whistle or flute.

There are a few points in there that are worth considering: first of all the C natural on the pipes is a highly expressive note and it's effect can be immensely enhanced by the choice of placement of the d cut.

The other cuts point to a deep flaw in Gray L's approach to cuts. The choice of note used to cut a note can make a lot of difference to an experienced listener. Séamus Ennis cutting an A with the B on the first playing of a phrase but whacking it with the c for emphasis the second time around for example. lovely. Working from a system that assumes one cut for one set of notes and one cut for the rest of them is detrimental for the subtlety that occurs in the music of the finest players.

[Peter Duggan]

The other cuts point to a deep flaw in Gray L's approach to cuts. The choice of note used to cut a note can make a lot of difference to an experienced listener. Séamus Ennis cutting an A with the B on the first playing of a phrase but whacking it with the c for emphasis the second time around for example. lovely. Working from a system that assumes one cut for one set of notes and one cut for the rest of them is detrimental for the subtlety that occurs in the music of the finest players.

While I'm getting tired of defending Grey Larsen when I don't always agree with him and don't normally use his 'recommended cut fingerings', he does at least say:

'You may wish to explore other cut fingerings and their qualitative effects. Feel free to do so but beware of the sluggish response that many of them have. This is more of a hazard on the flute than on the whistle, and the high register of the flute is particularly prone to this problem. Uilleann pipers have more options because their instrument is exquisitely responsive to nearly all such fingerings.'

[Nanohedron]

I would suggest that Larsen is codifying his own personal approach, rather than prescribing for the whole of the tradition. The quote above reinforces my opinion that that this is how his tutor should be taken.

[Peter Duggan]

The cut is both the lifting of the finger and the putting of it down again. The ornament is "cut" into the note. I get this from Larsen

So the cut according to my Larsen quote is a single note (though he claims that it's not a note at all) and you're not getting this from Larsen!

Two more things, Mike (and then I'll leave your interpretation of Larsen alone)...

1. While discussing tongued/throated cuts:
'For example, if you tend to cut late, as many novices do, you will hear (if you are not tonguing or throating, and if you are paying attention) the start of the parent note and then the cut. These two things should coincide.'

2. While discussing delayed cuts:
'This kind of delay can of course happen as the result of sloppy playing. But you can hear it sparingly and effectively used in the music of such great players as Matt Molloy and Seamus Egan. When you listen very closely to this (especially if you are able to play a recording at slower than normal speed) you can hear the arrival of the parent note just an instant before the cut.'

So it's quite clear to me that he regards 'your' cut as the exception rather than the norm.

[Mr.Gumby]

Also noting that even Mr.Gumby's now linking to the written word!

I think you missed my point altogether.

Nothing against reading, it broadens the mind. Reading Pat Mitchell, who is one of the closest and most detailed listeners you'll ever meet in this music, may (or may not as the case may be) set your synapses working. There a few thoughts and ideas there that may help one develop their own thinking about these matters. What I don't think as helpful is turning this sort of discussion into some sort of an academic exercise, footnotes and all. The answer to the sort of questions we're discussing here lies in the music of the great stylists, the written word can be helpful when it's descriptive, it becomes a problem when taken (or used) as being prescriptive.