I don't like fast Irish tradition music. Give me my airs.

[Nanohedron]

Why can't it sometimes be just creativity ?

Sure, what David said. I'm easy.

[hoopy mike]

A question to the iTrad Police:
what about us simple folk who heard a slow air played and liked it, or found an interesting slow air in a tutor book and liked it, and learned to play this air, cause we like playing it, but we don't know anything about a song which may possibly be associated with it, nor have we learned Irish or Gaelic, so can't make sense of words or title, if we knew it. Shall we not play it in public? Has the ITP the powers to stop us attempting to play such airs?

A good question to which I have no answer apart from this story...

A church group were visiting South Africa. At one point in the trip, they came across a choir of African women singing in harmony. The tune and words were so beautiful that one of the group of visitors broke down in tears. "Please tell me what are the women singing?" she asked the local guide. ""Well, a rough translation is: after you go to the toilet, wash your hands, or you'll get dysentry."

[talasiga]

Yes, I have to agree with Hans's rhetoric. Even the same song will manifest variations in the "air" on account of different wordings in the diffrent verses. The melody line, any melody line, is a musical theme which invites an infinite unfolding through its exploration with diffrent poems (lyrics), vocalese and also the individual voice that instrumental interpretation brings.

The idea that the interpretation any air is set in stone by the dogma of the most popular lyric attached to it is, to my mind, a kind of repulsive idolatry desecrating the universal expressive appeal of music.

[tompipes]

The idea that the interpretation any air is set in stone by the dogma of the most popular lyric attached to it is, to my mind, a kind of repulsive idolatry desecrating the universal expressive appeal of music.

Strong wording of a point that I don't really disagree with.

I do believe that to keep the melodic structure of an old 'Sean Nos' or traditional air it does help to know the syllabic structure of the lines of the song to keep the rhythm of the tune, at least to be faithful to the original source. After all it is the words of those old airs that dictate the rhythm of the tune. And yes there is a rhythm.

Thats in a perfect world.

On the other hand, you shouldn't have to learn a new language just to learn a new tune at all but if you are going to learn one of those traditional airs be sure and pay special attention to the structure of the tune. Treat it like a nice piece of music but digest the pure melody and then perform it with your own feeling. Make the tune your own but still be faithful to the original setting or at least the setting that you are learning from.
It's really what you should do with every tune.

Listen to your original source really well and avoid at all costs learning a traditional air from written music.

Tommy

[tompipes]

By the way its a bit thread was a bit distracted so I'll try to get it going again.

The distracted topics here are still interesting though.

Tommy

[benhall.1]

The idea that the interpretation any air is set in stone by the dogma of the most popular lyric attached to it is, to my mind, a kind of repulsive idolatry desecrating the universal expressive appeal of music.

No-one has suggested that anywhere in this thread. This seems to be a violent reaction against something which has not been said. Curious ...

Meanwhile, yes, Tom, as you point out, the old airs have rhythm. They also, importantly, have articulation and phrasing. Or at least they should have. And the particular rhythm, articulation and phrasing of any given air are part and parcel of it. They're not set in stone. But they're not free either, and at key points you need to know what the air does.

I have, several times in this thread, made a clear distinction between someone at a session who's asked to play a tune, and someone imposing an air on a session. If you're asked to play an air, or if you're asked to play and all you have is airs, then fine - give it your best shot. People will listen, and people may well enjoy it. If you come in, unasked, and interrupt the flow by imposing your rending (sic) of some air on the session, then that's not fine. Of course, if it's beautifully played and true to the character of the air, then you might just get away with it. But that's the least it'll need to be.

[hans]

Listen to your original source really well and avoid at all costs learning a traditional air from written music.

