The art of practicing.

[SteveShaw]

I'd be more than happy for a man of your undoubted literary skills to take my discursive posts and précis them for me. Hope you won't mind when I check you've got it all in...

[Azalin]

I'll also be so bold as to say that in my experience, those who usually over analyze this music are usually very bad ITM players, for some reason. There are exceptions of course. These discussions about 'how complex' ITM can be makes me roll my eyes sometimes. I'm sure it can be, but c'mon, when Vincent Broderick was whistling his tune 'Whistler at the Wake' at a wake, you really think he had all of this in mind? It's such a great melody, that's all I know.

[Azalin]

In fact, a similar set of rules is a necessary ingredient for any musical genre which has a strong element of improvisation. They're what make it possible. Would you say that jazz is simple music because a well trained jazz musician doesn't have to know a tune to play it?

Are you saying that ITM is about improvisation? You can be creative with ornaments and the melody up to a point, but I don't see it as being improvised music at all, quite the opposite.

I see Jazz as being more complex than ITM because it's not a music where melody is the main driver. But honnestly I don't know anything beside ITM, so I couldn't say. I see music where you can simply whistle a tune, and have people dance to it, as being simple. This is my definition of 'simple' in this context.

[Denny]

jazz is as complex as the performer wants...or not

[talasiga]

I'd be more than happy for a man of your undoubted literary skills to take my discursive posts and précis them for me. Hope you won't mind when I check you've got it all in...

precis:
Talasiga is foolish for trying to defend me in a backhanded manner.

[highland-piper]

It was silly because your attempt at sarcasm was based on a misreading of everything I've said (which is still there for your delectation). I couldn't possibly say whether it was a misreading based on misunderstanding or a deliberate misreading. Either way your comment isn't looking good. I'm sorry to be harsh but I have tried very hard, in fairly plain English, to make my point of view (which is just that and no more) very clear, and quite a few people hereabouts know how I tend to react if I think I've been misrepresented.

There's no sarcasm in the post you reference.

I agree with you that that Irish music is conceptually simple in structure, in melodic form, in rhythm, and in harmonic content. These things make it relatively easy for an advanced player to play along after a single hearing. Look at Drowsy Maggie. There are only about six unique bars of music in the whole tune and none of it is unpredictable.

There's a great story about a string quartet (I forget which one). They were riding the train from the East Coast to the West, when they found out that in California they had been programmed to play a work they didn't know. So when the train stopped in Chicago one of them jumped out and bought a study-score of the work. They passed this little score back and forth as the train headed to California. Upon arrival, they played the work in concert, having never practiced it together or individually. Now that's pretty darned impressive. But it's not an indication of "talent" -- it's "just" skill acquired through decades of hard work.

[SteveShaw]

There's no sarcasm in the post you reference.

I'm surprised Steve didn't jump in to explain this away with a comment about the music being simple.

[highland-piper]

There's no sarcasm in the post you reference.

I'm surprised Steve didn't jump in to explain this away with a comment about the music being simple.

Not sarcasm. Sorry. It really isn't an opportunity for sarcasm, since I'm in agreement with you.

[SteveShaw]

Good.

[fiddlerwill]

Except if course Drowzy Maggie could better be looked at as one part of the whole, Its rarely going to be played on its own, [if played at all] by a serious trad musician and you might well not know what the next tune is going to be. Its like looking at the half the first part of Bach Bourree from the cello Suites III, and saying its simple. Which it is, so I could quite easily say that , from the example quoted , that Bach is simple music. Which of course its not. As far as semi tones go, well I cant actually think of many trad tunes that dont contain semi tones when played in its fullest expression. Sure its possible to avoid these semitones and simplify the tunes, then declare that they are simple, just as I can do with that bach Bourree!
In rhythm, simple? Its possible to write the tunes out , in a simple format, but the actual way of playing them is not so simple, there is a wealth of fine rhythmic variation extant in a good players rendition. Its true we dont normally play in odd time signatures like 7/8 or 10/8, but neither do classical musicians or jazz musicians in fact {much]. How many Classical pieces are in 9/8? Jesu. joy of mans desire... I dont know , perhaps many.. ok this is meter not rhythm, but within that meter the variation is subtle and not written down. What are you comparing with. Please cite examples. Are you comparing it to Jazz? Classical? Reggae, blues?
If its harmonically simple, in what sense? Hardly any tunes share the same harmonic patterns and movement and there are thousands of tunes, each with a separate pattern. True the number of chords might not compare with Jazz, so in a sense, in comparison to jazz it could be described, in one sense, as simple. But does that mean a jazz player will be able to figure out the underlying patterns simply, or a classical player on the fly? So in another sense its not so simple at all.

