Hard core?

[Mr.Gumby]

My point is Mattie mentioned there were many house concerts, mostly immigration farewell parties where family and friends would gather to share a few last tunes

We probably get into issues of terminology and semantics here. I mentioned 'going on a ceili' earlier, people gathering informally at a house taking turns at a song or playing a tune, a recitation or whatever or, there were,maybe more organised, the 'swarries' or housedances (and along the same lines the' American wakes') that in my mind would all be (slightly) different from present day 'houseconcerts' as they are held in the States now where performers are 'booked' and advertised for a performance with an audience sitting down to listen. But it's all probably a matter of terminology and a mater of degrees. They're all some sort of social gathering anyway, if all with a different emphasis and puprpose.

[Christophe]

Just a few words to say this must be one of the most interesting threads I've come to read on CF, and thanks to Mr. G for sharing these treasures. I'm especially impressed by Mr MCleary's playing. There's something unique in this "hard-core" stuff that gets too often lost in more elaborated versions, regardless to the musicians' skills; and that's true of most traditionnal musics. In Flamenco they call it : el duende.

[pancelticpiper]

Some of these posts made me think about something: let's say you have somebody who learned all of their music from recordings from the 1920s but has had no musical contact with anything more recent, no in-person contact with the tradition at all.

In my opinion they would not be regarded as a "traditional" player because to me "traditional" implies an unbroken stream of transmission from the unknown past to the present.

When one goes back and picks a segment out of that stream from some former time the bit picked out is historical or revivalist, not traditional, in my opinion.

I knew a fluteplayer who could play loads of tunes from recordings of fluteplayers from the 1920s, and he would play them exactly as they were recorded. Many were in a style that wouldn't be recognised nowadays as "traditional Irish fluteplaying" by most people.

[PhilD]

That's an interesting way of looking at it. But, to be termed a "revivalist" means you have revived something, and in the example you use that would be Traditional Irish Music as played on flute. I guess if the player stayed in complete isolation you could call them a musician of historical music.

My problem with this definition is that it places far more importance on the act of transmission than the music itself. Traditionally the music has been past on from person to person because for centuries that was the only way! That's no longer the case. If we are having a conversation in English, what does it matter whether you learned English from your mother or a Rosetta Stone CD, so long as we can understand each other, that's all that really matters. Sure your accent is going to be different to mine, you may not be as fluent a speaker, but we are still communicating in English.

Don't get me wrong, its hugely beneficial to be able to immerse yourself in the social culture where the music resides, there is no question about that. I would have loved to spend time in Ireland meeting some of the characters Mr Gumby has learned so much from, but unfortunately its not going to happen.

Thankfully, the great thing about music is that transcends man made boarders. It brings people together no matter what language we speak. The music doesn't care how we choose to define it... it just is.

Twee cliche's I know, but true!

[Mr.Gumby]

Not sure what point you're making Richard, or if you are making any at all. Ideally any traditional musician will look back to what had been, around him to what is and forward, to new generations of players (were getting into handing up territory there) while giving some thought to where they are taking their own playing.

Essentially you take good music where you find it, endlessly refining. re-evaluating and replenishing what you have. It is not something that works well in isolation or far from the source. Everybody needs to bounce their ideas off a variety of accomplished players and add to their palette both in repertoire and general, stylistic, ideas and approaches.

I could probably go on posting clips forever but I won't for now (although it's a topic I'd be happy to revisit). If the discussion dies down I'll take down the clips again.

Crossposting with Phil :

what does it matter whether you learned English from your mother or a Rosetta Stone CD,

I would suggest it makes a huge difference in most cases where it comes to fluency and depth of your vocabulary. Paraphrasing what I once said in a previous discussion I once you may be able to express yourself but I doubt you'll write poetry in it. It's, from what I have seen, hard to overestimate the influence of being (and even stronger so, growing up) in an environment and community where traditional music is part of life and absorbed as if learning a language.

But let me be clear, that is not about throwing up walls or saying you have to be born into it. But from my own experience I have to say there's a vast difference between learning and playing in (relative) isolation and being in an environment where music is part of life and culture.

[david_h]

I am understanding what pancelticpiper said about being revivalist as in line which what I was thinking when I said above that without current sharing of music Mr Gumby's clips would be history. I was meaning history in the sense of an artifact or record rather than being gone and forgettable.

In Scotland and England (less so Ireland maybe) tunes are being dug out of old manuscripts and what thoughts there may be about how they may have been played used in conjunction with current practice. But that is not the same as learning ancient tongues from a Rosetta stone or thinking that 1920's records give a fair picture of how it was then.

[pancelticpiper]

In Scotland and England (less so Ireland maybe) tunes are being dug out of old manuscripts

The contents of Volume 4 of Ceol Rince na hEireann come entirely from manuscript sources, various collections from the 1840s through the 1960s.

Jackie Small states in the Introduction

"In selecting the music for this volume, I was aware that traditional music followers are well served with books documenting the currently popular Irish dance tunes. I have tried to provide tunes which will be largely unfamiliar in the hope that they will provide fresh inspiration and once more gain currency."

Some of these tunes have indeed re-entered the living aural tradition.

