Talbert St Claire posts Low whistle videos to Youtube

[greenspiderweb]

Not that this has anything to do with these videos, but Turlach Boylan and Zac Leger were staying at my house some years ago and we were watching a few minutes of some kind of New Agey/World Music horror on TV. We were pretty much speechless, until Turlach let out a little explosion of laughter and said, "Sorry, but I keep thinking about a humpback whale suddenly bursting up on the stage in a spray of water and then crushing these musicians."
_________________
-----------------
“In a full heart there is room for everything,
in an empty heart there is room for nothing.”
--Antonio Porchia

I like your signature, Dale.

[greenspiderweb]

Well, somebody has to be the loyal opposition I don't particularly like TSC's version of May Morning Dew, nor for that matter do I particularly like Davey Spillane's version (readily available on Youtube). None the less I can certainly see relationships between them and relationships to the sung version posted above. I've heard the "you have to know the words and how a singer phrases the song to do a slow air properly" argument many times, and doubtless it is true if one is trying to present a traditional version of a slow air. But, to go another way may still make music. I don't think one should be purjoritive (sp) and make pronouncements about "it isn't even the tune" or "it is only a collection of notes." That simply isn't so any more than Wanda Landowska's odd interpretations of Bach (or Glen Gould's sometimes equally idiosyncratic ones) are not Bach. Or for that matter Casals versions of the cello suites or the Segovia transcriptions that lurch around through romantic versions of various Bach pieces are not Bach. I don't care much for some of those I've mentioned, but they are still interpretations. Seems to me benhall.1 has the right of it.

Well said, cboody, and thanks for those examples of other variations on a theme. I think some people just color outside of the lines, where others need those boundaries. Nothing wrong with knowing where the lines are either, for that matter, just for reference. To me, making music is more important than what colors I choose, or lines I may blur in the process.

[crookedtune]

And yet I find myself needing to distinguish between the playing of a free-form improvisor, however inspired, and one who has built a genuine foundation through disciplined study of a vibrant living tradition.

Out of respect, I'd have called it 'Meditation on Low Whistle', or some such.

[MTGuru]

Well said, cboody, and thanks for those examples of other variations on a theme. I think some people just color outside of the lines, where others need those boundaries. Nothing wrong with knowing where the lines are either, for that matter, just for reference. To me, making music is more important than what colors I choose, or lines I may blur in the process.

But that is the issue, isn't it? In order to color outside the lines - deliberately, creatively, artistically - you need to know where the lines are. And in none of Talbert's recordings does he show any indication that he knows where the lines are. Not a single "straight" dance tune or air, played in a way that demonstrates an understanding of the traditional materiel from which he purports to draw. To compare this to disciplined artists like Gould, Landowska, Segovia or Casals is a bit disingenuous. They all knew exactly where the lines are that they chose to extend.

The same can be said of great trad players known for pushing boundaries - Liz Carroll, Brian Finnegan, Natalie MacMaster, Davy Spillane, Sharon Shannon ... it's a long list. I'm a great believer in paying your dues to earn your artistic license. And without that qualification, you're literally just faking it. Some knowledgeable listeners may like the result anyway on purely aesthetic grounds, and in other cases you can fool some of the people some of the time. But to then claim, even implicitly, mastery of faking it to the point of posting "tutorials" is presumptuous to say the least.

[greenspiderweb]

Thanks MT, for your evaluation-I trust that you know where the boundaries are, and I'm not really surprised that Talbert doesn't. I wouldn't know myself, nor would I say otherwise. Yes, I imagine tuturials based on faking this knowlege is a whole other matter that isn't helpful to others, unless you just label it "improvisaton". If not, it's just a form of copying how someone plays something-and a form of flattery I guess to the seeker.

So, my apologies for not knowing what I was posting the link to, though maybe I should have know better given the history there. Some improvisers may still consider it of value. I like to do my own in that regard.

[MTGuru]

unless you just label it "improvisaton". If not, it's just a form of copying how someone plays something-and a form of flattery I guess to the seeker.

Yes, agreed. I think "improvisation" or crookedtune's "meditation" are more honest labels here. And then the listener/viewer can decide for him/herself if there's enough information in that second video to constitute a "tutorial", or if idiosyncratic improvisation is something that can or should be taught in the first place.

I don't think there's any question that Talbert is sincere about his music. But passion without understanding is only half the picture.

[Nanohedron]

But, to go another way may still make music.

I never said otherwise. But to sell beef advertised as chicken is another matter. If one is going to present tunes as known Irish ones, then one must expect at least some scrutiny from within the tradition - especially on this site - and in that regard my purpose here has been to educate, not to trash the tune itself. I agree that it would have been better to call it a Meditation or some similar.

An improvisation based on the original must still refer to the original, and I don't hear it here.

[benhall.1]

[benhall.1]

But to sell beef advertised as chicken is another matter.

You said "sell tofu advertised as chicken". Don't tell me you didn't say "tofu". I heard you say "tofu".

[Nanohedron]

But to sell beef advertised as chicken is another matter.

You said "sell tofu advertised as chicken". Don't tell me you didn't say "tofu". I heard you say "tofu".

Well, yes, originally I did. But I didn't want to be accused of being pejorative again.

[benhall.1]

Are you saying that Talbert's playing is beef?

[Nanohedron]

Are you saying that Talbert's playing is beef?

That has got to be the Dada post of the week.

It was an analogy most indirect and random, with no intended connotations on my part about his playing per se. I have no stake in that.

[benhall.1]

Are you saying that Talbert's playing is beef?

That has got to be the Dada post of the week.

It was an analogy most indirect and random, with no intended connotations on my part about his playing per se. I have no stake in that.

I see what you did there.

I'm just thinking ... those smaller ornaments that are in there ... would they be cut-lets?

[Nanohedron]

Dunno. But the dude has some chops, all right.

[benhall.1]

Yeah. And before anyone asks what we're on about, we're just chewing the fat, here.