I have learned many lovely melodies from written music. To insist that written music should be avoided "at all cost", and the source should only be aural, is ludicrous. Lots of old music has been brought back to life from written old published music or old manuscripts. Written music is just another source, and sometimes the only one available. Many groups and musicians use old written material to create "original" tunes, nothing wrong with that. Why should I wait for a CD track someone created using written music, so I can then listen to it in order to learn it, when I can learn the tune from the written source directly? It is possible to discover the spirit of a tune from written music alone, and play it with feeling and understanding. There is a lot of lovely music buried in old written collections. I don't see that it should be left only to a few gifted "pro" players to be dug up and spread.

[hans]

The idea that the interpretation any air is set in stone by the dogma of the most popular lyric attached to it is, to my mind, a kind of repulsive idolatry desecrating the universal expressive appeal of music.

No-one has suggested that anywhere in this thread. This seems to be a violent reaction against something which has not been said. Curious ...

Ben, I guess it stems from your post earlier, where you wrote:

I do think, in order to be able to play slow airs properly, it is necessary to know the songs (unless it's a composed air which has never had any words - few and far between if we're talking trad - non-existent, maybe?). I have heard people attempt slow airs and completely trample on the phrasing because they didn't know where the words go and where the natural end to verbal phrases was. I had to stop someone in a session who did that.

That made me think (cheekily) of the ITP and prompted my comments.

I do agree with you about not imposing airs on open sessions.

[benhall.1]

Actually, for airs, I'd be inclined to agree with tompipes. For most of the airs that would come under the category of 'Irish slow airs', the dots will be nothing more than a very rough sketch. This is even more so than for dance tunes. This is at least in part because, whilst airs do have their own peculiar rhythm and phrasing, it's diificult to set out in notation. In fact, you will find that not much of an attempt is made.

Another problem (there may be yet more) with bringing "music back to life" from old manuscripts is that, to the person doing so, these may be 'dead' airs which need resurrecting, but they may in fact be very much alive. How do know it isn't? Bringing something "back to life" which may in fact be a well-loved air is not going to go down so well if you end up inadvertently playing it in a session where it is played in a traditional and well-used way.

[Cross-post: I'll look at your latest in a minute, Hans. ]

[benhall.1]

Ha! I get your reference to the ITP now, Hans. Fair enough!

Meanwhile, I think there's a world of difference between saying that, "to be able to play slow airs properly, it is necessary to know the songs" and "the interpretation any air is set in stone by the dogma of the most popular lyric attached to it". I thought about the wording of what I said (the first of those statements) quite carefully, and I stick by it. The second one is just silly. No-one would have advocated that. Which, I guess, is why no-one did.

[I.D.10-t]

I wonder if "The Moreen" was played differently when it was just a tune before it became "The Minstrel Boy" (the original not the Civil War version)? Or if "To Anacreon in Heaven" changed to make that flag song easier to sing. Does one play "Lumps of pudding" with humor but "Thus I stand like a Turk" in a grandiose manor?

Just being a bit silly, I will say that the environment makes a big difference. I have played "The Minstrel Boy" with others and it is played in a way that I do not play it solo, and I have a feeling that if it was ever played in a pub it again would sound different. When it comes to a group setting it is about collaboration, not domination. Knowing a tune, it's history, the different lyrics, the local history, music theory, opens up options. What if lyrics were shoehorned into a tune and music theory shows one set of musical phrases, the people you play with a different set, but the lyrics another?

I also wonder how copyright has changed our concepts of "sampling" or "remixing" music. In a way traditional music was a changing process, modern music seems like it can be put into a legal strait jacket and left to die, I would say that most of us have become more accustomed to the latter and "remakes" always pale compared to the original.

[Nanohedron]

I wonder if "The Moreen" was played differently when...

Oh, dear. I thought it was "The Marine".

[hoopy mike]

I wonder if "The Moreen" was played differently when...

Oh, dear. I thought it was "The Marine".

That was before the operation....

[Nanohedron]

I wonder if "The Moreen" was played differently when...

Oh, dear. I thought it was "The Marine".

That was before the operation....

Ah.

[hoopy mike]

Oh, dear. I thought it was "The Marine".
That was before the operation....
Ah.

Not so much "Ah" as "Ouch!"