[Mr.Gumby]

There are quite a few nice tunes in CRE4 and I lifted a load of them. A lot of them come from sources that were alive during our life time though. But the thing is ofcourse they were taken from and put back into the living tradition, they were, as a form, never dead. People learning tunes from Padraig O Keeffe manuscripts are maybe reviving repertoire but not reviving tradition. Various means of notating tunes have always been part of the passing on of tunes. Martin Rochford had a considerable amount of tunes in manuscript and if he caught you with a tune he wanted he had you write it down and he had been doing that all his life: he had a notation of the Swallow's Tail that Johnny Doran did for him for example. Some of Martin's own tunes appear in CRE4 from Seán Reid's manuscripts. And he was playing them still when the book came out in 1996.

[bigsciota]

Just read through the responses to this thread; all very interesting.

One thing I thought of when discussing the idea of "hardcore" was the advent of recording technology and how it changed traditional music. At the turn of the 20th century, most people only heard the musicians who lived in their locality, along with the musicians who happened to pass through (in Ireland, Travellers like Johnny Doran would have filled this role). Now, of course, I can listen to pretty much anyone pretty much anywhere, provided they've been recorded (and even if they're not commercially recorded, there's always various online archives, youtube, and the like).

But perhaps more importantly, this music used to have a central function in society- if you wanted to dance, someone had to play (or lilt) something. Now, of course, many people listen to the music just because they like it, and you can go to a trad concert and sit in your seat for much or all of the time, clapping at the end of each set. This means that musicians want to show their skill, and play musical flourishes and such that show their musicality. The music is played for music's sake, not for dancing. What strikes me about many of the people mentioned, especially the older/deceased ones, would have been playing for dances when you still absolutely needed musicians in order to hold a dance. The music in that case becomes a bit less flashy, a bit more straight/consistent (so the dancers can follow along), a bit slower (if you're talking about a dance with varying ability levels), and you also get more tunes like polkas, barndances, and mazurkas than you would at a 21st century concert or session. Would these characteristics be considered "hard core?"

[Mr.Gumby]

A lot of musicians can (and will) switch over to 'dance mode' when playing for dancers. They do now as they did then. Compartimentalising is part of the skill set. Garrett Barry, who did also play for dancers, said something along the lines of 'I play for the heart, not the feet' . Johnny Doran was never one to hold back folllowing his heart when he got into a tune (for a dance, they'd ask Felix). Playing for dances is often seen as a way to develop a particular set of skill (Junior Crehan : 'The housedances were my university')

While I understand your point, I'd be careful to generalise too much about the then: playing for dancers and the now : playing for listening. There is still a lot of playing for dancers now and people loved listening to a 'nice lonesome reel' then. But it is very tempting when recording to make it a statement and throw everything at a tune, a bit of a trap you fall easily into and usually not such a good idea (been there, done that, regretted it.).

[pancelticpiper]

this music used to have a central function in society- if you wanted to dance, someone had to play something... many of the people mentioned, especially the older/deceased ones, would have been playing for dances when you still absolutely needed musicians in order to hold a dance.

This is the thing that struck me most when I read The Northern Fiddler: many of the musicians considered the music purely functional, and when people stopped dancing to the traditional music (and started dancing to jazz albums, in the 1920s) they stopped playing.

One of the best traditional musicians I know doesn't play much any more. I asked him about it, and he told me "I don't have anyone to play with, and nobody to play for". He loves playing for dancers and doesn't enjoy playing for its own sake.

[Mr.Gumby]

Again, I don't think it's much different from now. If people stopped listening, or paying (attention), a lot of players would stop playing.

On the other hand, many musicians did play on through the lean times, playing for themselves and their friends. And for all the functional players that work(ed) the dances or the gigs are the Padraig O Keefes of this world who played all night for themselves, for their own entertainment or to hold on to their sanity.

[bigsciota]

A lot of musicians can (and will) switch over to 'dance mode' when playing for dancers. They do now as they did then. Compartimentalising is part of the skill set. Garrett Barry, who did also play for dancers, said something along the lines of 'I play for the heart, not the feet' . Johnny Doran was never one to hold back folllowing his heart when he got into a tune (for a dance, they'd ask Felix). Playing for dances is often seen as a way to develop a particular set of skill (Junior Crehan : 'The housedances were my university')

While I understand your point, I'd be careful to generalise too much about the then: playing for dancers and the now : playing for listening. There is still a lot of playing for dancers now and people loved listening to a 'nice lonesome reel' then. But it is very tempting when recording to make it a statement and throw everything at a tune, a bit of a trap you fall easily into and usually not such a good idea (been there, done that, regretted it.).

Yeah, I realize everything is a generalization, but I'd be willing to bet that the balance has shifted away from dancing towards concerts/listening. And the balance of what people listen to now has definitely shifted from recorded music being a novelty 100 years ago to recorded music being the main or even only way most people listen to music. I'm sure most people on this board listen to live music (and play live music) much more than your average person, but even as someone in music, I have many friends who rarely go to anything live. So I think a recording mindset is in the back of many musicians' minds, and I agree that there is that temptation to "make it a statement." I tend to like fairly straightforward recordings personally, but I know I've fallen into that trap myself before.

[Mr.Gumby]

Maybe it's a matter of location and environment or maybe the hundreds of nights I have spent playing for people dancing sets, I am not ready to fully discount the function of music for dance yet.

[david_h]

Off topic, in that its neither whistle nor Irish, but only a few mouse clicks away I came across this and thought there was a striking resonance with the last few posts: http://www.heritage.nf.ca/arts/rufus_video.html