Simple is a relative concept , on its own, to say something is simple, is meaningless without qualifying your statement.

[highland-piper]

But Will,

The origin of this part of the discussion is someone saying that some person's ability to play along with someone else on the first hearing of at tune was "talent."

All I'm saying (and hopefully Steve still agrees) is that any given tune is most likely pretty simple (e.g. the majority of them are) -- at a conceptual level. A master of the style *should* be able to play along on the repeat.

I'm just saying that being able to play back three or so bars of Irish music isn't really all that hard in the grand scheme of what master musicians are able to do. And furthermore, that it's practice that allows rare individuals this sort of ability, and nothing more.

[talasiga]

....
Simple is a relative concept , on its own, to say something is simple, is meaningless without qualifying your statement.

I think the description has been repeatedly and adequately qualified here (and from the outset) in such a way as to make it very clear that "simple" was not used to mean stupid. Therefore, I fail to see the ongoing difficulty anyone may have with the usage in Steve's and other's postings.

[fiddlerwill]

Im not referring to SS, Im discussing with HP and others. Im making a point that to describe a form of music as 'simple' is meaningless without declaring exactly what aspects you are comparing and with what you are comparing. Talsiga , you are assuming, incorrectly, as did SS, that I am referring to his words . Im not I have little to no interest in SS or what he says . . A number of other people have said its simple . In a very real sense all music is simple and all music is complex.
Are they saying that the dots on paper are simple? but thats not the music, and try playing these tunes on a double bass, or sousaphone, or any number of instruments , and its not simple at all. So exactly what are they saying is simple? Are they trying to treat it as an inanimate object? . The structure, simple? so is the structure of a sonata, minuett, sarabande etc, And? what does this mean? Key changes? plenty. limited number of keys used? Only by some players , all the tunes can be and are played in different keys and especially on JI instruments this transforms the tunes.
I accept that in relation to other specific forms of music, some aspects are simpler, and some more complex. What is the point in these comparisons? Why highlight certain aspects of music for comparison? It seems to me there is a hidden agenda for some and if that agenda was brought to light then we might all understand why these comparisons are made and what we might learn from comparisons of this nature, but I dont believe it will be about the things compared, but about those comparing.

[SteveShaw]

As far as semi tones go, well I cant actually think of many trad tunes that dont contain semi tones when played in its fullest expression. Sure its possible to avoid these semitones and simplify the tunes, then declare that they are simple, just as I can do with that bach Bourree!

You may not listen to anything I say but if you happen to read this, Will, you might just learn that there is a difference between semitones, which is what you are saying, and accidentals, which is apparently what you mean. This rather basic confusion once again points to the fact that anyone reading your advice had better be very circumspect indeed about taking it. And that is to point to just one dubious aspect of your, er, somewhat generally puzzling post. Perhaps it's me what's simple after all.

[SteveShaw]

I think the description has been repeatedly and adequately qualified here (and from the outset) in such a way as to make it very clear that "simple" was not used to mean stupid. Therefore, I fail to see the ongoing difficulty anyone may have with the usage in Steve's and other's postings.

Thanks. If I might just resort to a spot of irony, I think the difficulty you refer to comes from certain persons whose minds are like parachutes; they don't work because they are not open.